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

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where?

Back it up...third time asking.

You gave very good coverage and have spoken very positively about Catherine Murphy, Holly Cairns and Roisin Shorthall in the past, therefore you gave their views and position support.

markodaly

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

*proceeds to post about Madigan's comments about the Kerryman paper moments later without a hint of irony*

:pac:

To be fair, she is a FG female TD, so they always come in for that extra bit of stick around some parts.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Em, because the very origin of the discussion was a comment made by Garry Gannon, a Social Democrat TD. No one in FG mentioned it, yet people seem to attribute it to FG.. odd and weird I must say.

So, yes, the root of the discussion was a SD TD making a comment about the leader of the opposition. Best discuss it either here or in the SD mega thread.

No it wasn't.
It's a SF thread. The discussion was raised by Bubbs regarding what MLMD said. Later an SD giving out about it was added. That's not 'the root of the discussion'.
You keep attributing your own idea of party loyalty to others. That's not how most of the electorate are Marko.
You're struggling now Leo is on record using the same terminology.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You gave very good coverage and have spoken very positively about Catherine Murphy, Holly Cairns and Roisin Shorthall in the past, therefore you gave their views and position support.

Where have I supported the SD's as a party mark?

I have praised positively Simon Coveney, Helen McEntee and others from other parties too.
Does that now mean I support those parties?

You lied and have been caught out on it again.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

*proceeds to post about Madigan's comments about the Kerryman paper moments later without a hint of irony*

:pac:

Seems to be a bit of confusion on your part bubba, the claim was in this thread that "leader of the opposition isn't a thing here" - it is, and has been for decades.

There's no "faux outrage" at Madigans attention seeking stunt this morning, apart from it being real (the same as leader of opposition being "a thing", ie it happened) I found it bloody hilarious.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have I supported the SD's as a party mark?

I have praised positively Simon Coveney, Helen McEntee and others from other parties too.
Does that now mean I support those parties?

You lied and have been caught out on it again.

Oh not at all. I stand by what I said about your implicit support for the SD's. It seems the SD's are the flavour of the month around these parts. To some, they can do no wrong, and that is fine by the way. They have some impressive speakers.

However, it is amusing that the one time we see a SD TD criticise SF, we get very very defensive about it. Like calling someone a liar multiple times, over this??
Em... OK! :pac:

But sure, lets all talk about FG, or something something.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Oh not at all. I stand by what I said about your implicit support for the SD's. It seems the SD's are the flavour of the month around these parts. To some, they can do no wrong, and that is fine by the way. They have some impressive speakers.

However, it is amusing that the one time we see a SD TD criticise SF, we get very very defensive about it. Like calling someone a liar multiple times, over this??
Em... OK! :pac:

But sure, lets all talk about FG, or something something.

I have never supported the SD's as a party mark. You lied.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Em, because the very origin of the discussion was a comment made by Garry Gannon, a Social Democrat TD. No one in FG mentioned it, yet people seem to attribute it to FG.. odd and weird I must say.

So, yes, the root of the discussion was a SD TD making a comment about the leader of the opposition. Best discuss it either here or in the SD mega thread.

Em, no it was not, and it's fairly easy to call that out as the untruth it is.

Here's the "very origin" of the discussion. No mention of the SDs. **Shrugs**?

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Are SF aware that 'Leader of the Oppostion' is a role in Westminster (currently Keir Starmer) and isn't a thing in Ireland? Strange to see them referring to it today.

https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1371866810283401217?s=19

Keep up mark, it's why I asked the pertinent question ref if anyone told Leo yet that he expected to be the leader of something that's "not a thing here"

Now, with that in mind, how do you think this is going for you here right now might I ask?

FrancieBrady

Did you find where Mary Lou claimed that she had a 'right' Bubbaclaus?

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

To be fair, she is a FG female TD, so they always come in for that extra bit of stick around some parts.

This is disrespectful and dangerous to be using such a serious issue to try distract or deflect.
If anyone is critical of MLMD or any other woman they should be free to be so inclined. Women should be respected and given the same validity as men.
Pretending or suggesting any criticism is based in misogyny is demeaning to people genuinely speaking out on such matters.
Using misogyny in such an off the cuff unverified manner shouldn't be allowed IMO.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you find where Mary Lou claimed that she had a 'right' Bubbaclaus?

Sure, refer to the interview where she claimed that the Taoiseach's job is to deal with her because she is "leader of the opposition". I'm sure you can dig it up.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sure, refer to the interview where she claimed that the Taoiseach's job is to deal with her because she is "leader of the opposition". I'm sure you can dig it up.

Which isn't saying anything remotely like 'I have a right'.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which isn't saying anything remotely like 'I have a right'.

What did she mean so by the Taoiseach's role is to deal with her then? Sounds like she feels there is some extra entitlement there for a response to her letters.

Baggly

McMurphy wrote: »

Em, no it was not, and it's fairly easy to call that out as the untruth it is.

Here's the "very origin" of the discussion. No mention of the SDs. **Shrugs**?




Keep up mark, it's why I asked the pertinent question ref if anyone told Leo yet that he expected to be the leader of something that's "not a thing here"

Now, with that in mind, how do you think this is going for you here right now might I ask?

Mod

Improve the tone of your posts in response to other posters, or you will lose your posting privileges.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What did she mean so by the Taoiseach's role is to deal with her then? Sounds like she feels there is some extra entitlement there for a response to her letters.

The Taoiseach is the head of a representative democracy, and part of his role is to answer questions from the opposition. Fairly simple.

If she had a 'right' there would be a facility to ensure that 'right' is vindicated, like there is with any rights.

You invented the word here in order to have a rant. Happening on another thread with another issue with SF with markodaly inventing a story around Shinners claiming they had won the election. That has mutated into them saying they had a 'right' to be in government. No Shinner I know of has claimed that either.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Taoiseach is the head of a representative democracy, and part of his role is to answer questions from the opposition. Fairly simple.

If she had a 'right' there would be a facility to ensure that 'right' is vindicated, like there is with any rights.

You invented the word here in order to have a rant. Happening on another thread with another issue with SF with markodaly inventing a story around Shinners claiming they had won the election. That has mutated into them saying they had a 'right' to be in government. No Shinner I know of has claimed that either.

I haven't had any "rant", its not even something that remotely concerns me. I posted something small which came to my attention when Gary Gannon tweeted about it and appeared on my news feed. It isn't even a big deal other than McDonald seeming to think the Dail is more akin to Westminster, as pointed out by Gannon.

The only reason I am even still posting about it is due to the 3 poster pile on that occured afterwards, which was veering towards getting personal and were extremely defensive for something so immaterial, which required repeated responses.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I haven't had any "rant", its not even something that remotely concerns me. I posted something small which came to my attention when Gary Gannon tweeted about it and appeared on my news feed. It isn't even a big deal other than McDonald seeming to think the Dail is more akin to Westminster, as pointed out by Gannon.

The only reason I am even still posting about it is due to the 3 poster pile on that occured afterwards, which was veering towards getting personal and were extremely defensive for something so immaterial, which required repeated responses.

The 'I wasn't ranting, others were' argument to cover yourself here and your failed attempt to misrepresent what was said (A 'right) and it being embarrassingly pointed out that FG's leader said the same thing about being 'leader of the opposition' is not very convincing in fairness.

Do you now agree that McDonald never said it was a 'right' and that other party leaders have seen themselves as 'leaders of the opposition'?

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I haven't had any "rant", its not even something that remotely concerns me. I posted something small which came to my attention when Gary Gannon tweeted about it and appeared on my news feed. It isn't even a big deal other than McDonald seeming to think the Dail is more akin to Westminster, as pointed out by Gannon.

The only reason I am even still posting about it is due to the 3 poster pile on that occured afterwards, which was veering towards getting personal and were extremely defensive for something so immaterial, which required repeated responses.

You posteda tweet about McDonald from the SF Twitter account, at 0045 no mention of Gannon or the SDS...

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Are SF aware that 'Leader of the Oppostion' is a role in Westminster (currently Keir Starmer) and isn't a thing in Ireland? Strange to see them referring to it today.

https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1371866810283401217?s=19

The "Gannon tweet" came almost 8.5 hours later when you were called out.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You seem very worked up mate, are you alright? I'm just wondering why they seem to be using the term and thinking there is some special privilege that comes with it, when their isn't.

There is no such thing as 'Leader of the Opposition in Ireland. McDonald seems to think the Taoiseach is required to answer her because of her role, based on what she was saying yesterday, except there is no such role in the Constitution. She has the same right to a response from the Taoiseach as any other TD in the Dail, nothing more or less. Very different to the Leader of the Opposition that other countries have, such as in Westminster.

Gary Gannon of the SDs seems to have find it odd also. Clearly he sees it as disrespectful to the SDs and other parties not in Government.

https://twitter.com/GaryGannonTD/status/1371927948828246028?s=19

As does journalist Ronan Duffy

https://twitter.com/ronanduffy_/status/1371930512646930432?s=19

Little details like this are important if you're going to try and rewrite history bubbs.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'I wasn't ranting, others were' argument to cover yourself here and your failed attempt to misrepresent what was said (A 'right) and it being embarrassingly pointed out that FG's leader said the same thing about being 'leader of the opposition' is not very convincing in fairness.

Do you now agree that McDonald never said it was a 'right' and that other party leaders have seen themselves as 'leaders of the opposition'?

Show me where I was "ranting" so if you are so adamant about it?

McDonald mispoke when thinking the Taoiseach's role involves responding to a role that doesn't exist in the Constitution, Gary Gannon and others pointed it out, we should all be able to move on from it.

I'm sure you can understand the difference between using the term 'Leader of the Opposition' informally vs using it to claim the Taoiseach has to deal with you, without any constitutional backing to support that assertion.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

You posteda tweet about McDonald from the SF Twitter account, at 0045 no mention of Gannon or the SDS...



The "Gannon tweet" came almost 8.5 hours later when you were called out.




Little details like this are important if you're going to try and rewrite history bubbs.

Wrong.

It literally came to my attention by reading Gary Gannon's tweet, as I said, as I follow him and it came up on my twitter feed. You can try and dig all you like, but my post came after Gannon tweeted. Feel free to go check the time of the tweet vs my post if you are that bothered.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'I wasn't ranting, others were' argument to cover yourself here and your failed attempt to misrepresent what was said (A 'right) and it being embarrassingly pointed out that FG's leader said the same thing about being 'leader of the opposition' is not very convincing in fairness.

Do you now agree that McDonald never said it was a 'right' and that other party leaders have seen themselves as 'leaders of the opposition'?

The Oireachtas recognises opposition leaders too....







Seems a very strange thing to try and claim is not a thing here tbh.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Show me where I was "ranting" so if you are so adamant about it?

McDonald mispoke when thinking the Taoiseach's role involves responding to a role that doesn't exist in the Constitution, Gary Gannon and others pointed it out, we should all be able to move on from it.

I'm sure you can understand the difference between using the term 'Leader of the Opposition' informally vs using it to claim the Taoiseach has to deal with you, without any constitutional backing to support that assertion.

A 'rant' is typically an unjustified response to something. Your response to this, in which you had to invent the word 'right' and in which you ignored the fact that others have referred to themselves as leaders of the opposition is typical of a classic 'rant'. There was no justification for it. You haven't provided any either.

She used the term in an informal way...i.e. she didn't capitalise the words as you have done. She also never said she had a 'right' nor that the Taoiseach 'has to deal' with her. She simply criticised him for not responding and ignoring her mandate.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Wrong.

It literally came to my attention by reading Gary Gannon's tweet, as I said, as I follow him and it came up on my twitter feed. You can try and dig all you like, but my post came after Gannon tweeted. Feel free to go check the time of the tweet vs my post if you are that bothered.

No, we'll leave it there, your own posting timeline on this very thread is available for anyone else that wants to read it.

Next time you're going to cling to a tweet, post the actual tweet you're clinging to, not a different one first.

You can see how one might "accidentally" think you only posted the follow up post after being called out.

There'll be no confusion next time then.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I haven't had any "rant", its not even something that remotely concerns me. I posted something small which came to my attention when Gary Gannon tweeted about it and appeared on my news feed. It isn't even a big deal other than McDonald seeming to think the Dail is more akin to Westminster, as pointed out by Gannon.

The only reason I am even still posting about it is due to the 3 poster pile on that occured afterwards, which was veering towards getting personal and were extremely defensive for something so immaterial, which required repeated responses.

I don't believe a word of this.

You raised it citing it not being a thing. Myself and others called it out for the nothing it was. You came back quoting an SD in some attempt at validity then accused others of being worked up or insulting. You've made claims you can't support. Now Leo is on record for same it's suddenly a 'minding my own business, not interested, casual SD matter' :rolleyes:
This is all you.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

The Oireachtas recognises opposition leaders too....







Seems a very strange thing to try and claim is not a thing here tbh.

Never said anything about not recognising opposition leaders. Are you sure you know what point was being made?

Gary Gannon summarised the minor point pretty well in his tweet, linked again for you below.

https://twitter.com/GaryGannonTD/status/1371927948828246028?s=19

If SF hope to form an coalition with parties from the left in the next Dail, then they need to be more careful with their words and not annoy the left parties.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

No, we'll leave it there, your own posting timeline on this very thread is available for anyone else that wants to read it.

Next time you're going to cling to a tweet, post the actual tweet you're clinging to, not a different one first.

You can see how one might "accidentally" think you only posted the follow up post after being called out.

There'll be no confusion next time then.

Lol accuse me of something and then say "we will leave it there" when asked to back it up.

How about this, next time you are upset or confused about one of my posts, you should maybe just try to ignore it and move on. Save everyone a lot of hassle and saves me from having to deal with the uncivilness.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Never said anything about not recognising opposition leaders. Are you sure you know what point was being made?

Gary Gannon summarised the minor point pretty well in his tweet, linked again for you below.

https://twitter.com/GaryGannonTD/status/1371927948828246028?s=19

If SF hope to form an coalition with parties from the left in the next Dail, then they need to be more careful with their words and not annoy the left parties.

That's good, because I never said you did. Unless of course the Oireachtas recognises something that's not even a thing here, which would be weird tbh


Dear lord, here's your initial post one more time.....

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Are SF aware that 'Leader of the Oppostion' is a role in Westminster (currently Keir Starmer) and isn't a thing in Ireland? Strange to see them referring to it today.

https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1371866810283401217?s=19

So now that we've not only established that it actually is "a thing here" it's something others (Leo) was looking forward to, and the houses of the Oireachtas recognises too...



Long story short, you claimed it wasn't a thing, it's been shown your are incorrect, and has been a thing for years. Stop trying to to move the goalposts.

I don't think I'm leaving anything else out there tbh.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Never said anything about not recognising opposition leaders. Are you sure you know what point was being made?

Gary Gannon summarised the minor point pretty well in his tweet, linked again for you below.

https://twitter.com/GaryGannonTD/status/1371927948828246028?s=19

If SF hope to form an coalition with parties from the left in the next Dail, then they need to be more careful with their words and not annoy the left parties.

I don't buy this change in tactic from you.
The posts are there.
You made a big song and dance about MLMD and are now trying to claim you were commenting on Gannon's take in passing.
You claimed MLMD said she has 'a right'. You made a deal about the opposition leader not being 'a thing'.
So unfortunately the posts are there to disregard this new, 'only saying what an SD said' slant.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

I don't believe a word of this.

You raised it citing it not being a thing. Myself and others called it out for the nothing it was. You came back quoting an SD in some attempt at validity then accused others of being worked up or insulting. You've made claims you can't support. Now Leo is on record for same it's suddenly a 'minding my own business, not interested, casual SD matter' :rolleyes:
This is all you.

You can believe what you want James, you'd swear I actually cared about what you believe.

Fair play to thinking so highly of me to claim I spotted the same thing as Gannon by coincidence though. Maybe there is a career in politics for me

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Keep up mark, it's why I asked the pertinent question ref if anyone told Leo yet that he expected to be the leader of something that's "not a thing here"

What does this even have to do with Leo?
This is a SF thread.