The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

CrazyFather1

So how did Huff&puff get on with the insurance bill today?

hatrickpatrick

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Might be fair comment and a good point, if you go on the other political threads and do the same regarding FF/FG etc.
Where do you draw the line, is it 10 years, is it a hundred years?
SF are pretty good at dredging up everybody else's history.
I'm surprised at yourself for suggesting it.
It's nearly as bad as picking out who and what you want discussed at any given time, it's attempting censorship is it not?

Absolutely not, I'm merely suggesting that The Troubles and 21st century issues facing Ireland are so massively different (which is one of the reasons so many young voters don't give a f*ck about SF's past, frankly) that combining both conversations into one linear thread makes it a very difficult to follow thread. That's all. Present day politics and historical conflicts shouldn't be conflated. I mean I'd argue the same for other parties, if someone kept bringing up Charlie Haughey in a conversation about Mehole for example I'd find it an exceedingly irritating segue.

Obviously that's just me. Perhaps others don't find it quite as hard to follow as I do - maybe that's because in the current state of quarantine-induced lethargy I'm finding myself with far less energy to engage politically on an everyday basis

To your average young voter, what happened in Northern Ireland several decades ago is simply not relevant to how they choose who to vote for. Others may find this distasteful but it's the truth. Nobody I know personally or have seen commenting on last year's election references the Troubles, they reference the cost of living. Oscillating between modern day politics and a historical conflict in one thread works better on a forum like Reddit in which you can expand and collapse individual conversations within the same thread, but in a linear format like this it makes threads very disjointed. For instance, over the last two pages here we're combining a debate about The Troubles with a debate about modern-day Insurance reform

Again just my view!

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We do know this. And I have condemned attacks against civilians repeatedly on this thread. Repeatedly. That's why I do not consider myself in any way an IRA supporter. As soon as the IRA began intentionally targeting civilians, they lost my support.

Well I guess that support was short-lived as they began bombing civilian areas as early as 1971. Yet, only put down their arms in 1998. Slow learners?

Were they still justified in fighting this war after they deliberately started targetting civilians areas with their bombs, regardless of the casualties?
Even for an old school hard IRA man like Tom Barry, he was very critical of the PIRA tactics.

People just won't admit the simple and salient fact, that the PIRA went way too far in waging its war and how it conducted itself, it went way over the line whereas the older IRA campaign of 1919-1921 was more restrained. (Not that I personally agree with either by the way, but that is different matter) The leadership was different, the older guys like Collins, knew that middle Ireland had limited appetite for violence thus they had to be careful on how to conduct the war, but in the PIRA's case, you had absolute nutcases and hawks like MacStiofan leading the charge, thinking they could shoot and bomb their way to a UI and escalated the situation each and every time.

But you say,

It's a very black and white issue in my opinion.

and

violent resistance being entirely justified

and

Again, no ifs, no buts. No qualification

However, it seems there is a qualifcation.

I don't. I have never justified the targeting of civilians. What I said what that in terms of moral equivalence, the reasons behind such actions do result in a hierarchy of right and wrong,

That is the same thing to be honest. This type of whataboutery is common in SF/PIRA talk. Very quick to apportion blame to civilians being killed on the British, when it was the PIRA that actually killed them. Cognitive dissonance.

That's the only different. Beyond that, I have repeatedly condemned the targeting of civilians on both sides. Repeatedly. All my comment here means is that I have sympathy at least for the motivation behind one side's behaviour, and zero sympathy for the other.

I had plenty of sympathy for Nationalists in NI at the time, yet I don't expect them or excuse some of them to go out and murder people for a political cause.
Again, the PIRA were not fighting for civil rights, they were fighting for a UI.

There are not. There are absolutely no qualifications whatsoever. The entire apparatus of the Northern Irish state between partition and the GFA was undemocratic, vile, and evil. Every single person who willingly participated in the operation of that illegitimate state - politicians, officials, police, etc - was essentially a co-conspirator in a fundamentally immoral subjugation of the Irish population and therefore a valid target for violent resistance.

The state was legitimate. Just because it was biased in one way, doesn't make it illegitimate. That's the problem right there. Fight for your civil right, fine. Go march and do what John Hume did.

This does not justify, and never has justified, the murder of civilians. Ever. And I have never attempted to do so. I am merely restricting the definition of "civilian" to people who were not directly involved in enforcing the illegitimate rule of an undemocratic government in that region. Cops do not count. The British Army does not count. Loyalist activists and politicians do not count. As far as I'm concerned, if you analogise the government of Northern Ireland at that time to a criminal gang, then RICO-style all of them were guilty of the offence of undemocratically oppressing a demographic of the people. It doesn't matter who specifically fired the bullets, anyone who provided any kind of support whatsoever to the government was helping to uphold a rogue, undemocratic, illegitimate regime.

An elected official is fair game to be murdered? You are really losing this I am afraid, losing badly. There is no right to go murder, someone, because you are oppressed. None.

Again, I apply the same criteria to any oppressive regime anywhere in the world at any point in history, so I am absolutely not the hypocrite you are trying to paint me as.

Some African-Americans feel oppressed in the USA, does that give them the right to murder Joe Biden?
Some Aboriginals feel oppressed in Australia, does that give them the right to murder the PM.
Some Maoris' feel oppressed in NZ, does that give them the right to murder Jacinda Arden?

These two motivations are one and the same. Why do you think they cared whether Northern Ireland was part of a United Ireland or its own independent state? Do you honestly believe that tens of thousands of people participated in a dangerous, violent conflict purely because they had a moral issue with some vague notion of principle?

What? This is ahistorical rubbish. Just look at the speeches made by SF/PIRA of the early 1970s. The Civil rights of nationalists took a far back seat to the fight for a UI. They wanted to fulfil the promise of 1916 and were willing to kill for it, regardless of what the actual people of NI wanted.
Oh, sure SF/PIRA can dress it up and spout their propaganda all they want but it's simply just not true. If it were just for civil rights, then they would have joined the SDLP like the vast majority of Nationalists did.

Why do you think Irish people fought to overthrow the British in what became the Republic? Again, do you honestly think it was just a principle thing? No, it was practically, life on the ground as an ordinary citizen under British rule was hellish, because the British government's policies here were discriminatory and inflicted widespread misery on huge swathes of the population.

Well, that isnt really true either to be fair. Again its ahistorical. Look at the facts. Life for the ordinary citizen wasn't hellish in 1912 and suddenly became magically better in 1922. It was about Ireland, making its own decisions and ruling itself. It was more a principle, hence why so many people even after the rising supported Home Rule.

Do you think such a massive swathe of people would have cared about Northern Ireland's status issue had there been equal rights, and no systemic discrimination? Sure, some would have. In reality, most people are far more concerned about everyday quality of life. Everyday quality of life for the Nationalist side was sh!te in pre-GFA Northern Ireland because the government intentionally ensured that the Loyalists got all the jobs, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc etc etc - and ensured that Nationalists couldn't even meaningfully attempt to change this at the ballot box, as is the norm in a functioning democracy.

I agree that Northern Ireland was not a good place to be if you were a Nationalist/Catholic. Let us not pretend it was Mao's China or the Third Reich for a Jew, but lets agree that it was a cold house, to borrow a phrase. That is why people like John Hume marched on the streets.
However, being discriminated against in that fashion doesn't excuse bombing a hotel with people inside. You and others seem to say, it was legitimate.

The vast majority of people wouldn't have given a sh!t about the entirely philosophical issue of the region's status if the situation of actually living there hadn't been this way.

The majority of people would have sympathy for the Nationalists, but the majority of people would be appaled by the PIRA.

And that's why, as I keep saying, I'm not an IRA supporter and I never have been. I am simply stating that of the two sides, the British side had absolutely zero justification while the IRA did have some.

Does not compute. Everything you have written and argued alleys soft support for the PIRA. I think you should be honest about that.

Remember, the British deployed the army to protect Nationalists, which the IRA at the time, supported. If the IRA worked with the BA, to protect Nationalist areas from Loyalist mobs, instead of trying to kill them, the whole situation could have taken a very very different turn. But the IRA wanted to kill their way to a UI, the BA couldn't let the IRA stash arms and take potshots at them, so they had to go into these communities and well... the rest is history.

And yet I've never said that they were. You are once again conflating my arguments with those of other posters. What I have argued is that absolutely nothing the Republican side ever did is morally equivalent to anything the British side ever did, the British side are automatically worse because their aim was fundamentally evil in nature.

LOL, I just LOL!!
Come on, that is fairy tale stuff.
I thought you were debating in good faith, now I am not sure, or maybe you actually believe that stuff.

Enforcing the rule of an undemocratic and illegitimate government on an unwilling population is, in my view, honestly literally the worst type of crime against humanity. What you're failing to understand about my stance is that I am not suggesting that other crimes against humanity aren't immoral and evil. I'm merely stating that in my view, oppressing a population by enforcing an illegitimate government's rule over them will always be at the very top of the list in terms of which actions are more or less immoral than others.

You want to create a hierarchy of violence and victimhood, where the PIRA are bottom of the list of antagonists because the British are just 'evil'. It's just a way to excuse what the PIRA did and morally absolve them of all their crimes.

So just to recap: I have never justified, and indeed have repeatedly condemned, the targeting of civilians. I simply refuse to count members of the RUC, officials and members of the illegitimate 1922-1998 Northern Irish Government, and members of the British Army as civilians. That seems to be where we differ.

You said a lot more than that I am afraid. You have made a quite stirring and long contribution as to why the PIRA should be partially or obsoleted of its crimes because the British made them do it, or something to that effect, even though they targetted civilians right off the bat, early in the conflict.

Also, NI was a legitimate state, it may have been gerrymandered and issues with discrimination abound, but it was legitimate.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Well I guess that support was short-lived as they began bombing civilian areas as early as 1971. Yet, only put down their arms in 1998. Slow learners?

Were they still justified in fighting this war after they deliberately started targetting civilians areas with their bombs, regardless of the casualties?
Even for an old school hard IRA man like Tom Barry, he was very critical of the PIRA tactics.

People just won't admit the simple and salient fact, that the PIRA went way too far in waging its war and how it conducted itself, it went way over the line whereas the older IRA campaign of 1919-1921 was more restrained. (Not that I personally agree with either by the way, but that is different matter) The leadership was different, the older guys like Collins, knew that middle Ireland had limited appetite for violence thus they had to be careful on how to conduct the war, but in the PIRA's case, you had absolute nutcases and hawks like MacStiofan leading the charge, thinking they could shoot and bomb their way to a UI and escalated the situation each and every time.

...

This kind of restraint?

That night, 6/7 March, nine Republican prisoners who had previously been tortured, with bones broken with hammers, were taken from Ballymullen Barracks in Tralee to Ballyseedy crossroads and tied to a land mine which was detonated, after which the survivors were machine-gunned. 

In the time period you chose:

On the morning of November 21, 1920, at precisely 9 a.m., agents of Michael Collins’ Squad—AKA, “The Twelve Apostles”—spread throughout Dublin City and went to work. When they were finished, 14 British Secret Service agents were dead and the legend of “Bloody Sunday” was written—in British blood—in the annals of Irish history.

Better or worse than Warren point?

You've an odd view based on obvious bias and a tounge in cheek regard for the alledged seriousness of the violence. Agree or not with him, Collins did what McGuinness and Adams did IMO. You are making excuses for one.

Ultimately beyond your personalised skewed opinion I don't see what any of the above has to do with Leo leaking confidential documents or O'Broin's take on FF/FG/Greens new housing policy.
I have noticed the bigger the FF/FG **** up the harsher the 'RA tales. *jaded eye roll emoji*

markodaly

James Brown wrote: »

This kind of restraint?

Ah, I know there would be someone here to point out something the old IRA did as some direct comparison.

Let me know when you can pull examples of the old IRA bombing civilian areas enmass and directly targeted civilians and killing toddlers/women in big numbers in England and NI.

You've an odd view based on obvious bias and a tounge in cheek regard for the alledged seriousness of the violence. Agree or not with him, Collins did what McGuinness and Adams did IMO. You are making excuses for one.

Eh, no not really. For example, Collins didn't order the kidnapping and abduction of a mother of ten. He also did let a family member of his abuse people for years.

Also, Collins signed the treaty because he knew that a long war would be both unsustainable and not in the Irish public's interest. He sought out peace at the first opportunity and was willing to compromise. He was willing to lead and take the flack for it. The PIRA stuck to its guns for 3 decades. Slow learners??

Looks up the facts on this, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Ultimately beyond your personalised skewed opinion I don't see what any of the above has to do with Leo leaking confidential documents or O'Broin's take on FF/FG/Greens new housing policy.
I have noticed the bigger the FF/FG **** up the harsher the 'RA tales. *jaded eye roll emoji*

This is a SF thread.

Take the other stuff to the other threads and stop trying to close down discussion.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, I know there would be someone here to point out something the old IRA did as some direct comparison.

Let me know when you can pull examples of the old IRA bombing civilian areas enmass and directly targeted civilians and killing toddlers/women in big numbers in England and NI.





Eh, no not really. For example, Collins didn't order the kidnapping and abduction of a mother of ten. He also did let a family member of his abuse people for years.

Also, Collins signed the treaty because he knew that a long war would be both unsustainable and not in the Irish public's interest. He sought out peace at the first opportunity and was willing to compromise. He was willing to lead and take the flack for it. The PIRA stuck to its guns for 3 decades. Slow learners??

Looks up the facts on this, you will be pleasantly surprised.




This is a SF thread.

Take the other stuff to the other threads and stop trying to close down discussion.

So you knew you'd be shown up for telling whackers as you posted.
Your argument blew up in your face.
You claimed one was more restrained so of course you had to be shown comparisons right?

The 'RA nor Ghengis Khan had a patch on the modern British Army so give over. The IRA were fighting the BA not Big Mick

Up until the GFA was FF/FG/SF/Lab/PD/WP slow learners? *winkyface*
Poor effort. If you want to talk threads, this is a current affairs forum not History Today.
O'Broin's a shinner, you didn't know? *smiley face*

O'Broin made some good points on housing policy and politicians flip flopping to suit themselves not the public. But anyway you continue to list IRA atrocities sure...won't make Fine Gael any more competent

CrazyFather1

Poor old Pearse, I see he released a video, the government have passed but common sense it has to review the CBOI study. Of course Huff&puff are telling lies and not telling anyone this. Saying it is the government just delaying it. Seemingly looking after the people of Ireland is "antics and tactics" and taking the side "of the insurance industry"

Then from the video he seems to be suggesting to people not to renew their insurance because the companies are fleecing everyone. Which is not true. The problem with dual pricing is people not ringing around, so for me personally my insurance won't decrease because I have the cop on to ring around.

More lies from Huff&puff. No surprise, said exactly what would happen yesterday and wow I was 100% right.

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Poor old Pearse, I see he released a video, the government have passed but common sense it has to review the CBOI study. Of course Huff&puff are telling lies and not telling anyone this. Saying it is the government just delaying it. Seemingly looking after the people of Ireland is "antics and tactics" and taking the side "of the insurance industry"

Then from the video he seems to be suggesting to people not to renew their insurance because the companies are fleecing everyone. Which is not true. The problem with dual pricing is people not ringing around, so for me personally my insurance won't decrease because I have the cop on to ring around.

More lies from Huff&puff. No surprise, said exactly what would happen yesterday and wow I was 100% right.

It's manners to link to the video you are talking about. Or is there a chance that if we going looking for it, it doesn't exist?

You are a great advertisement for his output though...don't think I was ever on the SF Facebook page until you started to advertise it.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-councillor-organises-commemoration-for-ira-bomber-40104086.html

You know they just can't help themselves, can they?

"A Sinn Féin councillor has been criticised for organising a commemoration tonight for an IRA bomber from Wexford who died on a terror mission in England.

Edward O’Brien (21), of Gorey, was killed instantly when a bomb he was ferrying detonated on a double-decker bus in London’s theatre district in 1996.

The explosion in Aldwych wrecked the vehicle and injured the driver and some passengers, along with car drivers and pedestrians nearby. A fellow Irishman aboard, not connected to Mr O’Brien, suffered a fractured skull. It was never established what was the ultimate target for Mr O’Brien’s 4kg Semtex device, whose detonation was heard five miles away."

WTF? The poor young man, duped into being a bomb-carrier, lost his life tragically and now they want to celebrate him? They should be apologising to his family, they should be apologising to the people on the bus and in the vicinity, yet instead we are going to get the usual sloganising, probably with some "Tiocfaidh" songs and "Ireland for the Irish" and other exclusionary nationalist propaganda.

Fair play to Senator Craughwell who said:

"We do not need or want to commemorate bombers, kidnappers, bank robbers and the people who murdered our gardaí and Defence Forces.”

The continuous drip-feed of this stuff is nauseating.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/report-to-be-published-into-belfast-city-councils-handling-of-bobby-storey-cremation-40104798.html

Sinn Fein can always find a patsy.

"It said the decision by Nigel Grimshaw, director of city and neighbourhood services, to allow up to 30 mourners to attend the Storey cremation was taken “in the context of managing potential issues if numbers arrived and demands for access were made”.

Mr Grimshaw acknowledged it was “a mistake for which he takes responsibility”, and he regretted its impact on the other families. He retired from his position by mutual agreement with the council six months ago."

By god, if the Oireachtas employee who organised the golf society did that, we would have the SF mob out with the pitchforks. Hopefully the senior counsel does a better job of investigation.

"Mr Coll will present his findings and share copies of the report with Party Group Leaders on Thursday 18 February after which the report will be made publicly available."

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's manners to link to the video you are talking about. Or is there a chance that if we going looking for it, it doesn't exist?

You are a great advertisement for his output though...don't think I was ever on the SF Facebook page until you started to advertise it.

Really?
I am sure I seen one guy going around here saying "The charter doesn't require me to link" which you had no problem with at all. Strange now you have with me?

It's a Sinn Fein thread is it not? are we not supposed to discuss Sinn Fein topics?
It seems you have a set of rules for these threads which change daily and have no link to the actual charter of the forum. Maybe you should share the rules you have please?

McMurphy

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Really?
I am sure I seen one guy going around here saying "The charter doesn't require me to link" which you had no problem with at all. Strange now you have with me?

It's a Sinn Fein thread is it not? are we not supposed to discuss Sinn Fein topics?
It seems you have a set of rules for these threads which change daily and have no link to the actual charter of the forum. Maybe you should share the rules you have please?

Pretty sure there's something in the charter about posting false/inaccurate material.

Just saying, but if it was me, I'd have no issues linking to a video or source to something I've made a claim about, and considering there's previous for blatantly spoofing, am being accused of doing the same again.

Charter wrote:

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal.

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

WTF? The poor young man, duped into being a bomb-carrier, lost his life tragically and now they want to celebrate him?

He was a volunteer on active service in the UK so was hardly duped into anything. Nobody was forced to take part in operations as part of active service units so there's no point in trying to spin it any other way.

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Really?
I am sure I seen one guy going around here saying "The charter doesn't require me to link" which you had no problem with at all. Strange now you have with me?


It's a Sinn Fein thread is it not? are we not supposed to discuss Sinn Fein topics?
It seems you have a set of rules for these threads which change daily and have no link to the actual charter of the forum. Maybe you should share the rules you have please?

Never said boo about the charter. I said it was 'manners' to do it. You told two lies yesterday, so sorry, I need to check out everything you say. That is the problem with telling lies.

blanch152

grayzer75 wrote: »

He was a volunteer on active service in the UK so was hardly duped into anything. Nobody was forced to take part in operations as part of active service units so there's no point in trying to spin it any other way.

Don't think Martin McGuinness, Bobby Storey or Gerry Adams would have carried a bomb on a bus like that and exposed themselves to that risk?

Like all who have been sent on such missions, he was duped.

Tokyo

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Poor old Pearse, I see he released a video, the government have passed but common sense it has to review the CBOI study. Of course Huff&puff are telling lies and not telling anyone this. Saying it is the government just delaying it. Seemingly looking after the people of Ireland is "antics and tactics" and taking the side "of the insurance industry"

Then from the video he seems to be suggesting to people not to renew their insurance because the companies are fleecing everyone. Which is not true. The problem with dual pricing is people not ringing around, so for me personally my insurance won't decrease because I have the cop on to ring around.

Mod: I'd like a link to that video myself please, or at least a transcription, before you continue that line of conversation.

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't think Martin McGuinness, Bobby Storey or Gerry Adams would have carried a bomb on a bus like that and exposed themselves to that risk?

Like all who have been sent on such missions, he was duped.

Just goes to show that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, absolutely clueless making up stuff as usual.

McMurphy

tikkahunter wrote: »

List is available next week as was stated , you his puppet ?

Was this list ever published tikka?

I'd like to get a look if so. Cheers.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Never said boo about the charter. I said it was 'manners' to do it. You told two lies yesterday, so sorry, I need to check out everything you say. That is the problem with telling lies.

https://www.facebook.com/sinnfein
When your responded you even mentioned Facebook.

I think this is direct link
https://fb.watch/3K11-qT0eg/

The lies you mention is not really true is it, it was clearly a joke and this was pointed out to you numerous times.

CrazyFather1

mike_ie wrote: »

Mod: I'd like a link to that video myself please, or at least a transcription, before you continue that line of conversation.

Sorry I already discussed yesterday or the day before all these videos are on Facebook. When the poster responded they even mentioned Facebook so I assumed they had already viewed the video.

grayzer75

Deleted User wrote: »

Martin mcguiness literally was arrested for explosives offences (much larger than bomb than,which killed obrien)

There's pictures of him online when a bomb was being loaded in the back of a car lol

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/sinnfein
When your responded you even mentioned Facebook.

I think this is direct link
https://fb.watch/3K11-qT0eg/

The lies you mention is not really true is it, it was clearly a joke and this was pointed out to you numerous times.

So yet another lie, he does not tell people to not renew their insurance, he very specifically says:

Pearse Doherty wrote:

Do not just accept your renewal quote.....

Which is advising them to do what YOU are doing, question the quote and shop around.

FrancieBrady

grayzer75 wrote: »

There's pictures of him online when a bomb was being loaded in the back of a car lol

Adams was shot as well.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/sinnfein
When your responded you even mentioned Facebook.

I think this is direct link
https://fb.watch/3K11-qT0eg/

The lies you mention is not really true is it, it was clearly a joke and this was pointed out to you numerous times.

Hold on, that's literally a video of Pearse providing an update and then providing the same advice you offered yourself earlier in the thread; don't just accept your renewal quote.

Another blatant lie. I suppose you'll try pass this one off as a joke or parody and all?

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

markodaly

James Brown wrote: »

The 'RA nor Ghengis Khan had a patch on the modern British Army so give over. The IRA were fighting the BA not Big Mick

LOL.
Well at least you are honest about your overt bias towards 'da Brits'.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So yet another lie, he does not tell people to not renew their insurance, he very specifically says:



Which is advising them to do what YOU are doing, question the quote and shop around.

What I posted

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Poor old Pearse, I see he released a video, the government have passed but common sense it has to review the CBOI study. Of course Huff&puff are telling lies and not telling anyone this. Saying it is the government just delaying it. Seemingly looking after the people of Ireland is "antics and tactics" and taking the side "of the insurance industry"

Then from the video he seems to be suggesting to people not to renew their insurance because the companies are fleecing everyone. Which is not true. The problem with dual pricing is people not ringing around, so for me personally my insurance won't decrease because I have the cop on to ring around.

More lies from Huff&puff. No surprise, said exactly what would happen yesterday and wow I was 100% right.

As I said he is suggesting, not telling them not to renew. He mentions nothing about shopping around. He just says "Do not accept your renewal quote". Then goes into a rant about the insurance company.

Or maybe you can point me to a video when he tells people to shop around?

CrazyFather1

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Hold on, that's literally a video of Pearse providing an update and then providing the same advice you offered yourself earlier in the thread; don't just accept your renewal quote.

Another blatant lie. I suppose you'll try pass this one off as a joke or parody and all?

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

Please post a link to the video when Pearse tells people to shop around? give them advice what they should so because in that video he says nothing of the sort

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

What I posted



As I said he is suggesting, not telling them not to renew. He mentions nothing about shopping around. He just says "Do not accept your renewal quote". Then goes into a rant about the insurance company.

Or maybe you can point me to a video when he tells people to shop around?

You lied about what was said CF1. He said NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH about 'not renewing'

This is exactly what he said:

'Do not just accept your renewal quote' with the emphasis on 'just accept'. Which means to anyone with a basic ability to interpret - 'question the quote'.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Please post a link to the video when Pearse tells people to shop around? give them advice what they should so because in that video he says nothing of the sort

The direct quote from the video you linked is, "do not just accept your renewal quote" (emphasis mine).

Given the very clear context (dual pricing), if you can HONESTLY read that as Pearse suggesting the populace drive around uninsured, then engaging with you further is a waste of time.

I suspect however that you heard and interpreted it just the same as everyone else and just decided to get some more low grade trolling in. Your reluctance to actually share a source in the first place until....encouraged by a moderator would speak volumes on that particular hypothesis.

Fionn1952

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You lied about what was said CF1. He said NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH about 'not renewing'

This is exactly what he said:

'Do not just accept your renewal quote' with the emphasis on 'just accept'. Which means to anyone with a basic ability to interpret - 'question the quote'.

Not just me who heard the clear and obvious, 'just' in there Francie?

Waiting for the follow up comment on how Shinner HQ must've briefed us on it!