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

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Fake news.

An inconvenient truth, more like. Kinda like negative Market rates, eh?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I actually gave an example of it being worn as a taunt in a republican area.
I know there are people on this island suckered into the myth that unionism is a totally benign and cuddly phenomena, it isn't always - just as republicanism isn't either. Nor is partitiionism.

People do things to taunt and they shouldn't mark. You want to remember, honour or march, do it with respect or don't do it at all.

Yet, you still want to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear, under the guise of 'respect'.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you still want to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear, under the guise of 'respect'.

Quote him telling anyone what to wear or not to wear?

I missed that in the thread.

markodaly

James Brown wrote: »

You said Collins' IRA was more restrained. You said he knew middle Ireland wouldn't like the violence.
There was a massacre in Kerry were prisoners were tied to a landmine and any who survived were machine gunned. There were several assassinations. All these under Collins' leadership.
That's it. You keep responding with made up interpretations based on you wanting to have a little rant about the 'RA.

On current affairs the latest government scam regarding 'affordable housing' will drive up pricing as stated by the public accounts committee, the ERSI and O'Broin from the shinners.

Still peddling this misinformation?
You are displaying your lack of knowledge of the basic facts here.

When did Collins order some pubs to be bombed in England?
I gave you a quote from Tom Barry himself, who was disgusted with how the PIRA conducted themselves. Are you saying that Tom Barry was wrong, that the old IRA and PIRA where the 'exact' same? Quite a claim!

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you still want to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear, under the guise of 'respect'.

No 'guises' mark. I think I was abundantly clear - I think there should be very stringent rules around 'taunting' and provocation. That apply to all - including those who labour under the allusion that they are democrats.

Wear what you want...but don't do it to taunt, don't fly it to taunt either.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you still want to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear, under the guise of 'respect'.

You wouldn't catch anyone in the Dail trying to dictate what people should or shouldn't wear.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Quote him telling anyone what to wear or not to wear?

I missed that in the thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105122650&postcount=213

You can do what you want in your own space/community. When you come into mine expect to be told if you are doing something offensive.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105122289&postcount=195

I think if someone continues to wear something I find offensive that they are forcing it on me.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105122184&postcount=190

I think if someone continues to wear something I find offensive that they are forcing it on me

The inference is clear, if one finds something offensive, they are 'forcing' in on someone, hence should not be allowed wear it.

This is right out of the BNP, Combat-18 playbook about Muslims and Hijabs.
Not a good look, not good look at all, and even worse look trying to defend it.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

You wouldn't catch anyone in the Dail trying to dictate what people should or shouldn't wear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=httcqN_uSljWwM

Link doesn't work, and debate by youtube is well.... kinda lazy.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No 'guises' mark. I think I was abundantly clear - I think there should be very stringent rules around 'taunting' and provocation. That apply to all - including those who labour under the allusion that they are democrats.

Wear what you want...but don't do it to taunt, don't fly it to taunt either.

If one has a hijab, and someone else thinks they are being taunted by it, should that person have the right to forcefully the hijab?
I want to get to the nub of this.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Adams held his hand up about the mistakes he made in a difficult family situation. He accepted he made those mistakes and apologised.

Not sure what he was supposed to do about allegations he strenuously denied in the Cahill and McGahon situation. How he became the main wrongdoer there and the alleged abuser (who turned up to defend himself BTW) walked away speaks of the warped sense of justice among the 'Get Gerry' crowd.

So Adams apologise so everything is ok now?
hat do you think about Adams bringing his niece to court to try and ban her from talking to the press? or is that under the "difficult situation" banner as well?

I have seen other politicians apologise, even full parties yet everyday you critique them.

Again I ask for this rules and regulations you seem to have for Irish politicians. At the moment from my view, which I could be wrong, you seem to have one for a certain party and a whole different set for everyone else.


Also, make excuses for child abusers and child abuse protectors. Really is a new low but nothing new on here. When will some people actually turn around and say this isn't right. SF rolling out Adams for every event possible is just a kick in the face to the victims of the abuse and they don't care, seemingly some of their supporters don't either

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

Link doesn't work, and debate by youtube is well.... kinda lazy.

I've no idea what the video that poster was trying to link was, but an audio and visual source of someone making a comment is generally a better source for a point than a written source which may lack context.

I can't say if it is the case with the video he attempted to link, I've no idea if it is supposed to just be an unedited statement or some person providing commentary or even a poorly edited hack job, but given the potential strength of a video as a source, putting it down as lazy debate without knowing the context......well that's kind of lazy debate itself.

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

So Adams apologise so everything is ok now?
hat do you think about Adams bringing his niece to court to try and ban her from talking to the press? or is that under the "difficult situation" banner as well?

I have seen other politicians apologise, even full parties yet everyday you critique them.

Again I ask for this rules and regulations you seem to have for Irish politicians. At the moment from my view, which I could be wrong, you seem to have one for a certain party and a whole different set for everyone else.


Also, make excuses for child abusers and child abuse protectors. Really is a new low but nothing new on here. When will some people actually turn around and say this isn't right. SF rolling out Adams for every event possible is just a kick in the face to the victims of the abuse and they don't care, seemingly some of their supporters don't either

I criticised Adams for what he did. i never voted for SF while he was leader. But he didn't run from the issue and he apologised.

I think he was a 'leader' while SF transitioned out of a conflict/war.
The further we move away from that the more I can see the role he and McGuinness played in taking a movement of very disparate views through the mine field of a fledgling peace process.

I don't think there was anyone else who could have done what they did and they deserve credit for that.

McMurphy

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I've no idea what the video that poster was trying to link was, but an audio and visual source of someone making a comment is generally a better source for a point than a written source which may lack context.

I can't say if it is the case with the video he attempted to link, I've no idea if it is supposed to just be an unedited statement or some person providing commentary or even a poorly edited hack job, but given the potential strength of a video as a source, putting it down as lazy debate without knowing the context......well that's kind of lazy debate itself.

Mark doesn't see what he doesn't want to see.

The video, in all its unedited glory is in my post for anyone to watch and form their own opinions on.

McMurphy wrote: »

You wouldn't catch anyone in the Dail trying to dictate what people should or shouldn't wear.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

If one has a hijab, and someone else thinks they are being taunted by it, should that person have the right to forcefully the hijab?
I want to get to the nub of this.

If somebody is 'taunting' you, you should have the right to challenge them...whether it be a hijab or Union Jack underpants.

It doesn't require 'banning' anything, it requires the facility to take peaceful action to stop the 'taunting' happening.
See the Parades Commission mark...see what that has achieved, get back to us.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

putting it down as lazy debate without knowing the context......well that's kind of lazy debate itself.

I am sure it is something to do with anything but the topic at hand.

When supporters of the SF/PIRA are on the back foot the general tactic, is to not talk about the actual points raised, but to divert attention to something else.

Usually in this order:
FG
Leo
Maria Cahil
Da Brits
Leo
Maria Cahil
Flanagan
FG
FF
Covid
Housing
Leo
Leo
Leo
FG
FF
Eoin Murphy
Da Brits
Boris
DUP
The Greens
Leo
Leo

etc...

God forbid they have to defend the actual record of SF/PIRA without having to do a 'Look over here!'

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Link doesn't work, and debate by youtube is well.... kinda lazy.

Define irony.

markodaly wrote: »

I am sure it is something to do with anything but the topic at hand.

When supporters of the SF/PIRA are on the back foot the general tactic, is to not talk about the actual points raised, but to divert attention to something else.

Usually in this order:
FG
Leo
Maria Cahil
Da Brits
Leo
Maria Cahil
Flanagan
FG
FF
Covid
Housing
Leo
Leo
Leo
FG
FF
Eoin Murphy
Da Brits
Boris
DUP
The Greens
Leo
Leo

etc...

God forbid they have to defend the actual record of SF/PIRA without having to do a 'Look over here!'

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If somebody is 'taunting' you, you should have the right to challenge them...whether it be a hijab or Union Jack underpants.

Oh, challenge away, but be prepared for a backlash. If you think someone is taunting you by wearing a Hijab and you challenge them, you will rightfully be outed as an Islamaphobe.
If someone wears a poppy and you challenge them, they can rightfully tell you to '**** off' and go about their day, knowing the person who challenged you is more likely a bigot.

See the Parades Commission mark...see what that has achieved, get back to us.

You think the Parades Commission should be dictating on who and who cannot wear a Poppy? :D:D

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Define irony.

*Checks new link for the video.*

Ah, its about Flanagan.

Proved Correct! :P

:pac:

Natterjack from Kerry

markodaly wrote: »

God forbid they have to defend the actual record of SF/PIRA

There is no defence. SF is pursuing a devious united ireland strategy, and really doesnt want to talk about anything - it just wants votes.

There is no defence for its support of murder and terrorism, and while they have grown tired of it and its inability to make that strategy work (due to intelligence betrayals, moles, and informers from within), they are activities that it still condones. So it doesnt want to talk about itself at all. The more SF or anyone talks about SF, the more its position is eroded. So the last thing SF wants to talk about is SF policies, and its representatives know this very well. It can only present itself as a dark matter party - anti whatever the legitimate parties are doing or are advocating.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, challenge away, but be prepared for a backlash. If you think someone is taunting you by wearing a Hijab and you challenge them, you will rightfully be outed as an Islamaphobe.
If someone wears a poppy and you challenge them, they can rightfully tell you to '**** off' and go about their day, knowing the person who challenged you is more likely a bigot.

Not sure where you got the idea the wearer didn't have a right to reply.

You think the Parades Commission should be dictating on who and who cannot wear a Poppy? :D:D

I can see your argument is now in difficulty.
I asked you to see the Parades Commission and what it has achieved...and you immediately siezed on that to make a silly point that makes you feel you have won something. So predictable.

Just for once I will spell out what that meant...a Commission was set up to rule on the difficult subject of controversial parades.
Of course those who insist that 'parading' wherever they want is an inalienable right resisted and STILL resist the PC's findings but it has indisputably made society in NI a better place. The DUP and their friends on the island might dispute that though.

The same kind of thing could be used to rule on the flying of flags and the wearing of provocative emblems/apparel intended to provoke. That would be progressive to me anyhow.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The same kind of thing could be used to rule on the flying of flags and the wearing of provocative emblems/apparel intended to provoke. That would be progressive to me anyhow.

That is just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

Taken to its logical conclusion, no one would be allowed to fly the Tri-colour/Union jack... too provocative. St Patricks day parade or Orange Order march, too provocative.
No one would be allowed to wear a poppy or easter Lilly, too provocative.etc..etc...

If this is where the future of NI lies in, why would we ever want a UI, when the two extreme sides are nothing more than squabbling children?
You are making very good case for a No vote to any NI border poll.

Natterjack from Kerry

markodaly wrote: »

If this is where the future of NI lies in, why would we ever want a UI, when the two extreme sides are nothing more than squabbling children?

This is the very crux for the republic - and leads to the logical solution : we dont want a united Ireland (or we already have it as far as we want it, a 26 county one).

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I criticised Adams for what he did. i never voted for SF while he was leader. But he didn't run from the issue and he apologised.

I think he was a 'leader' while SF transitioned out of a conflict/war.
The further we move away from that the more I can see the role he and McGuinness played in taking a movement of very disparate views through the mine field of a fledgling peace process.

I don't think there was anyone else who could have done what they did and they deserve credit for that.

You support a party which has Adams rolled out at every event. He is still very much part of the party. Also he was supposed to be one of the main negotiators if SF wanted to go into government with FF/FG

So trying to say you only voted for SF after he left aint true is it?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

That is just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

Taken to its logical conclusion, no one would be allowed to fly the Tri-colour/Union jack... too provocative. St Patricks day parade or Orange Order march, too provocative.
No one would be allowed to wear a poppy or easter Lilly, too provocative.etc..etc...

If this is where the future of NI lies in, why would we ever want a UI, when the two extreme sides are nothing more than squabbling children?
You are making very good case for a No vote to any NI border poll.

This is the exact same scaremongering the DUP engaged in over the Parades Commission...'NO-ONE WILL BE ALLOWED PARADE :eek::eek::eek:'

Of course it was bull****. The PC made significant achievements in first making Orange Order and Unionist understand that there were limits on where they could parade, that triumphalism was wrong and that sectarian taunting was wrong.
What was a huge problem on a yearly basis has now been reduced down to the activity of isolated belligerents.

The peace process is a 'process' and more needs to be done. The 'sensationalists' 'things will never be the same again' defenders need to be ignored.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Adams held his hand up about the mistakes he made in a difficult family situation. He accepted he made those mistakes and apologised.

Not sure what he was supposed to do about allegations he strenuously denied in the Cahill and McGahon situation. How he became the main wrongdoer there and the alleged abuser (who turned up to defend himself BTW) walked away speaks of the warped sense of justice among the 'Get Gerry' crowd.

The "alleged abuser" , are you saying she and the other two women made this all up and to what end?

With regards Gerry, calling it a mistake really downplays what he did. His brother was raping his daughter between the ages of 4 and 10.

Gerry's solution was to give him even greater access to children.

After Liam's confession to Gerry he did nothing. Still managed to report Liam's wife to social services for the kids having nits.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The peace process is a 'process' and more needs to be done. The 'sensationalists' 'things will never be the same again' defenders need to be ignored.

It is a process where you are advocating things like wearing a Poppy should fall under some bureaucratic process on what is deemed acceptable or not.

Wearing a poppy, 'could' be offensive, so let's have a long drawn out chat about it and regulate it.. that is your position.
Again, a NO vote for anyone wanting a UI in that context.

Own goal there Francie!

Or, maybe just let people wear a Poppy and shut the **** up about it as its not your business. That is what a mature society does, unlike say, the North!

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

You support a party which has Adams rolled out at every event. He is still very much part of the party. Also he was supposed to be one of the main negotiators if SF wanted to go into government with FF/FG

So trying to say you only voted for SF after he left aint true is it?

I clearly said I only voted for 'SF when he was no longer leader'. (*cue the 'he really is the leader long with the white bearded 'old 'RA men in the Antrim hills' posts)

It was so much Adams that influenced my vote...his stepping down coincided with my belief they had transitioned as per what they agreed to in the GFA.

I have been consistent in saying that was what swung my vote.

*Also...relying on rumours is never a good way CF1. It was rumoured he was to be one of the main negotiators etc.

And really, so what if one of the most experienced leaders and negotiators this island has ever seen lent his skills?

markodaly

jh79 wrote: »

The "alleged abuser" , are you saying she and the other two women made this all up and to what end?

With regards Gerry, calling it a mistake really downplays what he did. His brother was raping his daughter between the ages of 4 and 10.

Gerry's solution was to give him even greater access to children.

After Liam's confession to Gerry he did nothing. Still managed to report Liam's wife to social services for the kids having nits.

Yea, whatever about Gerry's IRA involvement, his lack of action to his brother raping other kids, is well, beyond sick. If it were any other man, he would have been dealt with, but our Gerry is special, as you know. He can do no wrong, even after the fact.

Gerry was like the archbishop and local thug and bully rolled into one. Shifting child abusers around the country by night, without telling the authorities, by day planning raids on post offices and murders of women and children. A very talented guy, our Gerry is!

All for Irelands Freedom.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The "alleged abuser" , are you saying she and the other two women made this all up and to what end?

As the alleged abuser turned up to defend himself at court then as a 'democrat' that is the only rightful way to describe him.

With regards Gerry, calling it a mistake really downplays what he did. His brother was raping his daughter between the ages of 4 and 10.

Gerry's solution was to give him even greater access to children.

After Liam's confession to Gerry he did nothing. Still managed to report Liam's wife to social services for the kids having nits.

I think he did wrong on this, it was a huge mistake to make. I said at the time I thought he should have chosen that point to resign the leadership. He didn't, he chose to address it and apologise for it.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I clearly said I only voted for 'SF when he was no longer leader'. (*cue the 'he really is the leader long with the white bearded 'old 'RA men in the Antrim hills' posts)

It was so much Adams that influenced my vote...his stepping down coincided with my belief they had transitioned as per what they agreed to in the GFA.

I have been consistent in saying that was what swung my vote.

*Also...relying on rumours is never a good way CF1. It was rumoured he was to be one of the main negotiators etc.

And really, so what if one of the most experienced leaders and negotiators this island has ever seen lent his skills?

He never got a chance because no negotiations.
You vote for a party which has a child molestor protector still very much part of the ranks. Yet you are jumping around here all high and might about other TD's. Mary Lou/Pearse etc was all part of SF when this was going on and done nothing.

You also go on about how the PIRA was a necessary evil. not according to the people of Northern Ireland who in a significant majority wanted nothing to do with the PIRA and didn't want them.

I am sure I will get a "sure look at XYZ" response as usual.