Will you vote for Fianna Fail?

[Rossfan]

. Adams still manages to antagonise his 'enemies' on a regular basis.

I suspect a lot of those "enemies" are antogonised by his very existence ( or ,for some e,g TUV, the fact that he and his military associates are still not engaged in violence)

[lawnseed]

Gerry's past was controversial, to say the very least

So was Nelson Mandela's.

Gerry Adams is no Nelson Mandela.

The only Irish person that comes close is John Hume.

What..?

[Lar Naparka]

Gerry's past was controversial, to say the very least

So was Nelson Mandela's.

and few if any believe his denial of involvement ion the abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the other Disappeared.

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above? Is it because Brendan Hughes (who despised Adams in recent years) said so or have you got other evidence? (And I mean evidence, not "the media keeping telling me so"). I assume you also totally believe that Jean McConville was an informer then and that "few if any would doubt it"?

Nice to have you back again, Nally.
As always, I'll give you ten out of ten for devotion to the cause. But, as per ditto, I'll give you sweet FA for sticking to the point.
Lawnseed posed a simple question and I attempted too answer it.

Here it is once again as you don't appear to have read it:

Then the question is simple. Would voters be happier if gerry wasnt the leader of sinn fein?

From what I've seen read and heard, I gave him what I believe is the majority view.
As he wasn't looking for my personal opinions on anything relating to Gerry or SF, I took care not to give mine at any stage in my reply.

I gave you no grounds for assuming anything concerning my attitude to Adams or any other Shinner for that matter.
So I hope to be excused when I say I won't bother me arse trying to make sense out of this:

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above? Is it because Brendan Hughes (who despised Adams in recent years) said so or have you got other evidence? (And I mean evidence, not "the media keeping telling me so"). I assume you also totally believe that Jean McConville was an informer then and that "few if any would doubt it"?

PS.
WTF has Nelson Mandela got to with the public's perception of Gerry Adams?
ASAIK, Nelson Mandela never stood for election of any sort in the republic and you may take it for granted that he won't be doing so at any time in the future.

[Lar Naparka]

I'd say if you did a vox pop anywhere in the south right now, less than 5% of the public would have a clue about SF's policies on the bailout, emigration, education and all other issues than concern us.

Sinn Fein in the South remind me some people in our community who would be big GAA people, know everything about the game inside out. They would also be involved with the local soccer club where they would give a hand in running it. But unlike the GAA which is second nature from birth, they have came on this game later in life, the culture is not in their bones and they struggle to get a grip it's mindset of a different sport.

They have a website.. They have councillors/tds/meetings would yez not get motivated about your own country/future and try to find out something before ye follow the sheep into the polling booth

To be fair to SF, they appear to be very active at grass roots level. There is no shortage of committed canvassers, poster hangers, door knockers etc. and their local councillors are more likely to follow up on issues raised by their constituents than those of any of the other parties.
Their biggest problem, |IMO, is that their vote is concentrated in what you might call urban ghettoes and in border constituencies. They don't have countrywide support.
Their councillors and canvassers will be kept busy all the time in, say, Finglas South but the turn out at general elections is well below the national average.
Support on the door step is fine but SF's doesn't translate well into support in the polling booth.
Websites are all very well but to make use of them you need to be computer literate and a high percentage of SF's potential ain't too hot in that regard. Having said all that, people down here are very disillusioned with the political process at present and if a party came along with the right policies, anything could happen.
If the Shinners are to make gains, they'd need a change of leader to begin with. I'd say Pearse Doherty or Marylou would have broader appeal than the present incumbent. No offence to Gerry but I've already given you my reasons for saying that he is holding the party back.

[Nally Stand]

Gerry's past was controversial, to say the very least

So was Nelson Mandela's.

and few if any believe his denial of involvement ion the abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the other Disappeared.

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above? Is it because Brendan Hughes (who despised Adams in recent years) said so or have you got other evidence? (And I mean evidence, not "the media keeping telling me so"). I assume you also totally believe that Jean McConville was an informer then and that "few if any would doubt it"?

Nice to have you back again, Nally.
As always, I'll give you ten out of ten for devotion to the cause. But, as per ditto, I'll give you sweet FA for sticking to the point.
Lawnseed posed a simple question and I attempted too answer it.

Here it is once again as you don't appear to have read it:

Then the question is simple. Would voters be happier if gerry wasnt the leader of sinn fein?

From what I've seen read and heard, I gave him what I believe is the majority view.
As he wasn't looking for my personal opinions on anything relating to Gerry or SF, I took care not to give mine at any stage in my reply.

I gave you no grounds for assuming anything concerning my attitude to Adams or any other Shinner for that matter.
So I hope to be excused when I say I won't bother me arse trying to make sense out of this:

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above? Is it because Brendan Hughes (who despised Adams in recent years) said so or have you got other evidence? (And I mean evidence, not "the media keeping telling me so"). I assume you also totally believe that Jean McConville was an informer then and that "few if any would doubt it"?

PS.
WTF has Nelson Mandela got to with the public's perception of Gerry Adams?
ASAIK, Nelson Mandela never stood for election of any sort in the republic and you may take it for granted that he won't be doing so at any time in the future.

That's a long winded way of avoiding my questions.

[Nally Stand]

Gerry's past was controversial, to say the very least

So was Nelson Mandela's.

Gerry Adams is no Nelson Mandela.

The only Irish person that comes close is John Hume.

Sweet f**k! Revisionism has just reached a spectacular new height here!! Normally, freestate-ism annoys me, but sometimes it's just f***ing hilarious!!! John Hume more similar to Nelson Mandela than Adams is?! FFS!!!

You look at Mandela and only see a former 'terrorist'.

That is very sad.

Such sanctimonious crap. I am more than aware of Madiba's story. Your comparison of him with Hume shows you don't see him as never having been a "terrorist". Though I'd use the term ("Freedom Fighter").

[Lar Naparka]

Gerry's past was controversial, to say the very least

So was Nelson Mandela's.

and few if any believe his denial of involvement ion the abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the other Disappeared.

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above? Is it because Brendan Hughes (who despised Adams in recent years) said so or have you got other evidence? (And I mean evidence, not "the media keeping telling me so"). I assume you also totally believe that Jean McConville was an informer then and that "few if any would doubt it"?

Nice to have you back again, Nally.
As always, I'll give you ten out of ten for devotion to the cause. But, as per ditto, I'll give you sweet FA for sticking to the point.
Lawnseed posed a simple question and I attempted too answer it.

Here it is once again as you don't appear to have read it:

Then the question is simple. Would voters be happier if gerry wasnt the leader of sinn fein?

From what I've seen read and heard, I gave him what I believe is the majority view.
As he wasn't looking for my personal opinions on anything relating to Gerry or SF, I took care not to give mine at any stage in my reply.

I gave you no grounds for assuming anything concerning my attitude to Adams or any other Shinner for that matter.
So I hope to be excused when I say I won't bother me arse trying to make sense out of this:

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above? Is it because Brendan Hughes (who despised Adams in recent years) said so or have you got other evidence? (And I mean evidence, not "the media keeping telling me so"). I assume you also totally believe that Jean McConville was an informer then and that "few if any would doubt it"?

PS.
WTF has Nelson Mandela got to with the public's perception of Gerry Adams?
ASAIK, Nelson Mandela never stood for election of any sort in the republic and you may take it for granted that he won't be doing so at any time in the future.

That's a long winded way of avoiding my questions.

Ah, Jaysus, here we go again!
You sure belong to the "And have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of debate.
I thought I had gone to idiot-proof lengths to explain to you that I was speaking of the general public's perception of Gerry the political leader and I was not giving a personal opinion of any sort.
Obviously, I didn't go far enough.
For the record, I do have a great deal of respect for his abilities as a statesman and as a peacemaker. I think history will be kind to Gerry Adams and his role in bringing about the cessation of violence will be acknowledged but that's a generation or more down the line.
What I have said above is irrelevant in the present context.  My opinions about Gerry Adams weren't asked for by lawnseed and I didn't give any.
You appear to think otherwise.
Otherwise, I can't make sense of this:

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above?
Why do you assume that I believe this since I did not express a personal opinion of any sort?

Is it because Brendan Hughes (who despised Adams in recent years) said so or have you got other evidence? (And I mean evidence, not "the media keeping telling me so").
Why should I attempt to defend something I never said?

I assume you also totally believe that Jean McConville was an informer then and that "few if any would doubt it"?
What grounds have you for making that assumption?

You show me where I said anything to suggest I was giving my personal opinions about anything to lawnseed and I'll be quite happy to enlighten you on anything that is causing you problems.

Same as before, Nally, either put up or shut up.

[Nally Stand]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

[Lar Naparka]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll give you a straight answer.

No, I doubt very much that he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville but I also doubt that he's telling the whole truth.
I wouldn't claim either to be a fact as I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

[Nally Stand]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll give you a straight answer.

No, I doubt very much that he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville but I also doubt that he's telling the whole truth.
I wouldn't claim either to be a fact as I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?

[Lar Naparka]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll give you a straight answer.

No, I doubt very much that he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville but I also doubt that he's telling the whole truth.
I wouldn't claim either to be a fact as I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?

Does it matter?
Since I made no claims of any sort about Adams and/or his activities when I attempted to answer a simple question from lawnseed, I don't see why I should need to explain my personal beliefs to anyone.
But all of this is getting away from the central point at issue here, isn't it?
You still haven't pointed out what it is in my reply to lawnseed that indicates that I personally believe anything about Gerry Adams.
If and when you do that, I'll have a go at explaining anything you want if it bothers you in any way.

[Nally Stand]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll give you a straight answer.

No, I doubt very much that he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville but I also doubt that he's telling the whole truth.
I wouldn't claim either to be a fact as I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?

Does it matter?
Since I made no claims of any sort about Adams and/or his activities when I attempted to answer a simple question from lawnseed, I don't see why I should need to explain my personal beliefs to anyone.
But all of this is getting away from the central point at issue here, isn't it?
You still haven't pointed out what it is in my reply to lawnseed that indicates that I personally believe anything about Gerry Adams.
If and when you do that, I'll have a go at explaining anything you want if it bothers you in any way.

If your remark that:

few if any believe his denial of involvement in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the other Disappeared.

wasn't you implying that you believe he was involved in Jean McConville's disappearance, then fair enough. Though it does seem odd that you then claimed not to believe the accusations that he was involved, despite you stating in the above post that quite possibly nobody believes he wasn't involved in it.

As for why you should respond to my question, "Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?", well, of course you don't have to answer; but it's a discussion board, and you've been happy enough to discuss the topic and your "personal beliefs" on it, up as far as the last question. If you're happy enough to put forward the idea that he's lying about his involvement, then surely you should have no reason to go all quiet when asked to elaborate.

[Lar Naparka]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll give you a straight answer.

No, I doubt very much that he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville but I also doubt that he's telling the whole truth.
I wouldn't claim either to be a fact as I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?

Does it matter?
Since I made no claims of any sort about Adams and/or his activities when I attempted to answer a simple question from lawnseed, I don't see why I should need to explain my personal beliefs to anyone.
But all of this is getting away from the central point at issue here, isn't it?
You still haven't pointed out what it is in my reply to lawnseed that indicates that I personally believe anything about Gerry Adams.
If and when you do that, I'll have a go at explaining anything you want if it bothers you in any way.

If your remark that:

few if any believe his denial of involvement in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the other Disappeared.

wasn't you implying that you believe he was involved in Jean McConville's disappearance, then fair enough. Though it does seem odd that you then claimed not to believe the accusations that he was involved, despite you stating in the above post that quite possibly nobody believes he wasn't involved in it.

As for why you should respond to my question, "Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?", well, of course you don't have to answer; but it's a discussion board, and you've been happy enough to discuss the topic and your "personal beliefs" on it, up as far as the last question. If you're happy enough to put forward the idea that he's lying about his involvement, then surely you should have no reason to go all quiet when asked to elaborate.

Nah, I wasn't. I tried hard to make sure I wasn't giving any sort of a personal opinion/ belief or whatever when I replied to lawnseed.
He asked a question about voters in general and I replied in kind. I do believe that what I stated represents the majority view and nothing else.

Ater that, I'm not sure what you are looking for. Take this (your question) for instance.

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above?

Now, (in my reply to lawnseed,) I said nothing of the sort.
For the umpteenth time, I told him what I believed was the majority view; nothing more and nothing less.
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the above question.

Here again:
"If you're happy enough to put forward the idea that he's lying about his involvement..."

The fact that I believe he isn't telling the whole truth about (his knowledge of) Jean McConvile's disappearance stops a long way short of accusing him of being directly involved.
And here also:
then surely you should have no reason to go all quiet when asked to elaborate.
I never said anything of the sort.
I don't think I used the expression "quite possibly nobody" either. I used "few, if any" which isn't the same thing.
You show me where I said anything to suggest I was giving my personal opinions about anything to lawnseed and I'll be quite happy to enlighten you on anything that is causing you problems.

That's all I wrote and that's what I'll stand over.

[Nally Stand]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll give you a straight answer.

No, I doubt very much that he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville but I also doubt that he's telling the whole truth.
I wouldn't claim either to be a fact as I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?

Does it matter?
Since I made no claims of any sort about Adams and/or his activities when I attempted to answer a simple question from lawnseed, I don't see why I should need to explain my personal beliefs to anyone.
But all of this is getting away from the central point at issue here, isn't it?
You still haven't pointed out what it is in my reply to lawnseed that indicates that I personally believe anything about Gerry Adams.
If and when you do that, I'll have a go at explaining anything you want if it bothers you in any way.

If your remark that:

few if any believe his denial of involvement in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the other Disappeared.

wasn't you implying that you believe he was involved in Jean McConville's disappearance, then fair enough. Though it does seem odd that you then claimed not to believe the accusations that he was involved, despite you stating in the above post that quite possibly nobody believes he wasn't involved in it.

As for why you should respond to my question, "Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?", well, of course you don't have to answer; but it's a discussion board, and you've been happy enough to discuss the topic and your "personal beliefs" on it, up as far as the last question. If you're happy enough to put forward the idea that he's lying about his involvement, then surely you should have no reason to go all quiet when asked to elaborate.

Nah, I wasn't. I tried hard to make sure I wasn't giving any sort of a personal opinion/ belief or whatever when I replied to lawnseed.
He asked a question about voters in general and I replied in kind. I do believe that what I stated represents the majority view and nothing else.

Ater that, I'm not sure what you are looking for. Take this (your question) for instance.

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above?

Now, (in my reply to lawnseed,) I said nothing of the sort.
For the umpteenth time, I told him what I believed was the majority view; nothing more and nothing less.
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the above question.

Here again:
"If you're happy enough to put forward the idea that he's lying about his involvement..."

The fact that I believe he isn't telling the whole truth about (his knowledge of) Jean McConvile's disappearance stops a long way short of accusing him of being directly involved.
And here also:
then surely you should have no reason to go all quiet when asked to elaborate.
I never said anything of the sort.
I don't think I used the expression "quite possibly nobody" either. I used "few, if any" which isn't the same thing.
You show me where I said anything to suggest I was giving my personal opinions about anything to lawnseed and I'll be quite happy to enlighten you on anything that is causing you problems.

That's all I wrote and that's what I'll stand over.

You said that "few, if any believe his denial of involvement in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville". This is exactly the same as saying that "quite possibly nobody believes" he wasn't involved. "If any" implies that there may just be "nobody" who believes him. And your later stated view that he wasn't directly involved kinda contradicts the "if any" part of your "few, if any" remark, doesn't it?

[LeoMc]

Do you think he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville?

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll give you a straight answer.

No, I doubt very much that he was involved in the disappearance of Jean McConville but I also doubt that he's telling the whole truth.
I wouldn't claim either to be a fact as I have no hard evidence one way or the other.

Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?

Does it matter?
Since I made no claims of any sort about Adams and/or his activities when I attempted to answer a simple question from lawnseed, I don't see why I should need to explain my personal beliefs to anyone.
But all of this is getting away from the central point at issue here, isn't it?
You still haven't pointed out what it is in my reply to lawnseed that indicates that I personally believe anything about Gerry Adams.
If and when you do that, I'll have a go at explaining anything you want if it bothers you in any way.

If your remark that:

few if any believe his denial of involvement in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville and the other Disappeared.

wasn't you implying that you believe he was involved in Jean McConville's disappearance, then fair enough. Though it does seem odd that you then claimed not to believe the accusations that he was involved, despite you stating in the above post that quite possibly nobody believes he wasn't involved in it.

As for why you should respond to my question, "Which part of his denial of involvement in it do you think he is not telling the full truth on?", well, of course you don't have to answer; but it's a discussion board, and you've been happy enough to discuss the topic and your "personal beliefs" on it, up as far as the last question. If you're happy enough to put forward the idea that he's lying about his involvement, then surely you should have no reason to go all quiet when asked to elaborate.

Nah, I wasn't. I tried hard to make sure I wasn't giving any sort of a personal opinion/ belief or whatever when I replied to lawnseed.
He asked a question about voters in general and I replied in kind. I do believe that what I stated represents the majority view and nothing else.

Ater that, I'm not sure what you are looking for. Take this (your question) for instance.

Why do you personally believe he was involved in the above?

Now, (in my reply to lawnseed,) I said nothing of the sort.
For the umpteenth time, I told him what I believed was the majority view; nothing more and nothing less.
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the above question.

Here again:
"If you're happy enough to put forward the idea that he's lying about his involvement..."

The fact that I believe he isn't telling the whole truth about (his knowledge of) Jean McConvile's disappearance stops a long way short of accusing him of being directly involved.
And here also:
then surely you should have no reason to go all quiet when asked to elaborate.
I never said anything of the sort.
I don't think I used the expression "quite possibly nobody" either. I used "few, if any" which isn't the same thing.
You show me where I said anything to suggest I was giving my personal opinions about anything to lawnseed and I'll be quite happy to enlighten you on anything that is causing you problems.

That's all I wrote and that's what I'll stand over.

You said that "few, if any believe his denial of involvement in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville". This is exactly the same as saying that "quite possibly nobody believes" he wasn't involved. "If any" implies that there may just be "nobody" who believes him. And your later stated view that he wasn't directly involved kinda contradicts the "if any" part of your "few, if any" remark, doesn't it?

So are you are pulling Lar up on using "Few, if any" as this implies that no one believes Gerry had any involvement whilst Lar has stated that he doesn't believe the had direct involvement?