The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

McMurphy

Bowie wrote: »

It's a follow up to a nothing story. It throws out the FG 'Heavies', (which the woman asked be retracted by FG) spin. A TD had an issue with a members social media posting and called around. So what?
When I was in Labour I'd similar happen.

Let's not forget, when FG members disagree with things from social media "water protest movement" for example, it's a broken glass attack in a bar from a TD who's langered you need to worry about.

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Let's not forget, when FG members disagree with things from social media "water protest movement" for example, it's a broken glass attack in a bar from a TD who's langered you need to worry about.

YFG like to visit in groups by all accounts.

Brendan Bendar

Lot of anger out there.......

McMurphy

Kraftwerk wrote: »

And when a SF member takes a dislike to you it's torture in their garage you have to look forward to. I wouldn't go down the road of trying to claim FG are worse than SF for violence if I was you lol.

Its not a competition, just made an observation as to the comparisons were between calling to your neighbours and the Monaghan incident, but regardless - we're discussing how internal policies and disagreements can result in a home visit, or in Conlans case, an assault with a broken pint glass.

Your post above, have you more to the story, or is that it?

Kraftwerk

McMurphy wrote: »

Its not a competition, just made an observation as to the comparisons were between calling to your neighbours and the Monaghan incident, but regardless - we're discussing how internal policies and disagreements can result in a home visit, or in Conlans case, an assault with a broken pint glass.

Your post above, have you more to the story, or is that it?

I deleted that because I really can't be arsed going over the same crap day in and day out. Everything in this thread results in the same thing of all SF criticism is reduced to "but FG too!".

So it's ironic you say it's not a competition. For people with such love of SF and hatred of FG it's absolutely hilarious to see you spend most of your day defending SF by drawing comparisons with FG.

As for the story I take it you're unfamiliar with the ex SF DCC councillor water boarding a guy in his garage because he thought he was going to steal his bike? They're a different breed in SF.

tikkahunter

Kraftwerk wrote: »

I deleted that because I really can't be arsed going over the same crap day in and day out. Everything in this thread results in the same thing of all SF criticism is reduced to "but FG too!".

So it's ironic you say it's not a competition. For people with such love of SF and hatred of FG it's absolutely hilarious to see you spend most of your day defending SF by drawing comparisons with FG.

As for the story I take it you're unfamiliar with the ex SF DCC councillor water boarding a guy in his garage because he thought he was going to steal his bike? They're a different breed in SF.

Ah the lad that lives on the same road as MLMD , canvassed for her and would have been in and around the office and finbars , but a lad on here claims there is no way she would no him . 😃

smurgen

tikkahunter wrote: »

Ah the lad that lives on the same road as MLMD , canvassed for her and would have been in and around the office and finbars , but a lad on here claims there is no way she would no him . 😃

Aghhh the nigh shift is in. Thankfully those on social media are speaking out of their experiences with FG.

https://twitter.com/RocheEamon/status/1336747466125959168?s=19

FrancieBrady

I think the pile-on when people heard Christina had had a visit took the steam out of this story.

The jump to the sinister conclusion showed what the motive was I think. Agree with Bowie, an apology to Varadkar for any hurt he might have felt by the ambiguous nature of the tweet and a bit of a tongue lashing and this will be the end of it.

I would be delighted if it got fleshed out to be a debate about what we can and cannot commemorate/remember/celebrate but I don't think FF FG are ready to go there just yet. They might have offend the Unionists and we can't be having that because that might mean...horror of horror, we are seen to support nationalists.

NIMAN

Anyone else annoyed by how much these 'non event stories' are dominating the news agenda these days?

Doesn't bode well for the future, if every little thing is blown into a massive story it isn't.

Spanish Eyes

Well whatever about anything, the minute MLDMD gets a few minutes on media, I have to turn her off. Puppet from NI and a voice that could turn you off immediately. I did give her time to convince me. But not anymore. Too much control from the Northern bosses now really, and a lot of mavericks who haven't left the past behind either, and never will.

James Brown

Kraftwerk wrote: »

I deleted that because I really can't be arsed going over the same crap day in and day out. Everything in this thread results in the same thing of all SF criticism is reduced to "but FG too!".

So it's ironic you say it's not a competition. For people with such love of SF and hatred of FG it's absolutely hilarious to see you spend most of your day defending SF by drawing comparisons with FG.

As for the story I take it you're unfamiliar with the ex SF DCC councillor water boarding a guy in his garage because he thought he was going to steal his bike? They're a different breed in SF.

Do you think calling shinners 'scum' and FG making up tales of heavies, plural, knocking round and SF being anti white people, isn't routed in FG trying to cover for their own shortcomings? Its hardly unbiased debate now is it?
My issue is the faux outrage and gossip column barry Egan level message coming from high level government. A government who will talk SF if you call them out on policy. Getting a Sun editor in as press Secretary is very apt.

McMurphy

Kraftwerk wrote: »

I deleted that because I really can't be arsed going over the same crap day in and day out. Everything in this thread results in the same thing of all SF criticism is reduced to "but FG too!".

I thought you might have deleted it when it dawned on you how silly it appeared trying to compare the actions of an ex SF councillor, who attacked a man for believing he was trying to rob him - with an actual FG government TD who attacked a patron in a bar with a broken pint glass because he claimed his victim was taunting him about FG policy.

Seeing as that's what we had been discussing.

By the way what both of them did (Dowdal and Conlan) was a thundering disgrace.

Kraftwerk

McMurphy wrote: »

I thought you might have deleted it when it dawned on you how silly it appeared trying to compare the actions of an ex SF councillor, who attacked a man for believing he was trying to rob him - with an actual FG government TD who attacked a patron in a bar with a broken pint glass because he claimed his victim was taunting him about FG policy.

Seeing as that's what we had been discussing.

By the way what both of them did (Dowdal and Conlan) was a thundering disgrace.

It wasn't silly at all. In response to party members calling around to houses you posted about a FG member glassing someone in a bar. That's a bit silly now to try to paint FG as nastier isn't it? When SF have sitting TDs convicted of terrorism and former councillors serving time for torture.

SF will always win the "who had more scumbags" competition so perhaps steer clear of that argument. Stick to the what aboutery and government / media conspiracy angles. They work better with fans of populist politics.

McMurphy

Kraftwerk wrote: »

It wasn't silly at all. In response to party members calling around to houses you posted about a FG member glassing someone in a bar. That's a bit silly now to try to paint FG as nastier isn't it? When SF have sitting TDs convicted of terrorism and former councillors serving time for torture.

SF will always win the "who had more scumbags" competition so perhaps steer clear of that argument.

You were given clear reasons why it was brought up, others here were trying to paint a picture of "heavies visting your home" in an intimidating manner should you disagree or be outspoken on party policy.

Was a fair comparison with what happened with Conlan, seeing as he was an actual FG TD at the time, FG were in Govt, and his excuse was that it was because someone was taunting him about an FG policy** (Irish Water) I spelt it out clearly in my post tbh.

**Conlans own defence on the matter, uncomfortable I know but own it.

Kraftwerk

McMurphy wrote: »

You were given clear reasons why it was brought up, others here were trying to paint a picture of "heavies visting your home" in an intimidating manner should you disagree or be outspoken on party policy.

Was a fair comparison with what happened with Conlan, seeing as he was an actual TD at the time, and his excuse was that it was because someone was taunting him about an FG policy (Irish Water) I spelt it out clearly in my post tbh.

Own it.

It was an assault in a pub. How is that a fair comparison to party members calling to a house of other party members?

You brought it up to try outdo the criticism and paint FG members as being more violent. Which as I said is rather silly given you're defending SF. You won't be coming out the best in that argument lol.

So own it, learn from it and perhaps don't make such stupid arguments in future.

McMurphy

Kraftwerk wrote: »

It was an assault in a pub. How is that a fair comparison to party members calling to a house of other party members?

You brought it up to try outdo the criticism and paint FG members as being more violent. Which as I said is rather silly given you're defending SF. You won't be coming out the best in that argument lol.

So own it, learn from it and perhaps don't make such stupid arguments in future.

Seeing as the young lady in question asked FG to retract the insinuations that the neighbour (who called to her home as a friend, and left same) was some kind of sinister twist to the story, I thought it very apt indeed to make the comparisons.

The calling to neighbours/party colleagues houses has been going on for years, no-one will convince me it's now abnormal to do so.

This was also spelt out in my earlier post. Why didn't you just read the posts properly and none of this would needed to have been revisited?

I'll also add, on the ex councillor thing, Dowdall sounds like a right scummer, no doubt about it, but it was literally a few weeks ago, two former FG members appeared in court over defrauding people of a lot of money (amongst other things) - I didn't have much to add to the threads as it was pointed out at the time they were ex FG stock when they committed their crimes. If this is the script FG supporters have written, they will undoubtedly be applying their same fairly high standards to ex councillors from other party's I'm sure you'd agree?

Ie, Dowdall wasn't a member of Sinn Fein when he committed his crime, and regardless, he didn't claim to do it because of politics or policies anyway.

Kraftwerk

McMurphy wrote: »

Seeing as the young lady in question asked FG to retract the insinuations that the neighbour (who called to her home as a friend, and left same) was some kind of sinister twist to the story, I thought it very apt indeed to make the comparisons.

The calling to neighbours/party colleagues houses has been going on for years, no-one will convince me it's now abnormal to do so.

This was also spelt out in my earlier post. Why didn't you just read the posts properly and none of this would needed to have been revisited?

Literally none of that has anything to do with a bar fight. Again it's pretty clear you're just trying to one up the criticism and claim FG are nastier because of one particular incident which was a drunken row.

I'll also add, on the ex councillor thing, Dowdall sounds like a right scummer, no doubt about it, but it was literally a few weeks ago, two former FG members appeared in court over defrauding people of a lot of money (amongst other things) - I didn't have much to add to the threads as it was pointed out at the time they were ex FG stock when they committed their crimes. If this is the script FG supporters have written, they will undoubtedly be applying their same fairly high standards to ex councillors from other party's I'm sure you'd agree?

He sounds like a scummer... but... former FG members appeared in court over fraud? I'm not sure what you're on about. Firstly there's no but. There's no comparing 10 years for kidnap and torture to fraud.

I'm not sure what you want from me with that tbh. Those ex FG councillors are scumbags? That make you happy?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

I am responding to your claims:



Welcoming anyone born as Irish is not exclusionary. Quite the opposite. It does not mean denying their heritage or right to view themselves as British, Chinese or Latvian. They also support gay rights which was one of the issues, you often leave out, why Stormont stalled for so long.

I don't think you are being truthful. If you are, you are wrong.
Your comparisons to Trump who doesn't want anyone born to immigrants recognised as American and Johnson who is himself a racist, pro brexit and anti immigrant is dishonest and wrong.

It is exclusionary.

By asserting that everyone born on this island is automatically Irish, whether they like it or not, you are excluding other identities that a person may feel they are born to.

There are people born on this island who are British by birth, saying this isn't so is denial of their rights, an exclusionary nationalist position.

Quite simply, the Sinn Fein position, as enunciated on here, that those born on this island are automatically Irish, whether they like it or not, is of the same type of exclusionary nationalism as Trump.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Seeing as the young lady in question asked FG to retract the insinuations that the neighbour (who called to her home as a friend, and left same) was some kind of sinister twist to the story, I thought it very apt indeed to make the comparisons.

The calling to neighbours/party colleagues houses has been going on for years, no-one will convince me it's now abnormal to do so.

This was also spelt out in my earlier post. Why didn't you just read the posts properly and none of this would needed to have been revisited?

I'll also add, on the ex councillor thing, Dowdall sounds like a right scummer, no doubt about it, but it was literally a few weeks ago, two former FG members appeared in court over defrauding people of a lot of money (amongst other things) - I didn't have much to add to the threads as it was pointed out at the time they were ex FG stock when they committed their crimes. If this is the script FG supporters have written, they will undoubtedly be applying their same fairly high standards to ex councillors from other party's I'm sure you'd agree?

Ie, Dowdall wasn't a member of Sinn Fein when he committed his crime, and regardless, he didn't claim to do it because of politics or policies anyway.

The young lady in question also said she was disappointed with Mary-Lou's interview on Claire Byrne and the reaction of Sinn Fein to the abuse of Varadkar. She has sent a list of those Sinn Fein members she had been able to identify who had abused her and asked Mary-Lou to take action against them.

I assume you agree with all of that.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Let's not forget, when FG members disagree with things from social media "water protest movement" for example, it's a broken glass attack in a bar from a TD who's langered you need to worry about.

Pathetic whataboutery. Sad to see the defenders of Sinn Fein reduced to this.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the pile-on when people heard Christina had had a visit took the steam out of this story.

The jump to the sinister conclusion showed what the motive was I think. Agree with Bowie, an apology to Varadkar for any hurt he might have felt by the ambiguous nature of the tweet and a bit of a tongue lashing and this will be the end of it.

I would be delighted if it got fleshed out to be a debate about what we can and cannot commemorate/remember/celebrate but I don't think FF FG are ready to go there just yet. They might have offend the Unionists and we can't be having that because that might mean...horror of horror, we are seen to support nationalists.

That's a bit rich coming from the poster who claimed there was no reference to Varadkar's sexuality in the tweet.

It is hilarious the way you change position throughout a debate.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It is exclusionary.

By asserting that everyone born on this island is automatically Irish, whether they like it or not, you are excluding other identities that a person may feel they are born to.

There are people born on this island who are British by birth, saying this isn't so is denial of their rights, an exclusionary nationalist position.

Quite simply, the Sinn Fein position, as enunciated on here, that those born on this island are automatically Irish, whether they like it or not, is of the same type of exclusionary nationalism as Trump.

No its not. Have you any evidence that they'll be haranguing Italian Irish, Chinese Irish and the like? Sounds like scaremongering based on absolutely nothing. We know the unionists are against Irish culture/language but not seen the shinners try ban English or Morris dancing.

It couldn't be more the reverse of Trump ffs.
Britian isn't a country. They are Irish and British. And will always be so. Like the Italian family run my local chipper, nobody is thinking of telling them they aren't Italian. Its unfounded nonsense.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The young lady in question also said she was disappointed with Mary-Lou's interview on Claire Byrne and the reaction of Sinn Fein to the abuse of Varadkar. She has sent a list of those Sinn Fein members she had been able to identify who had abused her and asked Mary-Lou to take action against them.

I assume you agree with all of that.

So you're ignoring that yourself and FG made up the 'heavies' calling around to intimidate her and she asked FG to retract their spin? FG using people to score points once again.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from the poster who claimed there was no reference to Varadkar's sexuality in the tweet.

It is hilarious the way you change position throughout a debate.

I interpreted the tweet like every one else was doing but accepted Stanley's explanation of what he was doing in the tweet from the the minute he explained himself.

No change from me as I didn't set out to give the story legs in the fiilthy way you did when you heard there had been a 'visit'.

You don't even have the courage or grace to admit you were wrong which leads me to believe you were willfully lying about it.

If Stanley changes his story that is fine too, I certainly won't be led by somebody with a legendary agenda like yours.

Kraftwerk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I interpreted the tweet like every one else was doing but accepted Stanley's explanation of what he was doing in the tweet from the the minute he explained himself.

No change from me as I didn't set out to give the story legs in the fiilthy way you did when you heard there had been a 'visit'.

You don't even have the courage or grace to admit you were wrong which leads me to believe you were willfully lying about it.

If Stanley changes his story that is fine too, I certainly won't be led by somebody with a legendary agenda like yours.

You won't be led by anyone's agenda but you accepted that by "yippee 4 d tory" he meant "its a great day for gay rights having a gay taoiseach"? Lol

Come on Francie, we know shinners are a gullible bunch but absolutely nobody is buying that ridiculous explanation. Which leads me to believe you're lying about this as much as you lied about being a floating voter while being SFs biggest defender on Ireland biggest online forum.

tikkahunter

This thread is absolutely pointless, you have all the SF lackeys on here day and night defending rape , child abuse , extortion, robbery , punishment beatings , murder and homophobia. You pull them up on something and they bang on about proof . You post some then they report your post and have it removed.

FrancieBrady

Kraftwerk wrote: »

You won't be led by anyone's agenda but you accepted that by "yippee 4 d tory" he meant "its a great day for gay rights having a gay taoiseach"? Lol

Come on Francie, we know shinners are a gullible bunch but absolutely nobody is buying that ridiculous explanation. Which leads me to believe you're lying about this as much as you lied about being a floating voter while being SFs biggest defender on Ireland biggest online forum.

I have zero reason having reviewed this guy's history to believe he would suddenly make a public homophobic attack on somebody.

It makes no sense.

Please don't equate me with those who swallowed the 'heavy' nonsense and all the other sensationalism around this, it happens everytime there is an allegation about a Shinner.

I did my research and made a judgement on a very ambiguous (albeit stupid and silly) tweet.
To interpret it as 'Yipee for D Tory, you are gay, but what about workers rights' makes absolutely zero sense to me. Much more likely he was clumsily doing what he said he was trying to do.

rdwight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have zero reason having reviewed this guy's history to believe he would suddenly make a public homophobic attack on somebody.

It makes no sense.

Please don't equate me with those who swallowed the 'heavy' nonsense and all the other sensationalism around this, it happens everytime there is an allegation about a Shinner.

I did my research and made a judgement on a very ambiguous (albeit stupid and silly) tweet.
To interpret it as 'Yipee for D Tory, you are gay, but what about workers rights' makes absolutely zero sense to me. Much more likely he was clumsily doing what he said he was trying to do.

Let's accept that he had no homophobic intention.

But to claim as you have done that there was no reference to Varadkar's sexuality makes no sense either. Why on earth would he choose to reference gay rights that had been achieved over twenty years before?

I agree his worst sin may have been clumsiness. But if so he was clumsy in such a way as to let those who have ears for it hear a dog whistle.

Kraftwerk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have zero reason having reviewed this guy's history to believe he would suddenly make a public homophobic attack on somebody.

It makes no sense.

Please don't equate me with those who swallowed the 'heavy' nonsense and all the other sensationalism around this, it happens everytime there is an allegation about a Shinner.

I did my research and made a judgement on a very ambiguous (albeit stupid and silly) tweet.
To interpret it as 'Yipee for D Tory, you are gay, but what about workers rights' makes absolutely zero sense to me. Much more likely he was clumsily doing what he said he was trying to do.

You said you accepted his explanation. Which was that "yippee 4 d tory" was a celebration of gay rights.

You can't sit there with a straight face and tell me you believe that, irregardless of whether you think he's a homophobe or not.

You did your research? And accepted that "yippee 4 d tory" means its a great day for gay rights? Lol

I won't equate you with those who viewed the call to the door as "the heavies calling around". That was at worst an exaggeration of something that actually happened. The girl was uncomfortable with saying "the heavies called around" but didn't change her statement that someone called to her house after receiving a call from SF head office. Again to reiterate, she left the party because of that visit as she felt SF were trying to silence her. She hasn't changed her story.

You're just blatantly lying here and playing dumb to pretend Stanley's explanation was reasonable. No reasonable person could believe his childish explanation that "yippee 4 d tory" meant its a great day for gay rights.

Which is clear proof (as if anyone needed it after 1500 posts) that you'll say absolutely anything to defend SF no matter how ridiculously dumb it is.

FrancieBrady

rdwight wrote: »

Let's accept that he had no homophobic intention.

But to claim as you have done that there was no reference to Varadkar's sexuality makes no sense either. Why on earth would he choose to reference gay rights that had been achieved over twenty years before?

I agree his worst sin may have been clumsiness. But if so he was clumsy in such a way as to let those who have ears for it hear a dog whistle.

Because he was clumsily referencing Varadkar's 'Ireland without prejudice' leader's address.

It could, it is so ambiguous, also be referencing 'the early risers' gaff which is what I originally thought.