McDaid admits real agenda behind McDowell's attacks on Sinn Fein
Diarmid Logan
McDaid admits real agenda behind McDowell's attacks on Sinn Fein
Tuesday, May 25
Sinn Féin Director of Elections Pat Doherty MP, speaking in Dublin
this morning said that Dr. Jim McDaid's admission of the real agenda
behind Michael McDowell's attacks on the party confirm our belief that
this was always about the upcoming elections and the increasing
numbers of people who support our agenda for change.
Mr. Doherty said:
"For months now we have seen Michael McDowell engage in almost daily
attacks on Sinn Féin. We have always said that these attacks were
about the upcoming elections and the increasing numbers of people who
support our agenda for change in the peace process, in local
communities, in Leinster House and the Assembly and in Europe. And
last night a senior government Minister admitted that this was the
case. "Dr. Jim McDaid also clearly acknowledged by his comments that
many in Fianna Fáil are deeply unhappy about the PD tail wagging the
Fianna Fáil dog particularly in matters relating to the peace process
and Irish unity.
"What is very clear is that people across the country saw through this
charade a long time ago, particularly those who have borne the brunt
of right wing PD policies over the last seven years. They know that
Sinn Féin is the real alternative to such policies and that is why
they are supporting us in growing numbers."
Howard Beale
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:622d5dd0.04052...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5219
>
> McDaid admits real agenda behind McDowell's attacks on Sinn Fein
>
> Tuesday, May 25
>
> Sinn Féin Director of Elections Pat Doherty MP, speaking in Dublin
> this morning said that Dr. Jim McDaid's admission of the real agenda
> behind Michael McDowell's attacks on the party confirm our belief that
> this was always about the upcoming elections and the increasing
> numbers of people who support our agenda for change.
>
> Mr. Doherty said:
>
> "For months now we have seen Michael McDowell engage in almost daily
> attacks on Sinn Féin. We have always said that these attacks were
> about the upcoming elections and the increasing numbers of people who
> support our agenda for change in the peace process, in local
> communities, in Leinster House and the Assembly and in Europe. And
> last night a senior government Minister admitted that this was the
> case. "Dr. Jim McDaid also clearly acknowledged by his comments that
> many in Fianna Fáil are deeply unhappy about the PD tail wagging the
> Fianna Fáil dog particularly in matters relating to the peace process
> and Irish unity.
Sounds to me, like McDaid's looking for the SF vote
Whitewolf
While some of us are disappointed to see SF trump their leftist agenda more
importantly than the nation's interest of a United DEMOCRATIC Ireland...
Ray
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We will not tire! We will not falter! we will not fail!
We will bring our enemies to justice, or bring
justice to our enemies! Justice will be done!!
-President Bush
Email: ray-AT-eirefirst.com
Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Beale
"Terry" <terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6k9b05avt4tm7f7m...@4ax.com...
> making a laughing stock of the FF and PD candidates.
All McDaid cares about is himself
Howard Beale
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:40:21 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> him.
No, he's looking for the SF vote, or at least their transfers
Howard Beale
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:44:42 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >No, he's looking for the SF vote, or at least their transfers
>
Do you know him personally?
Howard Beale
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:27:02 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Terry" <terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:270ab0lf0k9caoakp...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:44:42 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> >> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >No, he's looking for the SF vote, or at least their transfers
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Do you know him personally
>
> him.
McDaid makes a big enough laughing stock of himself; he doesn't need anyone
else to assist. You're putting your own spin on the story. I do know him
personally, so I'm basing my opinion on personal knowledge of the man
David H
>While some of us are disappointed to see SF trump their leftist agenda more
>importantly than the nation's interest of a United DEMOCRATIC Ireland...
>
>Ray
But there's no point in a United Ireland if it isn't *for* something.
If it's just *for* economic growth and stability it might as well be
anywhere else in the western world. (That's the non-cynical
view)
But more realistically:
Socialism, cultural regeneration, cultural exclusivity, isolationism -
it doesn't matter - they are all just phases in republican grubbing
for power. For the moment, socialism is the populist option.
When SF's vote peaks they will look for something else. You
never know - they might go down your road next...
David H
--
abend
Wild Colonial Boy
wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:12:34 GMT, Whitewolf <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote:
>
>>While some of us are disappointed to see SF trump their leftist agenda more
>>importantly than the nation's interest of a United DEMOCRATIC Ireland...
Sinn Fein are a DEMOCRATIC party. They are also a Republican and a
Socialist party. Of course, Socialism comes in many different
flavours...
>But there's no point in a United Ireland if it isn't *for* something.
>If it's just *for* economic growth and stability it might as well be
>anywhere else in the western world. (That's the non-cynical
>view)
>
>But more realistically:
>Socialism, cultural regeneration, cultural exclusivity, isolationism -
>it doesn't matter - they are all just phases in republican grubbing
>for power.
Crap.
>For the moment, socialism is the populist option.
Anything but.
>When SF's vote peaks they will look for something else. You
>never know
But I do and you are full of crap David.
>- they might go down your road next...
Thats very very doubtful.
Nik
Howard Beale
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:21:44 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >McDaid makes a big enough laughing stock of himself; he doesn't need
anyone
> >else to assist.
>
> stock out of him. Ranting and raving as McDowell is doing is making an
> eejit out of everyone with whom he's associated.
Like I said before, I know the man, and he doesn't give a monkey's about
anyone other than himself. It's just a vote catching exercise
Howard Beale
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:57:16 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Terry" <terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:fo6ab05q0jcjvh4ql...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:21:44 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> >> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >McDaid makes a big enough laughing stock of himself; he doesn't need
> >anyone
> >> >else to assist.
> >>
> >> Yeah but he doesn't want McDowell making it worse, making a laughing
> >> stock out of him. Ranting and raving as McDowell is doing is making an
> >> eejit out of everyone with whom he's associated.
> >
> >Like I said before, I know the man, and he doesn't give a monkey's about
> >anyone other than himself. It's just a vote catching exercise
>
> affecting him too.
McDowell told the truth about SF/IRA. The only thing he did wrong was to do
it as a political ploy. Those things should have been said years ago
> He knows that people aren't stupid and will see
> what McDowell is up to.
Wrong. He knows people *are* stupid, and plays on that fact. How else do you
think the bastard got elected?
Howard Beale
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:43:18 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Terry" <terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:cukbb0hqgbd7bsvau...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:57:16 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> >> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Terry" <terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:fo6ab05q0jcjvh4ql...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:21:44 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> >> >> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >McDaid makes a big enough laughing stock of himself; he doesn't
need
> >> >anyone
> >> >> >else to assist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah but he doesn't want McDowell making it worse, making a
laughing
> >> >> stock out of him. Ranting and raving as McDowell is doing is making
an
> >> >> eejit out of everyone with whom he's associated.
> >> >
> >> >Like I said before, I know the man, and he doesn't give a monkey's
about
> >> >anyone other than himself. It's just a vote catching exercise
> >>
> >> Yes, but obviously McDowell's lunatic lying ranting and raving is
> >> affecting him too.
> >
> >
> >McDowell told the truth about SF/IRA.
>
>
> The only problem is that because he's not as bright as he thinks he
> is, his audience only exists in the Unionist heartlands of N Ireland
> and amongst the Sun-readers of England like yourself.
Firstly, I never read the Sun. Secondly, those morons who do, couldn't give
a stuff about Irish politics, anymore than anyone else over here
>
> And they don't have a vote in the Republic.
In a united Ireland, the Unionists would have a vote. Scary though, eh? That
what you'd really like?
>
> All he's achieving is the undermining of the FF vote and that's what
> McDaid is complaining about.
I'll say it again; McDaid doesn't give a shit about the FF vote. He's only
interested in his own political future
>
> You'll get there in the end.
I've been here for ages. I'm just waiting for you to catch up with me
Diarmid Logan
First you have a problem with me and now you apparently have one with
Sinn Fein. Tell me, are there any Irish republicans with whom you
don't have a problem?
Howard Beale
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:27:42 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
No, I'm not a right winger
> You could write their headlines.
As could anyone else
>
> You're a sort of walking Sun headline in a way.
I've tried to picture this idea in my mind, but it just doesn't gell for me
>
> >> And they don't have a vote in the Republic.
>
> >In a united Ireland, the Unionists would have a vote. Scary though, eh?
That
> >what you'd really like?
>
> Of course.
>
> Unionists as people were never the fundamental problem. It was British
> misuse of them that was the real problem.
The British barely knew of their existance. What succesive governments did,
was ignore the human rights abuses that were going on in the past. Similar
the the Irish government down South, that allowed major abuses to occur.
>
> >> All he's achieving is the undermining of the FF vote and that's what
> >> McDaid is complaining about.
>
> >I'll say it again; McDaid doesn't give a shit about the FF vote. He's
only
> >interested in his own political future
>
> His political future is tied to the fortunes of FF.
FF isn't in any danger of losing support. Any party that could get elected
after its previous disgraceful stint in office, has nothing to fear from
McDowell
>
> You seem to be having serious difficulty grasping that simple point.
You seem to be the one having the difficulty. Do a bit of research on
McDaid, before you make such statements
>
> Is that why you prefer the fantasy fruitcaking. Do you find reality
> too difficult?
Personal abuse is the last resort, when you can't win the argument
Howard Beale
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:22:34 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> Yes, but obviously McDowell's lunatic lying ranting and raving is
> >> >> >> affecting him too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >McDowell told the truth about SF/IRA.
> >> >>
> >> >> No he didn't. He tells stories that he hopes people will believe.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only problem is that because he's not as bright as he thinks he
> >> >> is, his audience only exists in the Unionist heartlands of N Ireland
> >> >> and amongst the Sun-readers of England like yourself.
> >>
> >> >Firstly, I never read the Sun.
> >>
> >> But you think like it, don't you.
>
> >No, I'm not a right winger
>
>
> Which politician would you favor?
I've always been a Liberal supporter
>
> >> You're a sort of walking Sun headline in a way.
>
> >I've tried to picture this idea in my mind, but it just doesn't gell for
me
>
> It's like you've cut'n pasted your posts from the Sun.
I like to be outrageous whenever possible....
>
> >> >> And they don't have a vote in the Republic.
> >>
> >> >In a united Ireland, the Unionists would have a vote. Scary though,
eh?
> >That
> >> >what you'd really like?
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >>
> >> Unionists as people were never the fundamental problem. It was British
> >> misuse of them that was the real problem.
>
> >The British barely knew of their existance. What succesive governments
did,
> >was ignore the human rights abuses that were going on in the past.
>
> Thereby creating conflict.
Had the civil rights movment not been superseded by the thugs of the IRA,
there would have been a virtually instant end to the conflict
>
> > Similar
> >the the Irish government down South, that allowed major abuses to occur.
>
> Weren't there comparable abuses in Britain?
Not on anything like the same scale. And anyhow, I'm not just talking about
institutional abuse
>
> >> >> All he's achieving is the undermining of the FF vote and that's what
> >> >> McDaid is complaining about.
> >>
> >> >I'll say it again; McDaid doesn't give a shit about the FF vote. He's
> >only
> >> >interested in his own political future
> >>
> >> His political future is tied to the fortunes of FF.
>
> >FF isn't in any danger of losing support. Any party that could get
elected
> >after its previous disgraceful stint in office, has nothing to fear from
> >McDowell
>
> That's not what the man on the ground thinks. Even Liz O Donnell
> thinks that McDowell is going too far.
>
> The man's a raving lunatic.
>
> >> You seem to be having serious difficulty grasping that simple point.
> >
> >You seem to be the one having the difficulty. Do a bit of research on
> >McDaid, before you make such statements
>
> What would research on him tell me about the declining fortunes of FF
> and the impact that is likely to have on him?
It would give you an insight into the man, and make you realise that I'm
right
Whitewolf
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:12:34 GMT, Whitewolf <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote:
>
>>While some of us are disappointed to see SF trump their leftist agenda more
>>importantly than the nation's interest of a United DEMOCRATIC Ireland...
>>
>>Ray
>
>But there's no point in a United Ireland if it isn't *for* something.
>If it's just *for* economic growth and stability it might as well be
>anywhere else in the western world. (That's the non-cynical
>view)
>
I agree...
>But more realistically:
>Socialism, cultural regeneration, cultural exclusivity, isolationism -
>it doesn't matter - they are all just phases in republican grubbing
>for power. For the moment, socialism is the populist option.
>When SF's vote peaks they will look for something else. You
>never know - they might go down your road next...
>
>David H
They've been there before too...
Howard Beale
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:46:50 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> >> Yes, but obviously McDowell's lunatic lying ranting and raving
is
> >> >> >> >> affecting him too.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >McDowell told the truth about SF/IRA.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No he didn't. He tells stories that he hopes people will believe.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The only problem is that because he's not as bright as he thinks
he
> >> >> >> is, his audience only exists in the Unionist heartlands of N
Ireland
> >> >> >> and amongst the Sun-readers of England like yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Firstly, I never read the Sun.
> >> >>
> >> >> But you think like it, don't you.
> >>
> >> >No, I'm not a right winger
> >>
> >> So who would you support in Britain?
> >>
> >> Which politician would you favor?
>
> >I've always been a Liberal supporter
>
The British Liberal Democrat party
>
> >> >> >> And they don't have a vote in the Republic.
> >> >>
> >> >> >In a united Ireland, the Unionists would have a vote. Scary though,
> >eh?
> >> >That
> >> >> >what you'd really like?
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unionists as people were never the fundamental problem. It was
British
> >> >> misuse of them that was the real problem.
> >>
> >> >The British barely knew of their existance. What succesive governments
> >did,
> >> >was ignore the human rights abuses that were going on in the past.
> >>
> >> Thereby creating conflict.
>
> >Had the civil rights movment not been superseded by the thugs of the IRA,
> >there would have been a virtually instant end to the conflict
>
> No. It was the British Army's murder of Civil Rights protestors
Not proven, yet
> and
> others that escalated the conflict.
We're not talking about escalation. We're talking about the beginning. The
civil rights movement was gaining massive support and respect on mainland
Britain. The IRA deliberately put an end to that
>
> The Sun version of history doesn't work with informed adults.
Neither does the SF/IRA line. Or the FF line, for that matter
>
> >> > Similar
> >> >the the Irish government down South, that allowed major abuses to
occur.
> >>
> >> Weren't there comparable abuses in Britain?
>
> >Not on anything like the same scale. And anyhow, I'm not just talking
about
> >institutional abuse
>
> What are you talking about that happened in Ireland that didn't happen
> in Britain?
Contraception banned. Any film or publication which even mentioned it
banned. How's that for starters? Want to talk child abuse and the kidnapping
of un-married mothers and the theft of their babies?
>
> >> >> >> All he's achieving is the undermining of the FF vote and that's
what
> >> >> >> McDaid is complaining about.
> >> >>
> >> >> >I'll say it again; McDaid doesn't give a shit about the FF vote.
He's
> >> >only
> >> >> >interested in his own political future
> >> >>
> >> >> His political future is tied to the fortunes of FF.
> >>
> >> >FF isn't in any danger of losing support. Any party that could get
> >elected
> >> >after its previous disgraceful stint in office, has nothing to fear
from
> >> >McDowell
> >>
> >> That's not what the man on the ground thinks. Even Liz O Donnell
> >> thinks that McDowell is going too far.
> >>
> >> The man's a raving lunatic.
> >>
> >> >> You seem to be having serious difficulty grasping that simple point.
> >> >
> >> >You seem to be the one having the difficulty. Do a bit of research on
> >> >McDaid, before you make such statements
> >>
> >> What would research on him tell me about the declining fortunes of FF
> >> and the impact that is likely to have on him?
> >
> >It would give you an insight into the man, and make you realise that I'm
> >right
>
> How could you be right.
Because I know the bastard personally
>
> Himself and FF fortunes go together.
Never heard of Neil Blaney? (another right bastard) He did OK without FF
backing
Howard Beale
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:34:12 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
The party in general
>
> >> >> >> >> And they don't have a vote in the Republic.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In a united Ireland, the Unionists would have a vote. Scary
though,
> >> >eh?
> >> >> >That
> >> >> >> >what you'd really like?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Unionists as people were never the fundamental problem. It was
> >British
> >> >> >> misuse of them that was the real problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The British barely knew of their existance. What succesive
governments
> >> >did,
> >> >> >was ignore the human rights abuses that were going on in the past.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thereby creating conflict.
> >>
> >> >Had the civil rights movment not been superseded by the thugs of the
IRA,
> >> >there would have been a virtually instant end to the conflict
> >>
> >> No. It was the British Army's murder of Civil Rights protestors
>
> >Not proven, yet
>
> It's already proven that they killed innocent people and lied through
> their teeth about it.
So the inquiry is just a waste of time and money?
>
> So like all those of your ilk you are happy to excuse British Army
> murder
Can't recall ever excusing BA murder
> but froth at the mouth about others.
Despite being a magnet for biting dogs, I never foam at the mouth
>
> >> and
> >> others that escalated the conflict.
> >
> >
> >We're not talking about escalation. We're talking about the beginning.
The
> >civil rights movement was gaining massive support and respect on mainland
> >Britain. The IRA deliberately put an end to that
>
> It was the British Army who put an end to it with their murder. The
> IRA were nothing before the British Army started murdering people.
The IRA are still nothing. Mindless murdering scum. And if the BA was so
adept at killing, as you and others keep saying, why weren't all the leaders
taken out decades ago?
>
> >> >> > Similar
> >> >> >the the Irish government down South, that allowed major abuses to
> >occur.
> >> >>
> >> >> Weren't there comparable abuses in Britain?
> >>
> >> >Not on anything like the same scale. And anyhow, I'm not just talking
> >about
> >> >institutional abuse
> >>
> >> What are you talking about that happened in Ireland that didn't happen
> >> in Britain?
>
> >Contraception banned. Any film or publication which even mentioned it
> >banned.
>
> Name them
Daft request
>
> >How's that for starters? Want to talk child abuse and the kidnapping
> >of un-married mothers and the theft of their babies?
>
> You're very ignorant of what was going on in Britain at the time.
>
> The same things were going on and it was the state itself that was
> organizing it.
Yes, some things went on over here, years ago. But, nowhere near on the same
scale as in Ireland, and as recently.
> But McDaid is running on a FF ticket this time. And general FF
> fortunes will have an impact on his vote
Won't make a damn bit of difference to him
>
> So no matter what way you turn, your original comments on the matter
> are no more than your fruitcake fantasies.
The fact is, you're totally ignorant about the way politics work in that
part of the world
Ian
nationalist variety, who do nothing but cut and paste news. How boring, yawn
!!!!!!!!!
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:622d5dd0.04052...@posting.google.com...
Howard Beale
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:15:56 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> OK so, givus an example of who you're talking about?
> >>
> >> >The British Liberal Democrat party
> >>
> >> Who in the Lib Dems are you talking about?
>
> >The party in general
>
> don't seem to share any of their views and you clearly don't know any
> by name.
I've been a Liberal supporter all my adult life. Why would I need to mention
any by name?
>
> You're more of a Tory or BNP supporter.
I've never supported the Tories. I've the same opinion of them as Bill
Oddie. As for the BNP, I've been activly involved against them
> The inquiry has already revealed that.
I'll wait for the final result, if you don't mind
>
> >> So like all those of your ilk you are happy to excuse British Army
> >> murder
> >
> >Can't recall ever excusing BA murder
>
> You're unconcerned about it at best.
I'm concerned about the maiming and killing of innocents, regardless of who
they happen to be
>
> >> but froth at the mouth about others.
>
> >Despite being a magnet for biting dogs, I never foam at the mouth
>
> You've got it in for dogs too
If you'd been bitten as often as me, you'd have it in for them as well
>
> >> >> and
> >> >> others that escalated the conflict.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >We're not talking about escalation. We're talking about the beginning.
> >The
> >> >civil rights movement was gaining massive support and respect on
mainland
> >> >Britain. The IRA deliberately put an end to that
> >>
> >> It was the British Army who put an end to it with their murder. The
> >> IRA were nothing before the British Army started murdering people.
>
> >The IRA are still nothing. Mindless murdering scum.
>
> Even the British Army don't argue that. Quite the reverse.
Not in my experience
> They do say
> that about their Loyalist friends though.
Don't we all
>
> > And if the BA was so adept at killing, as you and others keep saying,
why weren't all the leaders
> >taken out decades ago?
>
> Because they didn't want to kill the leadership. Someone like you
> might think that to be a useful tactic but even the British Army
> aren't that stupid.
Taking out the leadership would destroy the whole organisation. Rank and
file members aren't exactly intelligent
>
> >> >> >> > Similar
> >> >> >> >the the Irish government down South, that allowed major abuses
to
> >> >occur.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Weren't there comparable abuses in Britain?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Not on anything like the same scale. And anyhow, I'm not just
talking
> >> >about
> >> >> >institutional abuse
> >> >>
> >> >> What are you talking about that happened in Ireland that didn't
happen
> >> >> in Britain?
> >>
> >> >Contraception banned. Any film or publication which even mentioned it
> >> >banned.
> >>
> >> Name them
>
> >Daft request
>
> Again you make allegations and you can't back them up.
>
> That's the Sun reader mentality.
The law was the law. Why should I cite specific cases? Totally pointless
>
> >> >How's that for starters? Want to talk child abuse and the kidnapping
> >> >of un-married mothers and the theft of their babies?
> >>
> >> You're very ignorant of what was going on in Britain at the time.
> >>
> >> The same things were going on and it was the state itself that was
> >> organizing it.
>
> >Yes, some things went on over here, years ago. But, nowhere near on the
same
> >scale as in Ireland, and as recently.
>
> So where's your comparative evidence.
Most of it in the media, for anyone to see
>
> It's well known for example that children' homes in the UK were full
> of paedophiles. In fact they'd worked their way into leadership roles
> in the sector.
True, but on nothing like the same scale
>
> So again you just make wild allegations and the reality is at odds
> with them.
All documented for anyone to see, if they wish
> Why not?
Because the voters will vote for who will get them what they personally
want; whether it be the dole, or free medical treatment, or their road
resurfaced
>
> >> So no matter what way you turn, your original comments on the matter
> >> are no more than your fruitcake fantasies.
> >
> >The fact is, you're totally ignorant about the way politics work in that
> >part of the world
>
> It's the same there as everywhere else. People vote and if their party
> share is down then it affects them.
In general, I'd agree. But we're discussing one particular politician. I
know for a fact that you're wrong in this case
>
> You're always trying to pretend that Ireland is some sort of special
> case of every allegation you make.
In some ways it is; and in others it isn't. Either way, Ireland has serious
problems, which aren't going to be helped by accepting mass murderers into
public office
>
> Then when you're asked to back it up you're incapable of doing so.
>
> Obviously you had some bad personal experience there
Nothing that bad
> and you're now
> full of a simmering seething resentment because you just couldn't hack
> it. But I expect you'll have the same problem everywhere you go.
In your dreams
Howard Beale
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 15:06:20 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Terry" <terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:m4scb0lik84kjv52k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:15:56 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> >> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> OK so, givus an example of who you're talking about?
> >> >>
> >> >> >The British Liberal Democrat party
> >> >>
> >> >> Who in the Lib Dems are you talking about?
> >>
> >> >The party in general
> >>
> >> I really find it hard to believe that you're a Lib Dem supporter. You
> >> don't seem to share any of their views and you clearly don't know any
> >> by name.
>
> >I've been a Liberal supporter all my adult life. Why would I need to
mention
> >any by name?
>
I know my local MP quite well
>
> >> You're more of a Tory or BNP supporter.
>
> >I've never supported the Tories. I've the same opinion of them as Bill
> >Oddie.
>
> Tweet, tweet.
>
> >As for the BNP, I've been activly involved against them
>
> Where?
> It's already been revealed.
>
> There's no disputing that those who were killed were innocent and the
> British Army lied about them.
Plenty dispute it (this doesn't include me)
>
> >> >> So like all those of your ilk you are happy to excuse British Army
> >> >> murder
> >> >
> >> >Can't recall ever excusing BA murder
> >>
> >> You're unconcerned about it at best.
>
> >I'm concerned about the maiming and killing of innocents, regardless of
who
> >they happen to be
>
> You support the Israelis
Yes, I do, and make no appology for it
> and probably the war on Iraq too.
We need a military presence out there. I'd have been happier if they'd come
clean about the real reasons for the invasion, but it was necessary
>
> >> >> but froth at the mouth about others.
> >>
> >> >Despite being a magnet for biting dogs, I never foam at the mouth
> >>
> >> You've got it in for dogs too
>
> >If you'd been bitten as often as me, you'd have it in for them as well
>
> How come you get bitten so often?
Same reason I used to trip over badgers in the dark of night, in Donegal. Or
trip over foxes here, and crack ribs....
>
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> others that escalated the conflict.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We're not talking about escalation. We're talking about the
beginning.
> >> >The
> >> >> >civil rights movement was gaining massive support and respect on
> >mainland
> >> >> >Britain. The IRA deliberately put an end to that
> >> >>
> >> >> It was the British Army who put an end to it with their murder. The
> >> >> IRA were nothing before the British Army started murdering people.
> >>
> >> >The IRA are still nothing. Mindless murdering scum.
> >>
> >> Even the British Army don't argue that. Quite the reverse.
>
> >Not in my experience
>
> It's what the leaders have said
I don't know any leaders (although I do know a spook)
>
> >> They do say
> >> that about their Loyalist friends though.
>
> >Don't we all
>
> >> > And if the BA was so adept at killing, as you and others keep saying,
> >why weren't all the leaders
> >> >taken out decades ago?
> >>
> >> Because they didn't want to kill the leadership. Someone like you
> >> might think that to be a useful tactic but even the British Army
> >> aren't that stupid.
>
> >Taking out the leadership would destroy the whole organisation.
>
> But they wouldn't want to do that because it's not a wise thing to do.
>
> You only think it's a sensible option because you've been hoodwinked
> into a naive view of things.
I'm not the SF supporter
> It's just the same as when the Americans
> destroyed the Iraqi security infrastructure. The British cautioned
> against that but the Americans went ahead because they have a
> simplistic world view. Now they're having to build the whole thing up
> again using the same people who were there in the first place.
Post WW2 Germany comes to mind
>
> >> >> >> >> > Similar
> >> >> >> >> >the the Irish government down South, that allowed major
abuses
> >to
> >> >> >occur.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Weren't there comparable abuses in Britain?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Not on anything like the same scale. And anyhow, I'm not just
> >talking
> >> >> >about
> >> >> >> >institutional abuse
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What are you talking about that happened in Ireland that didn't
> >happen
> >> >> >> in Britain?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Contraception banned. Any film or publication which even mentioned
it
> >> >> >banned.
> >> >>
> >> >> Name them
> >>
> >> >Daft request
> >>
> >> Again you make allegations and you can't back them up.
> >>
> >> That's the Sun reader mentality.
>
> >The law was the law. Why should I cite specific cases? Totally pointless
>
> What about all the films you were on about?
What about them? Anything filmed or printed that contained references to
contraception, was banned.
Also, I remember after the X case, I couldn't even get my Sunday Times,
because the customs had seized them at the border.
>
> >> >> >How's that for starters? Want to talk child abuse and the
kidnapping
> >> >> >of un-married mothers and the theft of their babies?
> >> >>
> >> >> You're very ignorant of what was going on in Britain at the time.
> >> >>
> >> >> The same things were going on and it was the state itself that was
> >> >> organizing it.
> >>
> >> >Yes, some things went on over here, years ago. But, nowhere near on
the
> >same
> >> >scale as in Ireland, and as recently.
> >>
> >> So where's your comparative evidence.
>
> >Most of it in the media, for anyone to see
>
> That means nothing.
>
> Where's your evidence?
Google is your friend
>
> >> It's well known for example that children' homes in the UK were full
> >> of paedophiles. In fact they'd worked their way into leadership roles
> >> in the sector.
>
> >True, but on nothing like the same scale
>
> Where's the evidence?
>
> >> So again you just make wild allegations and the reality is at odds
> >> with them.
>
> >All documented for anyone to see, if they wish
>
> Where?
Google is your friend
> You mean clientelism?
>
> Why didn't you say that in the first place.
>
> >> >> So no matter what way you turn, your original comments on the matter
> >> >> are no more than your fruitcake fantasies.
> >> >
> >> >The fact is, you're totally ignorant about the way politics work in
that
> >> >part of the world
> >>
> >> It's the same there as everywhere else. People vote and if their party
> >> share is down then it affects them.
>
> >In general, I'd agree. But we're discussing one particular politician. I
> >know for a fact that you're wrong in this case
>
> >> You're always trying to pretend that Ireland is some sort of special
> >> case of every allegation you make.
>
> >In some ways it is; and in others it isn't. Either way, Ireland has
serious
> >problems,
>
> You've no comparative evidence at all. It's just hot air so far.
>
> >which aren't going to be helped by accepting mass murderers into
> >public office
>
> Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon and Bush amongst others are in office.
> Kissinger was in office for years. It's not unusual. And the IRA are
> peanuts compared to them. I think you're just a bit naive about how
> things work.
Legitimate heads of state (Kissenger excepted) at war. Hardly comparable
Howard Beale
"Terry" <Terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449fb055k8ld11bg6...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:47:55 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Do you know any of them, and if so who?
>
> >I know my local MP quite well
>
>
> But the things you post seem to undermine that somewhat.
>
> You views are not those of a Liberal Democrat. You're singularly
> incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever for any of your
> opinions.
>
> So what you say you are is at odds with how you actually present
> yourself. Just like your opinions. There's no evidence at all to
> support anything you say.
FFS, the evidence is staring you in the face. Any Irish media site is full
of it
BfB
"Howard Beale" <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote in message
news:c98k2v$18q$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Terry" <Terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:449fb055k8ld11bg6...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:47:55 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> > <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Do you know any of them, and if so who?
> >
> > >I know my local MP quite well
> >
> > You like to give the impression that you're very well connected.
> >
> > But the things you post seem to undermine that somewhat.
> >
> > You views are not those of a Liberal Democrat. You're singularly
> > incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever for any of your
> > opinions.
> >
> > So what you say you are is at odds with how you actually present
> > yourself. Just like your opinions. There's no evidence at all to
> > support anything you say.
>
people say, unlike, say, u.
BfB
Howard Beale
"BfB" <_@-._> wrote in message news:OZednfxQ3OR...@adelphia.com...
I think he's done enough personal bitching about me, to qualify as a bitch
Anyhow, I'm done arguing for a week or two. Way too busy with more important
stuff
Howard Beale
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:04:48 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Terry" <Terr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:449fb055k8ld11bg6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:47:55 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> >> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Do you know any of them, and if so who?
> >>
> >> >I know my local MP quite well
> >>
> >> You like to give the impression that you're very well connected.
> >>
> >> But the things you post seem to undermine that somewhat.
> >>
> >> You views are not those of a Liberal Democrat. You're singularly
> >> incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever for any of your
> >> opinions.
> >>
> >> So what you say you are is at odds with how you actually present
> >> yourself. Just like your opinions. There's no evidence at all to
> >> support anything you say.
> >
> >
> >FFS, the evidence is staring you in the face. Any Irish media site is
full
> >of it
>
> comparative evidence we'd need.
Why should I, when everything is public knowledge?
>
> Your continual complaint is that Ireland is always an especially bad
> case of whatever you're moaning about.
Others say worse. Tackle them for a change
Howard Beale
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:21:56 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Anyhow, I'm done arguing for a week or two. Way too busy with more
important
> >stuff
>
Not particularly important
>
> It's just a pity that the things you think and your complete
> inability to support them so undermines the picture you'd like to
> present of yourself.
Strange that you continue to argue, then. I'm done arguing for now. I'll
resume later
Howard Beale
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:58:25 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Beale"
> There's really no such thing as public knowledge. There's what media
> present and what people think, and neither of those are very reliable.
>
> The other thing is that you have had serious evidence presented which
> contradicts what you think and all you could say in response to that
> was some pathetic attempt to undermine those who produced that work.
>
> That's quite funny coming from someone who produces no evidence at
> all, nor do you even seen to understand what evidence is.
>
> Basically all you do uis think what you want to think and you're
> unconcerned about whether there's evidence to support it or not.
>
> It's just not good enough.
It's good enough for everyone else, so tough titty