Sinn Fein was dormant to the point of non-existence for many years, mate.
There is an obvious historical link between the 1910s version and the post-1970 version, but they are different incarnations.
You made an obviously ignorant point about Sinn Fein - “it been baby steps for them since 1922” and you were called out on the historical ignorance of that point. Get over it.
You’re right, FG played their part in the 1916 rising, some on the Helga, some in the Sherwood Forrester’s and the rest being firing parties for Maxwell.
Sinn Fein tabled the motion of no confidence in Frances Fitzgerald that ultimately brought her down.
Were it not for that motion of no confidence we’d still have a Tanaiste who participated in the cover up of a high level Garda smear campaign to paint Maurice McCabe as a child abuser - Fine Gael and Fianna Fail would have been just fine with that, until Sinn Fein’s principled stance forced the Fianna Gaelers to scuttle like rats from a sinking ship.
We should all be thankful that we have a political party with the guts to call out such corruption.
Dormant does not mean gone.
SF directly celebrated the 1905 foundation & tried to hijack the 1916 celebarations as their own.
Your claims do not stand up to their own party claims.
The party that represents SF today are just one branch of the Republicans who eventually got on the Democracy train.
1922 CnG now FG rump, Anti side retain the name SF
1926 FF Party, Anti side retains the name SF
1970, Sinn Féin splits. One side takes half a step to democracy
1986, further split. One side takes baby steps to Democracy
They are slow learners who follow everyone else’s lead.
Like Gerry forgetting to tell the Irish police force about his niece’s claims yeah?
You’re trying to defend the indefensible, pal. It’s not a good look. I know you’re very annoyed Frances Fiitzegerald is gone but try and get over it.
Also, you’re resorting to whataboutery - it shows you up as a terribly weak poster.
Where did I defend Francis Fitzgerald?
I asked you why are they “principled” for some and not for themselves?
The headline in the London Times in 1916 called it the Sinn Fein rebellion in Dublin
It was widely called the Sinn Fein rebellion at the time. The Irish Times produced a book of the Sinn Fein rebellion in 1917.
Based upon the last couple of weeks - I think anyone relying on U.K. Media to accurately portray anything in Ireland is being somewhat reckless
If you’re going to defend her you could at least get her name right.
A party that calls out indefensible corruption and the cover up of such, and sets a chain of events in motion where Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, who didn’t want to confront the reality of such, are forced by dint of public opinion to do so, is taking a principled stand by any understanding of the phrase.
As are superb, principled independent TDs like Mick Wallace and Clare Daly.
Where did I defend her?
I asked how you can say they are principled on some issues when they don’t practice what they preach?
I think you’re getting confused here.
Sinn Fein haven’t participated at all in the cover up over Maurice McCabe.
That’s your beloved Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.
Huh? I’m not defending either on the issue.
I was directly addressing your point about Sinn Féin being principled and asking you how that was the case?
Sweep sweep
They prefer to cover up cops with 6ft of clay
Sinn Fein have always taken correct and principled stands over matters relating to Gardai with the surname McCabe. 
Nigel Dodds has accused Sylvia Hermon of “being on Dublin’s side” in the Brexit negotiations for tabling an amendment to get the Good Friday Agreement written into the Brexit bill.
Maybe Lady Sylvia Hermon/IRA could yet prove to be a new Countess Markievicz.
The Brits are like some lads on here just lashing out all over the place.
Dear Theresa
We welcomed your visit to Belfast on 25 July to discuss the iiiplicatìons of the recent EU referendum result with us. It was a constructive engagement following on from the British Irish Council meeting In Cardiff on 22 July.
Since our meeting we have noted your stated intent to trigger Article 50 early in 2017 and we wish to reiterate our full commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for the people of Northern Ireland. In this context we are reassured by your commitment that we will be fully involved and represented in the negotiations on the terms of our future relationships with the EU and other countries. We regard this as a fundamental prerequisite of a meaningful and mclusive negotiation process.
In preparation for the negotiations we have conducted an initial assessment that has highlighted a number of issues which are of particular significance to us.
Firstly, and most obviously, this region is unique in that it is the only part of the UK which has a land border with an EU member state. There have been difficult issues relating to the border throughout our history and the peace process. We therefore appreciate your stated determination that the border will not become an impediment to the movement of people, goods and services. It must not become a catalyst for illegal activity or compromise in any way the arrangements relating to criminal justice and tackling organized crime. It is equally important that the border does not create an incentive for those who would wish to undermine the peace process and I or the political settlement. The border also has particular significance for the agri-food sector and animal health.
Secondly, it is critical to our economy that our businesses, both indigenous and FDI companies, retain their competitiveness and do not incur additional costs. We therefore need to retain as far as possible the ease with which we currently trade with EU member states and, also importantly retain access to labour. Policies need to be sufficiently flexible to allow access to unskilled as well as highly skilled labour. This applies not only to businesses and the private sector but also to public sector employers who are heavily dependent on EU and other migrant labour, There is also the matter of the many thousands of people who commute each way across the border to work on a daily basis.
Thirdly, energy is a key priority, given that there are inherent cost and supply issues in a small isolated market so we will need to ensure that nothing in the negotiation process undermines this vital aspect of our economy.
Fourthly, EU funds have been hugely important to our economy and the peace process. Since 1994, for example we have benefited to the tune of €13 billion of funding from Europe and during the period 2014-2020 we would expect to draw down over €3.5 billion. The current uncertainty around the ability to draw down a proportion of these funds, and the absence of EU programmes in the future is of real concern to a range of sectors.
A further key issue for us the agri-food sector, including fisheries which represent a much more important component of our regional economy than it does for the UK as a whole, This is reflected in the fact that approximately 10% at UK receipts from the CAP accrue to Northern Ireland (accounting for the majority of our EU funding) and a large proportion of our food and agricultural output is exported to other EU and non-EU countries. Our agri-food sector, and hence our wider economy, is therefore uniquely vulnerable both to the loss of EU funding, end to potential tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.
We have had constructive initial discussions with the Irish Government through the NSMC, and wish to play our part in the engagement between the two Governments on the unique aspects of negotiations that arise from the border, recognising the possibility that it cannot be guaranteed that outcomes that suit our common interests are ultimately deliverable. We wish to have full access to that intergovernmental process as the border Issues affecting trade, employment, energy and potential criminality are of such high significance for us.
These are our initial thoughts and we look forward to further engagement with you on these matters. It will also be important to proactivety seek out opportunities in any new arrangements that would be of benefit to the UK and its regions. No doubt each region will have its own priorities.
We are copying this letter to Boris Johnson, Amber Rudd, David Davis, Uam Fox. James Brokenshire. Greg Clark, Andrea Leadsom, Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones.
Yours sincerely
Martin McGuniess
Arlene Foster