The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

theballz

Mary Lou giving Stanley the week off lol

Imagine Leo had of done that?

Terrorists think they can do what they like

Hamsterchops

theballz wrote: »

Mary Lou giving Stanley the week off lol

Imagine Leo had of done that?

Terrorists think they can do what they like

And if Stanley gets through today unscthed, then game set and match to Sinn Fein. They will have cut through another net which had previously forbid Pro IRA sentiment in the Dail and the PAC.

Hamsterchops

Tomorrow apparently .....

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sensationalising again. I DID NOT make a big deal about attacking a politicians partner.
I made a big deal about using a politicians 'choice of partner' against them.
If you can quote anywhere that poster did that, I will review my opinion.



Once again you have to lie/misrepresnt(both me and the poster)/embellish to make a issue of this. Sad.

So it is ok to use a politician's choice of partner against them, to impersonate the politician's partner online by adopting their name as your username and insulting the politician 24/7?

If an account named PearseMcAuley spent 24/7 attacking Pauline Tully and Sinn Fein, you would have no issue with that?

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You and me mightnt like the provo link, but I think it's, dead in the water with the younger voters certainly.
Also it's history now even for some who would have resented it in the past.
Many years of peace now and no real threat of a violent return.
FG FF and Lab have burned a lot of votes and the alternative is this new SF that a high percentage of voters are turning to.
Labour are a fringe party now, like pbp and sds and Greens.
These party's are mere coalition fodder at best to the larger party's. We now have FG SF and FF as major party's with FF in danger of falling off a cliff if polls are an indication of what's ahead.
We need politicians to start accepting this new reality and stop living in the past.
Deal with the now, because SF are dealing with current issues while FG and FF are muckraking from years ago and it's not working and won't imo.

I keep saying FF/FG would be better off tackling issues raised. Raising the 'RA and trying to scaremonger to deflect isn't working and it's insulting to people who may or may not happen to vote SF.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So it is ok to use a politician's choice of partner against them, to impersonate the politician's partner online by adopting their name as your username and insulting the politician 24/7?

If an account named PearseMcAuley spent 24/7 attacking Pauline Tully and Sinn Fein, you would have no issue with that?

Now you are taking offence on behalf of the politician.

You may need to stop seeing political criticism as 'personal attacks' or 'personal insult'. And while you are at it, stop sensationalising for goodness sake? 24-7??? I don't see anyone doing that.

BTW, I had no idea what the Taoiseach's partner's name was until you guys had a fit about it. His personal life has no interest to me, as any politicians unless it impinges on their work.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now you are taking offence on behalf of the politician.

You may need to stop seeing political criticism as 'personal attacks' or 'personal insult'. And while you are at it, stop sensationalising for goodness sake? 24-7??? I don't see anyone doing that.

BTW, I had no idea what the Taoiseach's partner's name was until you guys had a fit about it. His personal life has no interest to me, as any politicians unless it impinges on their work.

You didn't answer the question. Would it be ok in your eyes to do as I suggest in the case of Pauline Tully and use a politician's choice of partner against them?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's go back over this. A number of posters commented on the unacceptability of commenting on a politician's choice of partner.


I agreed that it was unacceptable, and gave a hypothetical example of that unacceptability whereby someone would adopt a username of a politician's partner and attacking that politician relentlessly and asked whether they would support such an approach.

They never really answered it, but maybe you could tell us whether that is an example of commenting on a choice of partner that is unacceptable. Or maybe you think such activity is all just a bit of a laugh?

You made this claim:

There is a very well-known example on here where the partner of a politician was targeted like that, and worse, with homophobic connotations.

You once again have no quotes to back up your claims.

Now you are accusing posters of accepting or allowing 'hypotheticals' go unchallenged and that's seemingly hypocrisy? What nonsense.

This goes back to a discussion about people on Twitter discussing a person's partner. You in trying to cancel out or deflect went off on a magical mystery tour and failed embarrassingly.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You made this claim:



You once again have no quotes to back up your claims.

Now you are accusing posters of accepting or allowing 'hypotheticals' go unchallenged and that's seemingly hypocrisy? What nonsense.

This goes back to a discussion about people on Twitter discussing a person's partner. You in trying to cancel or deflect went off on a magical mystery tour.

Is it ok to use a politician's choice of partner against them or not?

If it is Pauline Tully, no, if it is Leo Varadkar, yes. That is the answer I seem to be getting.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Leave aside the gay part, Francie.

You made a big thing yesterday about attacking a politician's partner being unacceptable. Would you accept that it is perfectly normal to adopt the username "PearseMcAuley" and spend the whole time attacking Pauline Tully?

A simple yes or no.

Once you have answered, apply that to every other situation. This isn't about any other poster, it is about your hypocritical post calling out attacking a politician's partner when you have defended it in the past.

You are trying to equate using a name to abuse. This is a shift were you claimed the partner was attacked with homophobic connotations. Challenged to produce proof you have switched it to using the name as a user name. Am I insulting David Bowie?
You are embarrassing yourself. You are hung up using sexuality to score points. It's homophobia IMO. If theses people weren't gay you wouldn't be using them in such a manner.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You are trying to equate using a name to abuse. This is a shift were you claimed the partner was attacked with homophobic connotations. Challenged to produce proof you have switched it to using the name as a user name. Am I insulting David Bowie?
You are embarrassing yourself. You are hung up using sexuality to score points. It's homophobia IMO. If theses people weren't gay you wouldn't be using them in such a manner.

Pauline Tully and Pearse McAuley aren't gay, what are you on about?

Is it ok to adopt the username "PearseMcAuley" and attack Pauline Tully and Sinn Fein, thereby using a politician's choice of partner against them? That is the question I have asked Francie.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Is it ok to use a politician's choice of partner against them or not?

If it is Pauline Tully, no, if it is Leo Varadkar, yes. That is the answer I seem to be getting.

No it's not. If the partner is being criticised in their own right that would be different IMO.
Here you are trying to make comparisons were there are none in the most fantastic case of whataboutery I've ever witnessed on Boards.

blanch152 wrote: »

Pauline Tully and Pearse McAuley aren't gay, what are you on about?

Is it ok to adopt the username "PearseMcAuley" and attack Pauline Tully and Sinn Fein, thereby using a politician's choice of partner against them? That is the question I have asked Francie.

You made this claim:

There is a very well-known example on here where the partner of a politician was targeted like that, and worse, with homophobic connotations.

You should really quit making false claims and using people's sexuality to try score points.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You made this claim:



You once again have no quotes to back up your claims.

Now you are accusing posters of accepting or allowing 'hypotheticals' go unchallenged and that's seemingly hypocrisy? What nonsense.

This goes back to a discussion about people on Twitter discussing a person's partner. You in trying to cancel out or deflect went off on a magical mystery tour and failed embarrassingly.

We have moved well away from that. I am asking a very simple question of Francie, quite easy to answer.

You can answer it too, if you wish.

blanch152 wrote: »

So it is ok to use a politician's choice of partner against them, to impersonate the politician's partner online by adopting their name as your username and insulting the politician 24/7?

If an account named PearseMcAuley spent 24/7 attacking Pauline Tully and Sinn Fein, you would have no issue with that?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

We have moved well away from that. I am asking a very simple question of Francie, quite easy to answer.

You can answer it too, if you wish.

You made a claim and failed to back it up.
We will likely hear same from you again and again without any quotes to support it. You use a persons sexuality to try score points.

No. If you can point to such a thing I'd flag it for the Mods if I were you.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You made a claim and failed to back it up.
We will likely hear same from you again and again without any quotes to support it. You use a persons sexuality to try score points.

No. If you can point to such a thing I'd flag it for the Mods if I were you.

Have moved well away from whatever you are talking about. It is a simple question to those who have raised the issue.

So it is ok to use a politician's choice of partner against them, to impersonate the politician's partner online by adopting their name as your username and insulting the politician 24/7?

If an account named PearseMcAuley spent 24/7 attacking Pauline Tully and Sinn Fein, you would have no issue with that?

Either you have an issue with that, or you think it is all just a bit of a laugh. I am curious that appear to feel unable to answer.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Would it be ok in your eyes to do as I suggest in the case of Pauline Tully and use a politician's choice of partner against them?

Somebody just did that - Aido. But you are using that to pursue other posters.

I'm not going to fire your snowballs for you.

If I see something objectionable I will comment on it and I don't need prompting from somebody with a bedroom full of boogeymen and women.

You had nothing to say to somebody actually using a choice of partner to score a political point. That says it all IMO

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Have moved well away from whatever you are talking about.

Here:

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a very well-known example on here where the partner of a politician was targeted like that, and worse, with homophobic connotations. You did nothing about it, you said nothing about it. You condoned it, you laughed at people who raised it, you accused them of homophobia rather than the person who adopted the username, you defended it, you gloried in it,

Well, excuse me, if I don’t accept your bona fides on this one.

You made that claim and were unable to support it. I will take it as another lie from you.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a simple question to those who have raised the issue.

So it is ok to use a politician's choice of partner against them, to impersonate the politician's partner online by adopting their name as your username and insulting the politician 24/7?

If an account named PearseMcAuley spent 24/7 attacking Pauline Tully and Sinn Fein, you would have no issue with that?

Either you have an issue with that, or you think it is all just a bit of a laugh. I am curious that appear to feel unable to answer.

I have answered already. No. You even quoted me.
You have evaded the topic raised, which is the only point I imagine.

Brendan Bendar

Blanch, you are being gamed by the ‘head of a pin’ bhoys who won’t answer your simple question.

Amazing,I always find, that folk who are eager to pump out the negative narrative, you know the type, duffle coat wearing former student activists, for example,are very precious when the spotlight is shone on them, and their ideals are scrutinised.

They expect folk to lie back and take their vitriol as was seen since the golfgate and Cowen events

A minister resigned.

Another minister resigned

A European Commissioner resigned

A minister for justice was dragged through the houses.


All fueled and driven by SF !!!


And there’s Stanno sitting at home, still chair of the possibly most influential Committee in the Dáil.

How can that committee hold its head up and interrogate and call people before it with that lad in the chair.

It’s a complete joke.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Blanch, you are being gamed by the ‘head of a pin’ bhoys who won’t answer your simple question.

Amazing,I always find, that folk who are eager to pump out the negative narrative, you know the type, duffle coat wearing former student activists, for example,are very precious when the spotlight is shone on them, and their ideals are scrutinised.

They expect folk to lie back and take their vitriol as was seen since the golfgate and Cowen events

A minister resigned.

Another minister resigned

A European Commissioner resigned

A minister for justice was dragged through the houses.


All fueled and driven by SF !!!


And there’s Stanno sitting at home, still chair of the possibly most influential Committee in the Dáil.

How can that committee hold its head up and interrogate and call people before it with that lad in the chair.

It’s a complete joke.

The Tanaiste leaked confidential information to a friend while he was Taoiseach, he admitted same, and didn't resign.

Kinda pierces a big gaping hole in the rest of your argument.

grayzer75

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

They expect folk to lie back and take their vitriol as was seen since the golfgate and Cowen events

A minister resigned.

Another minister resigned

A European Commissioner resigned

A minister for justice was dragged through the houses.


All fueled and driven by SF !!

All above were because they brought it on themselves, end of story.

Billcarson

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Blanch, you are being gamed by the ‘head of a pin’ bhoys who won’t answer your simple question.

Amazing,I always find, that folk who are eager to pump out the negative narrative, you know the type, duffle coat wearing former student activists, for example,are very precious when the spotlight is shone on them, and their ideals are scrutinised.

They expect folk to lie back and take their vitriol as was seen since the golfgate and Cowen events

A minister resigned.

Another minister resigned

A European Commissioner resigned

A minister for justice was dragged through the houses.


All fueled and driven by SF !!!


And there’s Stanno sitting at home, still chair of the possibly most influential Committee in the Dáil.

How can that committee hold its head up and interrogate and call people before it with that lad in the chair.

It’s a complete joke.

Wtf is this ****,damn right they should have resigned .

McMurphy

Billcarson wrote: »

Wtf is this ****,damn right they should have resigned .

Brenner wants revenge, doesn't matter if a resignation is warranted (PAC members aren't calling for one though) an eye for an eye is all.

Triangle

McMurphy wrote: »

The Tanaiste leaked confidential information to a friend while he was Taoiseach, he admitted same, and didn't resign.

Kinda pierces a big gaping hole in the rest of your argument.

He admitted giving information to the guy.
According to the Dail records and Leo, it was no longer confidential and impacted the organisation and the GPS they represented.

But whatever.

aido79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody just did that - Aido. But you are using that to pursue other posters.

I'm not going to fire your snowballs for you.

If I see something objectionable I will comment on it and I don't need prompting from somebody with a bedroom full of boogeymen and women.

You had nothing to say to somebody actually using a choice of partner to score a political point. That says it all IMO

Yes I did but as Blanch said I didn't change my name to pearsemccauley and attack Pauline Tully unlike the person who changed their name to Matt barrett( and seems to be denying it). I made one comment about it and probably crossed the line so I'll apologise for it. I actually said she is isn't SF worst representative by a long shot. Mattbarrett was around for a while as far as can remember but I honestly wasn't following the forum in general with any great interest at the time so I can't comment on him attacking Leo.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Blanch, you are being gamed by the ‘head of a pin’ bhoys who won’t answer your simple question.

Amazing,I always find, that folk who are eager to pump out the negative narrative, you know the type, duffle coat wearing former student activists, for example,are very precious when the spotlight is shone on them, and their ideals are scrutinised.

They expect folk to lie back and take their vitriol as was seen since the golfgate and Cowen events

A minister resigned.

Another minister resigned

A European Commissioner resigned

A minister for justice was dragged through the houses.


All fueled and driven by SF !!!


And there’s Stanno sitting at home, still chair of the possibly most influential Committee in the Dáil.

How can that committee hold its head up and interrogate and call people before it with that lad in the chair.

It’s a complete joke.

Lot of anger.

Stanley has owned up to making a couple of insensitive/rude tweets. Crime of the century? Hardly.

You folk are just going to have to accept that your version of history and outlook are not compulsory.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lot of anger.

Stanley has owned up to making a couple of insensitive/rude tweets. Crime of the century? Hardly.

You folk are just going to have to accept that your version of history and outlook are not compulsory.

Playing a bit of golf and having a burger after was hardly the crime of the century either.......

And look at the carnage that ensued.... careers ruined.

And there’s Stanno.... not a bother on him.

Unless the committee suddenly see the light and don’t want to be ‘gamed’ by lads up in the whins and heathery hills.

Reality, in other words.

McMurphy

Triangle wrote: »

He admitted giving information to the guy.
According to the Dail records and Leo, it was no longer confidential and impacted the organisation and the GPS they represented.

But whatever.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-apologises-over-leak-of-confidential-gp-contract-to-rival-group-1.4398960?mode=amp

But whatever

Little bit of reading for you, I have copied certain paragraphs to assist you......

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has apologised for “errors of judgment” after he released a confidential document negotiated with the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) to the president of a rival GP group last year.

doesn't really get better from here on in.

He said he posted the document to Dr Ó Tuathail between April 11th and 16th 2019 on a confidential basis believing that it would be published in full imminently

so it wasn't published in full when he sent it by courier?

Asked why he would give a document that was not completely tied down to a friend in a rival organisation, knowing that the document was confidential, Mr Varadkar said he gave it to Dr Ó Tuathail on a confidential basis because he wanted the NAGP to be on board and to support the negotiations.

Nuff said.

But whatever. Jesus.

Brendan Bendar

Back on topic....

Is the stout lad from Tipp still on ‘furlough’.

maccored

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Playing a bit of golf and having a burger after was hardly the crime of the century either.......

And look at the carnage that ensued.... careers ruined.

And there’s Stanno.... not a bother on him.

Unless the committee suddenly see the light and don’t want to be ‘gamed’ by lads up in the whins and heathery hills.

Reality, in other words.

a tweet cant kill people. c-19 and non compliance can. two different things.

lads, can yous not get your act together and at least have some kind of argument to back? a stupid tweet is a stupid tweet. nothing more important than that. not to FFG right enough. for them and their supporters its constantly an issue of 'Look!! Over There!!!'

anything to avoid talk of the shambles of a country we live in

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody just did that - Aido. But you are using that to pursue other posters.

I'm not going to fire your snowballs for you.

If I see something objectionable I will comment on it and I don't need prompting from somebody with a bedroom full of boogeymen and women.

You had nothing to say to somebody actually using a choice of partner to score a political point. That says it all IMO

Francie, just struggling with the one rule for Sinn Fein approach that is being taken here.

We have seen the choice of partner being used to score political points for quite a while, not only choice of partner but family as well. Jim O'Callaghan has suffered for it, we had the notorious example on here of Leo's partner, Joe McHugh ditto, Lorraine Clifford-Lee, yet the first time you object to it is when Pauline Tully's relationship with a convicted murderer is mentioned.

You have squirmed all day on the issue, trying to find more and more ways to ensure plausible deniability. However, I think where you are coming from is now clear to everyone.