The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

McMurphy

jh79 wrote: »

To save answering multiple posters when i say surrender i mean it in the sense that they gave up not in any formal military context.

So during the previous years leading up to the GFA being signed, and all sides (including Irish and British) urging not just the provisionals, but all paramilitary groups in the conflict to lay down arms and pursue their aims through peaceful and political means, the IRA did what was asked of them, and did what they said they'd do?

Here we have:

"the Ra surrendered to the Brits and are gone" - poster jh79

"they're not really gone, they control Sinn Fein" - Also poster jh79, a few mins later (trying to get a rise and taunt)

You're a wum trying to yank chains jh, you can't have it every which way you messing rascal.

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not disappointed just don't see why i need to sugar coat it for insecure republicans who don't want to be reminded they now work for the British.

My apologies. I didn't realise that's the point of your comments. I thought we were discussing the politics of SF and any links to the IRA. Had I known you merely wanted to take a few digs at the 'RA I would have left you to it. No skin off my nose. Enjoy.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not disappointed just don't see why i need to sugar coat it for insecure republicans who don't want to be reminded they now work for the British.

Ha ha...the old 'the generosity of Her Majesty' one is it jh79?

Tell me why would the representative of Nationalist TAXPAYERS feel guilty about being paid for what they do? Because some hat doffer who thinks the Queen is doling out her own money, thinks it? 'Away up the yard' as they say up here.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ha ha...the old 'the generosity of Her Majesty' one is it jh79?

Tell me why would the representative of Nationalist TAXPAYERS feel guilty about being paid for what they do? Because some hat doffer who thinks the Queen is doling out her own money, thinks it? 'Away up the yard' as they say up here.

If FG and their man Harris are to be believed, the crown is funding the 'RA

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ha ha...the old 'the generosity of Her Majesty' one is it jh79?

Tell me why would the representative of Nationalist TAXPAYERS feel guilty about being paid for what they do? Because some hat doffer who thinks the Queen is doling out her own money, thinks it? 'Away up the yard' as they say up here.

Me hat doffing to the monarch of another country? You'll have to explain that one.

Of course they deserve to be paid to facilitate British rule in NI. Nobody should work for free.

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

Me hat doffing to the monarch of another country? You'll have to explain that one.

It's their choice if they choose to work fir the Brit

Nothing wrong with earning in the British jurisdiction. What is it you don't like about the British? Very immature view IMO.

jh79

Bowie wrote: »

Nothing wrong with earning in the British jurisdiction. What is it you don't like about the British? Very immature view IMO.

Nothing, you are perceiving it as an insult. SF MLA are just British public servants. What's the issue with saying that?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Me hat doffing to the monarch of another country? You'll have to explain that one.

Of course they deserve to be paid to facilitate British rule in NI. Nobody should work for free.

What else are we to make of a statement like you made?

That there is something wrong about people expecting a wage in a place where they pay their taxes like everyone else?

Fann Linn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What else are we to make of a statement like you made?

That there is something wrong about people expecting a wage in a place where they pay their taxes like everyone else?

Looking forward to collecting my bit of a pension also from HMRC should I still be around to collect it.
#everylittlehelps.

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

Nothing, you are perceiving it as an insult. SF MLA are just British public servants. What's the issue with saying that?

Absolutely nothing. You speak on it as though they should apologise. I must have misunderstood.

Kermit.de.frog

Another example of Sinn Fein hypocrisy on social housing

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/o-broin-opposed-social-housing-project-after-asking-constituents-for-their-views-39966788.html

grayzer75

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Another example of Sinn Fein hypocrisy on social housing

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/o-broin-opposed-social-housing-project-after-asking-constituents-for-their-views-39966788.html

Politician conveys the wishes of his constituents shock.......

Bishop of hope

grayzer75 wrote: »

Politician conveys the wishes of his constituents shock.......

So we shouldn't build social housing where constituents don't want them, gotcha, thanks for that SF policy clarification.

thomas 123

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So we shouldn't build social housing where constituents don't want them, gotcha, thanks for that SF policy clarification.

Yes.

Sweet.Science

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Another example of Sinn Fein hypocrisy on social housing

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/o-broin-opposed-social-housing-project-after-asking-constituents-for-their-views-39966788.html

Thats actually hilarious . Imagine taking any politician serious . Bluffers .

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So we shouldn't build social housing where constituents don't want them, gotcha, thanks for that SF policy clarification.

Didn't Leo object to a building going up in his constituency, because - reasons.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-defends-objections-to-constituency-development-claiming-area-has-been-blighted-36155759.html


It's what they do bish, they all pander to their constituents.

Brendan Bendar

Kind of re-enforces the auld populist approach from SF..... don’t make any unpopular decisions.

All aimed at holding on to the wedge of course.... the residents know best, nah mate, the residents don’t want it, we won’t support it.

Eoineen an Wardy will hold the fort lads, we’ll let the others in Govt take the blame for that.

We will wait for the ‘open goal ‘ and latch on to that.

See how quickly we ditched the Debenhams issue when we got no traction.


Quanto rapido amigo.....!!!

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Didn't Leo object to a building going up in his constituency, because - reasons.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-defends-objections-to-constituency-development-claiming-area-has-been-blighted-36155759.html


It's what they do bish, they all pander to their constituents.

So EOB has something in common with Leo. :eek:

Sweet.Science

McMurphy wrote: »

Didn't Leo object to a building going up in his constituency, because - reasons.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-defends-objections-to-constituency-development-claiming-area-has-been-blighted-36155759.html


It's what they do bish, they all pander to their constituents.

Haha you are making it worse

Leo was the devil forcing people onto the streets

EOB was the saviour who was going to give houses to all. Now he is objecting to social houses being built.

What a spoofer.

FrancieBrady

:D:D:D Zealots see the word 'object' and lose the run of themselves in stampede to keyboard.

Identifying a better site and proposing 15 -20 more houses to be built on the original site designed for those wanting to downsize and so free up more houses.

Not getting the crime or the outrage here folks.

Idbatterim

thomas 123 wrote: »

Yes.

If that's the case the only place social housing will be built is uninhabited islands off the west coast...

Originally 28 units planned for ,19 now being built, but sf wanted between ten and fourteen. Truly pathetic. Sf won seats in the last election area by such a landslide, it's a dangerous game then to reveal yourselves as Absolute hypocrites at the expense of maybe losing a handful of votes in the area. Are those former sf voters going to deflect to ffg etc? Lol !

jm08

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Another example of Sinn Fein hypocrisy on social housing

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/o-broin-opposed-social-housing-project-after-asking-constituents-for-their-views-39966788.html

There seems to be a problem with the density. Council want to build 28 houses, local residents say 16, now offer of 19 houses being considered.

thomas 123

Idbatterim wrote: »

If that's the case the only place social housing will be built is uninhabited islands off the west coast...

Originally 28 units planned for ,19 now being built, but sf wanted between ten and fourteen. Truly pathetic. Sf won seats in the last election area by such a landslide, it's a dangerous game then to reveal yourselves as Absolute hypocrites at the expense of maybe losing a handful of votes in the area. Are those former sf voters going to deflect to ffg etc? Lol !

I doubt it, considering my generation just live to work.

As for sf voters deflecting? Do you really think anyone who voted sf before would condemn them for this ?

- Let’s see Stephen Donnelly - ran as Independent, switched to FF, still got in again.

- Leo Varadkar - shared state information for private sector gain, still there.

- Martin - how many u-turns and lies? Still there.

- Foley - missing for months when she’s most needed, no plans, department in crisis, still there.

- Mother and baby homes, report leaked before the actual subjects of the report could see it, government still
There.

- Affordable housing for those of us that have to pay our way shelved under the guise of covid. Yeah yeah, shared equity great, let’s get that average house price up
to 5-600k!

In summary I think O’Broin carrying out the wishes of those who put him where he is today is not really that big of an issue on the scale of things now is it?

Sweet.Science

jm08 wrote: »

There seems to be a problem with the density. Council want to build 28 houses, local residents say 16, now offer of 19 houses being considered.

If SF (who everyone pins their hopes on to solve the housing crisis) object to a paltry 28 unit development what does that say ? The housing issue will just get worse and worse every year.

Thousands are needed every year . Cant even get 28 up without them being delayed for years

FrancieBrady

Sweet.Science wrote: »

If SF (who everyone pins their hopes on to solve the housing crisis) object to a paltry 28 unit development what does that say ? The housing issue will just get worse and worse every year.

Thousands are needed every year . Cant even get 28 up without them being delayed for years

They didn't 'just' object though, did they? They are proposing an alternative that is a net gain for numbers housed.

Seem to me that they are doing their jobs, unless I'm missing something.

I personally don't do the 'outrage' thing about various TD's objecting on behalf of constituents. They have to represent them.
When they do it and have alternatives that seem to be better solutions, I ain't seeing an issue to be honest...shouldn't everyone be happy? Constituents, and those who want the maximum amount housed?

McMurphy

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Haha you are making it worse

Leo was the devil forcing people onto the streets

EOB was the saviour who was going to give houses to all. Now he is objecting to social houses being built.

What a spoofer.

My advice ? Read the article - it's not even close to being comparable with Leo's tale.

Sweet.Science

McMurphy wrote: »

My advice ? Read the article - it's not even close to being comparable with Leo's tale.

Why are you comparing it to Leo and FG ? Can both not make bad decisions ? Or if one is worse the other doesnt count ?

Sweet.Science

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They didn't 'just' object though, did they? They are proposing an alternative that is a net gain for numbers housed.

Seem to me that they are doing their jobs, unless I'm missing something.

I personally don't do the 'outrage' thing about various TD's objecting on behalf of constituents. They have to represent them.
When they do it and have alternatives that seem to be better solutions, I ain't seeing an issue to be honest...shouldn't everyone be happy? Constituents, and those who want the maximum amount housed?

Jesus . Nevermind

FrancieBrady

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Why are you comparing it to Leo and FG ? Can both not make bad decisions ? Or if one is worse the other doesnt count ?

Can you explain what is 'bad' about this?

I understand you seen the word 'object' as a snowball and you are throwing it but an alternative that will see more houses built and more people homed has been offered here.

Outline what the problem is here.

Sweet.Science

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you explain what is 'bad' about this?

I understand you seen the word 'object' as a snowball and you are throwing it but an alternative that will see more houses built and more people homed has been offered here.

Outline what the problem is here.

There is no alternative . Anyone can suggest one . You could suggest a 1000 houses being built on another site . Its all pie in the sky stuff

They had this site ready to go . They had contracts in place for them to be built . Until SOB contacted residents in his area who werent happy council homes were being.

So he suggested more homes on another site as a way of delaying this. The plan is to delay this as long as possible until it falls through.

Thats whats happening here . If you are blinded by politics and convincing yourself otherwise fair enough . I'd rather not discuss it further