Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Invidious

Mary Lou was on her victory tour of the country. Then the pandemic hit, lockdowns began, and SF disappeared off the radar.

Basically, SF figured out that a post-pandemic government would inherit a struggling economy, higher unemployment, and public finances already maxed out from the crisis.

They couldn't spend freely enough on social welfare, public housing, etc., to make the supporters who voted for them happy. And so they would get wiped out at the next GE.

Better to sit on the opposition benches and criticize the government's handling of the crisis -- that's typical SF.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

I'm that over the last 10 years of posting you can then show all the times you've criticised SF or expressed disagreement with their policies?


Other than, of course, the times you've lied about SF repeatedly campaigning against joining the EEC and the EU :pac:

In fairness to maccored he has said on numerous occasions that he is a member of SF.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

theres no such thing as 'justifiable homicide'. either murder is murder or people get killed in conflicts - its one or the other. you cant call one death caused by a soldier 'justiifable' yet a soldiers death as 'murder'.

This is silly propaganda that ignores international law and conventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

"Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention On Human Rights provides that that death resulted from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary":"

Even the European Convention on Human Rights - remember that, Sinn Fein support it - allows for justifiable homicide. Some of the actions (only some) carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland would be covered by those articles, none of the actions carried out by the IRA are.

So yes, in line with the ECHR, I can call one death caused by a soldier justifiable, yet condemn utterly as murder the death of a soldier.

Invidious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness to maccored he has said on numerous occasions that he is a member of SF.

Your position is that you are not a SF member and don't vote for them, and yet you have nearly 1,200 posts in this thread alone defending them -- is that right?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mairia Cahill who was anti the police at the time, requested the IRA to get involved.

Those members of SF who were accused were prepared to defend themselves in a court but never got the chance. But correspondence was produced in the media that showed SF members writing to her and advising her to go to the police about her allegations.

Mairia Cahill has certainly alleged loads of stuff and has gone on to make a media career out of it, but it is all allegation.
Despite the likes of Regina Doherty and Michael Martin claiming the organisation was riddled with paedo's and rapist, there seems to have been no higher an incidence of these issues than there has been in other organisations of the same size.

Again I stress, I do believe they got a lot wrong about handiling these things.

We are now at "the man down the road is beating his wife, so it is ok to beat mine" defence.


Sinn Fein had procedures. Mairia Cahill was a child. Sinn Fein ignored their procedures. Somehow, Mairia Cahill is to blame, so yes, you are engaged in victim-blaming.

It is interesting that you ignored the Paudie McGahon one. Apart from the fact that it occured in the South, thus removing the RUC/PSNI defence (they were agin us), the procedures were definitively in place, and definitively ignored. The hypocrisy of Sinn Fein, proclaiming loudly to the world that they had the most advanced procedures on handling child sexual abuse, while at the same time subjecting them to kangaroo courts is profoundly disgusting.

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

That seems mild compared to what ex-provos get up to.

Ah sure the Hutchs arent as bad as the Kinahans, we'll give them Garda protection so they can deal in peace, is that what you are saying?

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

We are now at "the man down the road is beating his wife, so it is ok to beat mine" defence.


Sinn Fein had procedures. Mairia Cahill was a child. Sinn Fein ignored their procedures. Somehow, Mairia Cahill is to blame, so yes, you are engaged in victim-blaming.

It is interesting that you ignored the Paudie McGahon one. Apart from the fact that it occured in the South, thus removing the RUC/PSNI defence (they were agin us), the procedures were definitively in place, and definitively ignored. The hypocrisy of Sinn Fein, proclaiming loudly to the world that they had the most advanced procedures on handling child sexual abuse, while at the same time subjecting them to kangaroo courts is profoundly disgusting.

Thought Cahill had an affair with her aunts husband and cried wolf when the aunt found out?

FrancieBrady

Invidious wrote: »

Your position is that you are not a SF member and don't vote for them, and yet you have nearly 1,200 posts in this thread alone defending them -- is that right?

I am not and never have been a member of any political party and I voted for SF at the last election. The first time I have voted for them in a GE.

I would view my contribution to this and other threads as defending against anti republican ideology rather than defending SF per se. Of course there is overlap.
I have criticised SF and am on record as not thinking they are ready to govern on their own yet.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

We are now at "the man down the road is beating his wife, so it is ok to beat mine" defence.


Sinn Fein had procedures. Mairia Cahill was a child. Sinn Fein ignored their procedures. Somehow, Mairia Cahill is to blame, so yes, you are engaged in victim-blaming.

Where have I 'blamed' Mairia Cahill? This is lame blanch and totally dishonest debating.

It is interesting that you ignored the Paudie McGahon one. Apart from the fact that it occured in the South, thus removing the RUC/PSNI defence (they were agin us), the procedures were definitively in place, and definitively ignored. The hypocrisy of Sinn Fein, proclaiming loudly to the world that they had the most advanced procedures on handling child sexual abuse, while at the same time subjecting them to kangaroo courts is profoundly disgusting.

Ignored because frankly I don't know a lot about it bar the hyperbole and allegations surrounding it.

Regina Doherty and Michael Martin so abused that case to scream and shout and to try and make political gain that a lot of stuff got lost.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This is silly propaganda that ignores international law and conventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

"Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention On Human Rights provides that that death resulted from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary":"

Even the European Convention on Human Rights - remember that, Sinn Fein support it - allows for justifiable homicide. Some of the actions (only some) carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland would be covered by those articles, none of the actions carried out by the IRA are.

So yes, in line with the ECHR, I can call one death caused by a soldier justifiable, yet condemn utterly as murder the death of a soldier.

The psoter bandying about international concepts on Human Rights is the FIRST to convict somebody on foot of allegations.

Your self awareness is lacking so badly blanch, in fairness.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I see we are in blame the victim territory again.

Just like Lyra McKee stepped into “crossfire”, Mairia Cahill asked for it, probably wanted it, in your opinion.

No depths too low to defend them, is there?

In what part of that post did anyone say Mairia Cahill "asked for it" ?

There's no level to which you're not prepared to stoop apparently.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness to maccored he has said on numerous occasions that he is a member of SF.

I haven't heard of any other political party where a condition of membership is that you are unable to criticise or disagree with anything that the party does.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

I haven't heard of any other political party where a condition of membership is that you are unable to criticise or disagree with anything that the party does.

Is it a 'condition of membership' of SF? Link?

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

I'm that over the last 10 years of posting you can then show all the times you've criticised SF or expressed disagreement with their policies?


Other than, of course, the times you've lied about SF repeatedly campaigning against joining the EEC and the EU :pac:

are you talking of a SF in the 70s, before their split in the 80s? Why yes, I see you are (again)

I cant help your lack of education fella - :pac: to your hearts content, and come back to when when you have an actual point .

In general I dont have any disagreement with SF policies per se - mainly because so far we've never had a chance to see if any of them would work. I like that they think outside the box. Nothing ventured nothing gained

is this a new part of the handbag process now? where you give out if someone agrees in general with how a party is run? Getting desperate there ,no?

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

I haven't heard of any other political party where a condition of membership is that you are unable to criticise or disagree with anything that the party does.

i suppose the parties you support dont encourage freedom of thought. My political thinking is not governed by anyone but myself. Youre so brainwashed with this 'cult' bull****, it borders on irony

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

This is silly propaganda that ignores international law and conventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

"Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention On Human Rights provides that that death resulted from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary":"

Even the European Convention on Human Rights - remember that, Sinn Fein support it - allows for justifiable homicide. Some of the actions (only some) carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland would be covered by those articles, none of the actions carried out by the IRA are.

So yes, in line with the ECHR, I can call one death caused by a soldier justifiable, yet condemn utterly as murder the death of a soldier.

You need to read Article 2 again. the BA is full of suspects and fugatives.

maccored

Invidious wrote: »

Your position is that you are not a SF member and don't vote for them, and yet you have nearly 1,200 posts in this thread alone defending them -- is that right?

theres plenty with many many posts (and threads) on SF who apparently dont even like them.

Wheres your condemnation of those?

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it a 'condition of membership' of SF? Link?

You offered up his membership of Sinn Fein as the reason why he appears to be incapable of ever disagreeing with the party position.

Are you now saying that was a completely irrelevant diversion you through out just to deflect? Or are you back to arguing with yourself yet again?

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

are you talking of a SF in the 70s, before their split in the 80s? Why yes, I see you are (again)

I cant help your lack of education fella - :pac: to your hearts content, and come back to when when you have an actual point .

And the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s - and multiple treaties through the 90s and 00s.

Of course - we're back to the word "never" having a time limit when a shinner gets caught telling porkies :rolleyes:


If Sinn Fein told us the sky was purple maccored would be on here throwing dogs abuse at anyone who dared to question it :pac:

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

You offered up his membership of Sinn Fein as the reason why he appears to be incapable of ever disagreeing with the party position.

Are you now saying that was a completely irrelevant diversion you through out just to deflect? Or are you back to arguing with yourself yet again?

Is it abnormal for a party member to be in line and agreement with party policy?

That was the point.

You introduced the 'cult' notion and 'conditions of membership' in more of the ceaseless deflectionary nonsense that goes on about a party that is here to stay. You'll just have to get over that but I accept you probably never will.

jh79

maccored wrote: »

In general I dont have any disagreement with SF policies per se - mainly because so far we've never had a chance to see if any of them would work. I like that they think outside the box. Nothing ventured nothing gained

We seen similar ideologies fail in other countries.

Bishop of hope

RandomViewer wrote: »

Thought Cahill had an affair with her aunts husband and cried wolf when the aunt found out?

And no smiley.
Who said that?

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

You offered up his membership of Sinn Fein as the reason why he appears to be incapable of ever disagreeing with the party position.

Are you now saying that was a completely irrelevant diversion you through out just to deflect? Or are you back to arguing with yourself yet again?

what high horse are you on? How dare you demand I change my political point of view to suit you. go away and cop on to yourself there

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

We seen similar ideologies fail in other countries.

like? you are basically assuming social policies all fail for the same reason.

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

And the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s - and multiple treaties through the 90s and 00s.

Of course - we're back to the word "never" having a time limit when a shinner gets caught telling porkies :rolleyes:


If Sinn Fein told us the sky was purple maccored would be on here throwing dogs abuse at anyone who dared to question it :pac:

off you go again - boys but youre so funny. Sides are splitting. That last sentence says a lot about you. Cant debate? that make up ****.

All of those treaties in the 90s and after had specific reasons - NONE WERE LETS LEAVE THE EU.

AS I said already - catch some cop on. Find a debate and have it - dont post absolute ****ing bollocks there please, especially if you are going to mention me in your loopy posts. Attack the post not the poster - if you can manage that

jh79

maccored wrote: »

like? you are basically assuming social policies all fail for the same reason.

Greece and Venezuela. Both thought they could bite the hand that feeds them and get away with it.

We see similar populist rhetoric and policies from SF.

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

Greece and Venezuela. Both thought they could bite the hand that feeds them and get away with it.

We see similar populist rhetoric and policies from SF.

Similar as in having a social angle. Wow. great research there.

jh79

maccored wrote: »

Similar as in having a social angle. Wow. great research there.

You're the SF member, so based on your more extensive research why will the same approach work here when it has failed elsewhere?

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

off you go again - boys but youre so funny. Sides are splitting. That last sentence says a lot about you. Cant debate? that make up ****.

All of those treaties in the 90s and after had specific reasons - NONE WERE LETS LEAVE THE EU.

AS I said already - catch some cop on. Find a debate and have it - dont post absolute ****ing bollocks there please, especially if you are going to mention me in your loopy posts. Attack the post not the poster - if you can manage that

Yet again - dare question SF and get a torrent of abuse. Those are some serious anger issues (p.s. I think you'll find you started this interaction by quoting one of my posts - but it supposedly that's my fault for "mentioning you" :rolleyes: ) At least you remain consistent as ever :pac:



The Maastrict Treaty was literally to establish the EU - and SF opposed it. Continuing to repeat your lies just shows you up TBH

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

Yet again - dare question SF and get a torrent of abuse. Those are some serious anger issues (p.s. I think you'll find you started this interaction by quoting one of my posts - but it supposedly that's my fault for "mentioning you" :rolleyes: ) At least you remain consistent as ever :pac:



The Maastrict Treaty was literally to establish the EU - and SF opposed it. Continuing to repeat your lies just shows you up TBH

you are accusing me of being a liar, and of being gullible. come back to me when you have figured out what the word 'abuse' means.