Is it just me or have SF vanished?

FrancieBrady

standardg60 wrote: »

You didn't ask me anything.

And opinions don't require backing up. They are just that. Opinions.

You don't seem to like any that are not of yours.

But instead of actually answering them with your own rational one you choose to attack the person forming them.

I call bullying my contention until you actually respond to it.

I don't like opinions based on sticking a finger up into the wind.

I did ask you to post whatever actual data you had for your contention. You don't have any, that's fine.

standardg60

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't like opinions based on sticking a finger up into the wind.

I did ask you to post whatever actual data you had for your contention. You don't have any, that's fine.

You didn't. Maybe you'd like to read your post again.

SF are forming their opinions based on an election held months ago prior to the pandemic without calling for a perfectly rational current one.

I assume you don't like that one either?

FrancieBrady

Finty Lemon wrote: »

Thank you for that.

Unionism won out by doing what they do best. Digging in and waiting for Westminster to intervene. They now have SF signed up to the consent principle and engaged in a limited local parliament, and have articles 2 and 3 off the table.

Most importantly they have killed the appetite for violence in young nationalists. Not bad for doing nothing.

The demographic shift may oust them in 100 years or so (but you will never see it Francie, just like you will never see Monaghan winning big in Croke Park ). If the knuckle dragging bible thumper wing of unionism could realize that the key to NI is in the pocket of upwardly mobile Nationalists, the demographic threat will recede too.

Ah did the kill the appetite in young nationalists ...by doing nothing?

Dear lord...where to begin?

Actually I won't.

atticu

joeguevara wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why so many Sinn Fein and People Before Profit supporters are organising a march to demonstrate against the newly formed government

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you saying people cannot protest?
It's hardly a coup now, hold on to the old hat there.

Protests against governments are normal and legal. The difference here is that it is so early in the term.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you do that expect protest.



Again, two parties froze out a third. That is going to bring protest.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I think if two parties refuse to talk to them and come together themselves to form a government then the 24% have the right to protest that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you want you have every right to protest the protests.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Protest has been a legitimate way to express a view since the foundation of the state.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Protests are not whinging.

That is going to be protested. If they are big enough to ignore 24% of the population they are big enough to endure a protest.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Protest' is your democratic right.

The last government caused more than enough and protest changed things during the term of the last governments.

The quickest governmental u-turn I have ever seen was caused by the sudden strength of protest against Charlie Flanagan's an Leo's wee plan to state honour the RIC.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is what people from across the Dáíl are going to protest.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oh blanch...it's a protest or demonstration. Nobody's buying coloured shirts and forming militaristic troops of men in the Phoenix Park and Sieg Heiling.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The formation of this government is an 'unpopular action'. How do we know this? Because there will be demonstrations about it.

McMurphy wrote: »

Who is organising this protest btw?

You asked the wrong poster.

You might want to read the thread, and all of Francies waffle about protests and demonstrations, and then you might find an answer to your question.

FrancieBrady

standardg60 wrote: »

You didn't. Maybe you'd like to read your post again.

SF are forming their opinions based on an election held months ago prior to the pandemic without calling for a perfectly rational current one.

I assume you don't like that one either?

I asked you to back up with data we could all look at. You didn't have any.

A 'perfectly rational current' what?

FrancieBrady

atticu wrote: »

You asked the wrong poster.

You might want to read the thread, and all of Francies waffle about protests and demonstrations, and then you might find an answer to your question.

Which question are you referring to?

atticu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which question are you referring to?

You did not ask the question.
Johnny Doggs asked, but it turns out that you had answered before he asked.

standardg60

atticu wrote: »

You did not ask the question.
Johnny Doggs asked, but it turns out that you had answered before he asked.

He doesn't answer questions, he'd rather protest against the 76% of people in this country who had a different opinion to his.
Or Democracy in other words.

FrancieBrady

standardg60 wrote: »

He doesn't answer questions, he'd rather protest against the 76% of people in this country who had a different opinion to his.
Or Democracy in other words.

Do you have data to back up 76% voted for this coalition?

Dont waste pixels...you don't.

standardg60

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you have data to back up 76% voted for this coalition?

Dont waste pixels...you don't.

Lol call for an election then.

You do want to live in a democracy don't you?

FrancieBrady

standardg60 wrote: »

Lol call for an election then.

You do want to live in a democracy don't you?

I presume that's what the people on protest will be doing.

Personally, as stated since the night of the election, I can live with the present arrangement because I know it will copper fasten the final step of breaking the power swap/share.
The pressure brought to bear on it already has brought historic change.

standardg60

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I presume that's what the people on protest will be doing.

Personally, as stated since the night of the election, I can live with the present arrangement because I know it will copper fasten the final step of breaking the power swap/share.
The pressure brought to bear on it already has brought historic change.

I don't disagree with you in relation to the power swap/share idea.
But it's nothing to do with protest, we are simply catching up with the rational left/right argument which occurs in most democracies.
We have for too long been trapped in civil war politics at the expense of societal progress. It will eventually happen in the North too.
Don't get me wrong, i am no Capitalist, but proposing that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else is nonsense.

Welcome to the debate :-).

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you have data to back up 76% voted for this coalition?

Dont waste pixels...you don't.

Huh?

Hypothetical here, Francie. If SF led an alternative coalition of the left then how much support would that coalition have had amongst the electorate?

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Huh?

Hypothetical here, Francie. If SF led an alternative coalition of the left then how much support would that coalition have had amongst the electorate?

We wouldn't know until they faced the people.

Right back at you...how many FF voters would be feeling betrayed having belived Martin's pledge not to coalesce with FG, how many FG voters would be dismayed that John Delaney had been put back in charge of the FAI?

We won't know the answers to that until the people get a chance to give their verdict.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We wouldn't know until they faced the people.

Right back at you...how many FF voters would be feeling betrayed having belived Martin's pledge not to coalesce with FG, how many FG voters would be dismayed that John Delaney had been put back in charge of the FAI?

We won't know the answers to that until the people get a chance to give their verdict.

So this coalition doesn’t have support of the people, but we wouldn’t know about one with SF unless it was formed?

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So this coalition doesn’t have support of the people, but we wouldn’t know about one with SF unless it was formed?

I don't know if it has support or not.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We wouldn't know until they faced the people.

Right back at you...how many FF voters would be feeling betrayed having belived Martin's pledge not to coalesce with FG, how many FG voters would be dismayed that John Delaney had been put back in charge of the FAI?

We won't know the answers to that until the people get a chance to give their verdict.

Only party die-hards pay any attention to FF and FG / Greens forming a coalition together. The fact is that the majorty of their members voted to accept it.

Rationale people understand that we need a solid government.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

a solid government.

Even that remains to be seen. Seems to me the electorate didn't think too much of both C&S parties in the election. 7% voted for the greens.

We'll see how 'solid' they are. Inauspicious start.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it over? The campaign for a UI? Nobody told me! :eek:

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you have data to back up 76% voted for this coalition?

Dont waste pixels...you don't.

Francie, stop protesting against democratic outcomes.

Protest against something that is done, that happens, or a policy that you don't like. Protesting against a democratic government after a democratic election and posting #notmytaoiseach is either extremely childish or deeply sinister.

I prefer to have you in the former category than the latter, but keep digging the hole if you want to.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

It shows you up as not genuine. I've explained it numerous times. They don't cancel each other out. You can't be outraged by Holohan and indifferent to O'Leary who quite clearly showed admiration for the fascist Blueshirts.
Hey it's not my place to tell people whether or not to be outraged I'm just saying I don't believe you are.

Start a thread about O'Leary and I might comment on that.

However, I am perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that Paddy Holohan's repeated homophobic, racist and misogynist rants across a number of podcasts are much more sinister and much more disturbing than a single tweet which has been twisted by you out of context.

Genuineness and empathy are not characteristics oozing from your posts. In fact, they most often demonstrate the opposite.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

Are you still going on and on and on. Never knew the Green supporters hated SF as much as FG do

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

The IRA didn't achieve their aim militarily. It wasn't necessarily a lie, they tried and failed.
Michael Martin said he wouldn't do something, then did. He was in talks with FG at the beginning of March ffs. A lie all day long and everybody here knew it was because that is the way it has been done in the power swap...say one thing, do another. He didn't say, I won't unless x y or z happens. He said he wouldn't and did.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie, stop protesting against democratic outcomes.

Protest against something that is done, that happens, or a policy that you don't like. Protesting against a democratic government after a democratic election and posting #notmytaoiseach is either extremely childish or deeply sinister.

I prefer to have you in the former category than the latter, but keep digging the hole if you want to.

I'm not protesting it. I am defending the right to protest. Like you, those protestors have a right to their opinion and to express it.

Sorry to ruin your perceptions there.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Start a thread about O'Leary and I might comment on that.

However, I am perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that Paddy Holohan's repeated homophobic, racist and misogynist rants across a number of podcasts are much more sinister and much more disturbing than a single tweet which has been twisted by you out of context.

Genuineness and empathy are not characteristics oozing from your posts. In fact, they most often demonstrate the opposite.

Sure.

joeguevara

I think it’s an absolute disgrwce that no government party would talk to Gemma O Doherty. Even if they have no interest and disagree with what she stands for that’s irrelevant. Surely SF supporters should march for her right to be Taoiseach. Like SF she didn’t get the democratic vote but the same as them it doesn’t matter.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

Can you clarify something. Why are you looking to ridicule the IRA for signing up to peace? Are you just trying to get a rise or do you miss the Troubles?
Not a very moral or responsible attitude to try belittle sides took politics and peace over violence.
By the way 'No Surrender' was Paisley's line.
That's him no surrendering on the left.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IRA didn't achieve their aim militarily. It wasn't necessarily a lie, they tried and failed.

So, the PIRA did indeed surrender.
Good to finally admit it.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure.

I asked him several times and he eventually said it (O'Leary admiring fascists) was a throwaway tweet and due to the seriousness of covid we've more important things to worry about ...but working 'Mean Girls' into a national address on covid was okay

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not protesting it. I am defending the right to protest. Like you, those protestors have a right to their opinion and to express it.

Sorry to ruin your perceptions there.

I think you are confused.

No one is saying one does not have a right to protest, they are just calling out the motivations behind it as nonsensical, immature and idiotic, as is ones right as well.