Messages

[Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole]

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.    Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

Let me get his right.

You think because you call someone a treacherous coward, it is a 'fact'?

The facts are not in dispute.  That's how they behaved.  It may be unpalatable for you but it doesn't change what happened.

[Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole]

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.    Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.    Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?

I thought you weren't allowed to do that?  I though that made you "no better" than the oppressors?

The oppressors who, incidentally, your former comrades had joined forces with to ensure that the vote was embraced by the people.  This was the same empire who had ignored the democratic will of the people a few years previously and you are blustering about how this vote had to be accepted?  An outstanding bit of moral contortionism.

Oblige me here muppet, what way do you think you would have voted?

I am asking you, the one who bravely calls dead people treacherous cowards, why your people didn't fight?

But I am glad you agree with me that Irish killing Irish are no better than Brits killing Irish. And possibly worse.


As for the vote, today, knowing what I know, I would have voted no. But who knows how I would have voted then.

I would probably have been struggling to survive in the poorest part of the poorest country in Ireland. I would have hated the country that put me in that situation, but the thought of going off any dying for people who might call me a treacherous coward, probably wouldn't have appealed to me much. I might have thought of emigrating to get the feck out of the place. Just like around half of my ancestors who had come west to escape the crap in Ulster. Of course it is easy to forget any of the context today.

You must think you know me muppet?  I don't believe we've been introduced.  I'm not going to start detailing the actions of my people on this board, but what I will say is that, unlike a lot, I'd be proud of the way they behaved.  And you can throw out whatever mumbling platitiudes you like about 'dead people', I stand by my comments.

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?

I thought you weren't allowed to do that?  I though that made you "no better" than the oppressors?

The oppressors who, incidentally, your former comrades had joined forces with to ensure that the vote was embraced by the people.  This was the same empire who had ignored the democratic will of the people a few years previously and you are blustering about how this vote had to be accepted?  An outstanding bit of moral contortionism.

Oblige me here muppet, what way do you think you would have voted?

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.

Would the Tories et al focus on trying to keep NI in the UK, like they did with Scotland, if a referendum ever comes to pass??

I have no doubt they would. And even with Jeremy Corbyn in charge, so would Labour. Very few politicians are going to want to find themselves on the same side as Gerry Adams.

Which is why Gerry Adams is not going to leading the way on this one. A new figure needs to emerge, an economically literate one who has no association with the war.

I honestly think that the whole of Sinn Fein need to step away from the lead on this one. Even a new leader, with no personal attachment to the war will still be SF and therefore impossible for some to vote for.  The push for a UI needs to come from a combined group of political parties, with a common vision and with a leader who commands respect from a large percentage of the electorate. I realise that I've provided very few facts here but I do know that most northern unionists (and a sizeable portion of the electorate in the 26) will NEVER vote for something that Sinn Fein are at the head of.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

In a nutshell Gallsman.
Presumably with one party rule and all Unionists/ stoops/ free staters/ sellerouters and other undesirables stripped of citizenship and forced to wear a big red high vis jacket any time they dare to go out in public.

Yeah, that's it. If you have try to discredit what people are saying by blatantly making stuff up, it speaks volumes for your argument.

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

We'll have less of the ad hominem stuff Muppet please.  Not everyone in the country was as I described above. For the ones that were, I stand by what I said. Maybe you'd want to discuss what part of what I said was wrong instead of throwing insults from your side of the border?

[Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north?]

Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.

The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.

Are there any examples of other cities in the UK that have gone on to prosper after having their main industry decimated? I think of places like Liverpool and Glasgow and think call centres 

In a united country, why would the north have fared any worse (or any better) than any other region in Ireland, no matter what parliament was pulling the strings?

Had the country stayed under British rule, the north would have received a greater slice of the goodies from Westminster, I don't think anyone would logically argue with that.

Had we become one entity, ruled from Dublin, why would the north not have gotten it's share of the tech/pharma/financial influx, in the same manner that, say, Cork did?

The only reason the economy of the north is in the state it is in currently, is the blueshirt's border.


Edit... the north is not a city....

It's the border of Protestant Antrim and North Down. The other 4 counties were thrown in for ballast. The blueshirts had zero leverage.
Dev for all his republican bluster did nothing about it.
The Border Commission never met either.

I'm well aware of the geographical locations of the main Protestant populations.  The problem is that those sell-outs voted FOR the other counties to be lumped in.  The people of South Derry, South Armagh, the bogside - every bit as Irish (and more) as those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'.  When you think about it, it's no wonder the gov't in the 26 are such a shower of self-serving pricks.  The whole entity was formed by such creatures.

[Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north?]

Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.

The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.

Are there any examples of other cities in the UK that have gone on to prosper after having their main industry decimated? I think of places like Liverpool and Glasgow and think call centres 

In a united country, why would the north have fared any worse (or any better) than any other region in Ireland, no matter what parliament was pulling the strings?

Had the country stayed under British rule, the north would have received a greater slice of the goodies from Westminster, I don't think anyone would logically argue with that.

Had we become one entity, ruled from Dublin, why would the north not have gotten it's share of the tech/pharma/financial influx, in the same manner that, say, Cork did?

The only reason the economy of the north is in the state it is in currently, is the blueshirt's border.


Edit... the north is not a city....