Thurles Information

Tougher Than The Rest.

Lyrics & Vocals: American singer, songwriter and guitarist, the great and much loved Bruce Frederick Joseph Springsteen.

“Tougher Than the Rest” is one of those quiet, steady songs that hits harder the longer you sit with it. Instead of grand promises or perfect romance, it offers something rarer, honesty. The narrator doesn’t pretend to be flawless or invincible, he admits he’s been hurt, that he’s made mistakes, and that love can be messy. But even with all that, he still shows up, asking for a chance and offering loyalty that feels earned rather than romanticized. With its slow-burn mood and plainspoken tenderness, the song turns resilience into a love language, suggesting that what matters most isn’t being perfect, it’s being willing to stay.

Tougher Than The Rest.

Well, it’s Saturday night,
You’re all dressed up in blue,
I been watching you a while,
Maybe you been watching me, too.
So somebody ran out,
Left somebody’s heart in a mess,
Well, if you’re looking for love,
Honey, I’m tougher than the rest.

Some girls, they want a handsome Dan,
Or some good-lookin’ Joe,
On their arm, some girls,
Like a sweet-talkin’ Romeo.
Well, ’round here, baby,
I learned you get what you can get,
So if you’re rough enough for love,
Honey, I’m tougher than the rest.

Your road is dark it’s a thin, thin line,
But I want you to know I’ll walk it for you any time,
Maybe your other boyfriends couldn’t pass the test,
Well, if you’re rough and ready for love,
Honey, I’m tougher than the rest.

Your road is dark it’s a thin, thin line,
But I want you to know I’ll walk it for you any time,
Maybe your other boyfriends couldn’t pass the test,
Well, if you’re rough and ready for love,
Honey, I’m tougher than the rest.

Well, it ain’t no secret,
I’ve been around a time or two.
Well, I don’t know, baby,
Maybe you’ve been around too.
Well, there’s another dance,
All you gotta do is say yes,
And if you’re rough and ready for love.
Honey, I’m tougher than the rest.

If you’re rough enough for love,
Baby, I’m tougher than the rest.

END.

Boycott calls by Sinn Féin would punish Irish players and hand UEFA a sanction hammer.

The row over Ireland’s upcoming Nations League ties against Israel has now moved beyond sport and into a raw political contest, with Sinn Féin calling for a boycott and the Football Association of Ireland insisting it must fulfil the fixtures.

Whatever view people hold on the Middle East, the uncomfortable truth is this: a unilateral boycott by the FAI would not “send a message” to those in power. It would more likely damage Irish football, expose Irish players to an ugly public backlash, and undermine Ireland’s international sporting reputation, all while leaving UEFA’s structures untouched.

The FAI’s problem: rules, not rhetoric.
Ireland have been drawn alongside Israel in Nations League Group B3. The FAI confirmed this week it will play the matches, noting that UEFA rules mean refusing to play would result in a forfeit and could lead to further disciplinary action, including disqualification.
That isn’t a moral dodge, it’s the basic reality of participating in international competition. Boycotting unilaterally doesn’t “raise the bar”; it hands UEFA an administrative decision; award a 3–0, consider additional sanctions, move on.

Sinn Féin’s push: “boycott the fixtures”.
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald has urged the FAI to boycott the games, describing it as “unthinkable” for Ireland to play Israel while the conflict in Gaza continues.
But here is where the political posturing risks becoming something worse: a campaign that punishes the wrong people.

Someone should tell Mary Lou McDonald the obvious point that tends to get lost in these debates: an international football team is composed of players, professionals with careers, families, and a limited window at the top level, not government ministers, not generals, not diplomats.

Who takes the hit? Irish players and Irish football.
A Sinn Féin-led boycott push also risks setting up Ireland’s own internationals for a torrid period of bullying, abuse and social-media trolling.
If the FAI were pressured into refusing to play, the predictable fallout is not abstract:

• Players become targets, blamed by one side for “not taking a stand” and by another for “politicising sport”.
• Abuse spikes online, because a boycott decision turns every squad announcement, interview, and match-week into a culture-war proxy.
• Ireland’s reputation takes a hit, not among activists who want a boycott anyway, but among the international football community that will simply see Ireland as an association that cannot fulfil fixtures — and therefore cannot be trusted with schedules, hosting, and competitive commitments.

This isn’t hypothetical hand-wringing. We already know the fixtures will be politically charged; turning them into a boycott fight makes the players the human shields for a decision they do not control.

Taoiseach backs playing, and draws a clear distinction.
An Taoiseach Mr Micheál Martin has publicly backed the games proceeding, stating: “There is no official boycott of Israel.”
Crucially, he also made the point that too many boycotts advocate glide past: people should distinguish between the actions of the Israeli government and its football team, while noting Ireland has criticised Israeli government policy in Gaza and condemned the Hamas attacks.

That distinction is not a technicality, it is the difference between legitimate political criticism and the punishment of individual athletes for the actions of a state.

Football as a political weapon: if you’re serious, aim at the right target.
None of this says sport is “above politics”. It isn’t, but if political actors want consequences in football, the honest route is to pursue them through UEFA (and FIFA), not to demand that Irish players carry the penalty for a decision UEFA itself refuses to take.

What Sinn Féin appears to be courting instead; through poor council from those advising Mary Lou McDonald, is a dramatic boycott gesture that risks sabotaging Ireland’s own interests, a points lost, potential disciplinary consequence, and a national team now turned into a rolling flashpoint, with the players left to absorb the abuse.

In the end, this is the key question Irish football should now ask: “Who benefits if Ireland refuses to play?“

One must now also ask if this Sinn Féin-led demand and their close relationship with the IRA has anything to do with same party’s boycott demand:-

• 1977–1980 – US government historical record referencing PLO as donor of “training and arms” to IRA. A United States Department of State FRUS document states that the PLO “now seems to be the main Middle Eastern donor of training and arms” to the same IRA.
• Oct 1979 – Irish diplomatic memo referencing press reports about IRA–PLO training links. A declassified Irish Department of Foreign Affairs document discusses Irish government sensitivity around press reports of IRA members training at PLO camps and states it would help if the connection could be shown untrue or any earlier link fully broken.
• Then again, there have been publicly acknowledged meetings between Sinn Féin figures and Hamas leaders/representatives, framed by Sinn Féin as “dialogue” and discussion on the Irish peace process. April 2009 (Gaza): Mr Gerry Adams met Mr Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza, latter who served as third chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau from May 2017, until his assassination by Israel in July 2024. (Reported on at the time by international media).
• Then in 2016 (Istanbul): A Sinn Féin delegation led by Mr Declan Kearney, a Sinn Féin national chairman, who stated he was sorry for all the lives lost during the “Troubles”; who met senior Hamas figure Mr Musa Abu Marzouk, latter Hamas Islamic Association of Palestine. You will remember officials from the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested Mr Marzouk upon arrival at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York City on July 27th 1995, due to his presence being on a terrorist watch list. In 2003, the Central Bank of Jordan froze the assets of Hamas leaders, including that of Mr Marzouk. When he was asked why did Hamas built 500 km of tunnels, but not shelters for civilians in Gaza, Mr Abu Marzuk was quick to state that the tunnels are built to protect Hamas fighters, while it is the responsibility of the UN to protect the civilians.

Yes, one’s environment and the close company they may keep sometimes, and indeed often, influences future behaviour and outcomes.