|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 27, 2007 23:05:19 GMT
Your question is still not comparable.
There is no mayor in Dublin that supported those bombs.
There IS a mayor/deputy mayor (same buckin thing) that supported the IRA.
They cant be compared in any way .
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 28, 2007 18:19:28 GMT
Fair enough Setanta if you are saying you would not complain about or object to someone turning on the lights in Dublin that supported the Dublin bombings etc then fair play to you on that.
BTW why was he there in Conroy's?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 29, 2007 20:21:16 GMT
I never asked did you have a problem with him being in Dublin, I asked would you have a problem if the likes of him were to turn on the Christmas tree lights in Dublin if he was deputy mayor or whatever?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 29, 2007 20:57:24 GMT
How is he meant to answer that? Billy Hutchinson isnt the deputy mayor of Dublin city. When mayors are elected they have a job to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Nov 30, 2007 20:34:00 GMT
So if he was elected you would have no problem or objection to him turning on the lights in Dublin. Simple yes or no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 1, 2007 4:21:26 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Dec 1, 2007 15:19:17 GMT
Fair enough Jim. Now I would say there are those who would have the same attitude or opinion as yourself, but there are also others who have the opposite opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 1, 2007 16:38:13 GMT
Ofcourse there would, but I find it pointless. We're trying to build a new era (or some of us are at least) and people need to accept that SF are here to stay as long as we elect them. People that cant get on with things are as bad as the IRA or UVF in my opinion, they where the type of people that allowed the political crisis to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Dec 1, 2007 17:00:35 GMT
Jim sf have a hell of alot of work to do to try and build trust, infact they have there work cut out to prove that they are even just genuine. All the things that have been going on such as Paul Quinns murder is reinforcing the opposite effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 1, 2007 19:08:31 GMT
Yes, they do have a hell of a lot of work to do, but people need to be willing to accept this work and this change and some just dont want to know. They are in turn, the problem. If it was up to people like this, the "moral" lot, we'd be back to shoot each other because the alternatives would be lost and it makes them look more important, up on their pedistal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Dec 2, 2007 2:24:32 GMT
Well the people of Ireland answered this in the elections by giving sin fein the heave ho and fair play to them. I have been critical of the republics lack of support fighting republican terrorists on extradition etc, but I stand corrected on feeling perhaps there is alot of sympathy for the ira in the republic. The voters proved that they have no time for the likes of terrorist parties no matter who they are. Pity the people of N.Ireland could not follow their example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 2, 2007 3:59:20 GMT
If you had a clue about the election you'd know sinn feins vote went up, it was just split across constituencies. they gained more actual votes than they did in the previous election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Dec 2, 2007 7:39:29 GMT
to be exact they gained 142,000 votes which was 6.9 % up on the number they had in the last election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Dec 2, 2007 12:55:28 GMT
Yes but how many more candidates did they run in constituencies that they had never run in before?
The extra votes were most likely from people who would have also voted SF in past years, but had not had the chance to do so.
So to say their overall votes went up is correct, but to link that to an increase in their overall popularity would be incorrect.
In areas (as far as I know) where SFs votes could be directly compared to previous years, their votes went down. But I do not have the exact figures to hand and I am open to correction. I just remember reading about it after the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 2, 2007 18:52:47 GMT
Yes but how many more candidates did they run in constituencies that they had never run in before? The extra votes were most likely from people who would have also voted SF in past years, but had not had the chance to do so. So to say their overall votes went up is correct, but to link that to an increase in their overall popularity would be incorrect. In areas (as far as I know) where SFs votes could be directly compared to previous years, their votes went down. But I do not have the exact figures to hand and I am open to correction. I just remember reading about it after the election. Thats another way to interprept it |
|
