"A visit by the British Queen to the Irish Republic will probably happen before the end of next year, according to Taoiseach minister Brian Cowen.
Mr Cowen's comments came after he met with his British counterpart David Cameron at Downing Street on Wednesday.
It is understood arrangements between officials in London and Dublin are currently being discussed.
It would be the first visit to the Republic by a British monarch since partition in 1921.
Mr Cowen said there was now no obstacle to the British Queen coming to Ireland.
"I think that would be a good development," the taoiseach said.
"I think also that the importance of an exchange of state visits says a lot about the modern bilateral relationships we now have "
So, where would you take Lily on her wee trip? Croker? The Curragh? Killarney? Or Killinarden?
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 23, 2010, 06:57:58 PM
"A visit by the British Queen to the Irish Republic will probably happen before the end of next year, according to Taoiseach minister Brian Cowen.
Mr Cowen's comments came after he met with his British counterpart David Cameron at Downing Street on Wednesday.
It is understood arrangements between officials in London and Dublin are currently being discussed.
It would be the first visit to the Republic by a British monarch since partition in 1921.
Mr Cowen said there was now no obstacle to the British Queen coming to Ireland.
"I think that would be a good development," the taoiseach said.
"I think also that the importance of an exchange of state visits says a lot about the modern bilateral relationships we now have "
So, where would you take Lily on her wee trip? Croker? The Curragh? Killarney? Or Killinarden?
The cliffs of Moher and leave the rest to karma.. ;D ;D :D :D
Lily's bordello and then the George
Then onto Queen's county and afterwards Queenstown
Monto 8)
Will she bring the World Cup with her. Its going to be great gas watching the Dublin 4 types bowing,fawning and scraping. She can visit Trinity College,the Royal Dublin Society, and the Royal Yacht Club for starters where no doubt sentiments will be expressed about how wonderful it would be Ireland for to rejoin the Commonwealth. God,the free staters will make wild eejits of themselves
I thought we are broke. Who is picking up the bill for this holiday
Bring her to Farrandeelin. Let her look out upon Ballina to the East, Nephin to the West and then pull the trigger to her head. Now that would be good craic...
Cowan really knows what the people want in the south. What a tool
If she follows the path her grandfather took from 'Kingstown' to Dublin City Centre in 1911 she'll pass my office! Blinds will be drawn!
Totally against this move by the southern government. Do people in the south really want her to visit. Has there ever been a poll carried out to see if see would be welcome. Anybody who has read up on their history willl know that the british monarch done alot of wrong to this country and its people too welcome that bitch over here. Let them stay where they are.
At what stage of the visit will she be offering an apology for what her armed forces have done in Ireland?
A number of British Prime Ministers have visited the south and they have much more to do with how the British Army acted than Lizzie.
QuoteA number of British Prime Ministers have visited the south and they have much more to do with how the British Army acted than Lizzie.
While this visit sticks in my craw, this is the point.
I hope when she`s over they take her to Killnascully to visit her cousin Deiter. He has fitted in well in Irish society. :)
I am sure the visit will be given the same treatment that the love Ulster march got. She will have to fly around the place by helicopter.
Quote from: Hereiam on June 24, 2010, 12:29:53 AM
Totally against this move by the southern government. Do people in the south really want her to visit. Has there ever been a poll carried out to see if see would be welcome. Anybody who has read up on their history willl know that the british monarch done alot of wrong to this country and its people too welcome that bitch over here. Let them stay where they are.
Well said.
Hows about a boat trip round Mullaghmore. It went down a bomb the last time her relatives did it.
That's right fellas, let's get ourselves in a tizzy about the visit of a head of state from our closest neighbour and strongest trade partner.
Some of you people would be happy to live in caves as long as it doesn't mean getting over the past.
Quote from: thewobbler on June 24, 2010, 08:57:09 AM
That's right fellas, let's get ourselves in a tizzy about the visit of a head of state from our closest neighbour and strongest trade partner.
Some of you people would be happy to live in caves as long as it doesn't mean getting over the past.
Can we take it then that you will be one of the first in line waving a union jack and welcoming her then?
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 09:04:08 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on June 24, 2010, 08:57:09 AM
That's right fellas, let's get ourselves in a tizzy about the visit of a head of state from our closest neighbour and strongest trade partner.
Some of you people would be happy to live in caves as long as it doesn't mean getting over the past.
The contempt here is disgusting.
Isn't it about time you showed some maturity as a country and see it for what it is a visit from the head of state of another country. You don't have the french/dutch etc getting into a tizzy when the germans come calling.
its a pure waste of taxpayers money, tell her to go on telly and address the nation from Buckingham Palace
QuoteCan we take it then that you will be one of the first in line waving a union jack and welcoming her then?
Why does it have to peaks and troughs you clown? I've the same level of interest in seeing her presence or protesting it. It makes no odds to my life, and it's not going to change histioy.
I'd imagine that although you despise the thought of the Queen visiting Ireland, you were also completely up in arms, disgusted and baying for blood when Martin Johnson blanked An Uachtaran. Yet you probably don't have the sense to understand how ironically stupid this is.
Quote from: reddgnhand on June 24, 2010, 08:34:37 AM
Hows about a boat trip round Mullaghmore. It went down a bomb the last time her relatives did it.
Hardly our finest hour...
On 27 August 1979 at 11.15am, the IRA detonated a bomb in Mullaghmore, Co Sligo, killing Lord Mountbatten and three other people.
79-year-old Lord Mountbatten,
his 14-year-old grandson and a
15-year-old local teenager named Paul Maxwell were killed when an IRA bomb exploded on board Lord Mountbatten's boat, the Shadow V, off Mullaghmore.
Can I just say, I couldn't give a flying woo-ha if she comes here or not. I'll stay out of the way. When she came to Omagh, I avoided the place for the day.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 12:33:30 AM
At what stage of the visit will she be offering an apology for what her armed forces have done in Ireland?
She can't do that because if she starts with 1798, goes on to the Black & Tans, Bloody Sunday and ends up with the present day she would be here for weeks apologising.
BTW Seafoid, we used to be called Queens County but it is no longer called that because we kicked the Brit's out of it. Maybe she might go down to the Royal County and have a barbeque under the Wellington Monument in Trim.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 23, 2010, 06:57:58 PM
So, where would you take Lily on her wee trip? Croker? The Curragh? Killarney? Or Killinarden?
Croker and Kilmainham, as a wee refresher of the crimes in Dublin then across to Connaught to the genocide region of 1845-49, in case she never heard of it. But I'm sure she's been versed on these three.
If she does visit, then the justification of the bigots in the 6 counties from preventing the Holy Father visiting that part of Ireland, no longer holds any sway. Can't wait to see the saccharin-sweet swooning of the quasi-imperialists from D4 getting revved up.
Da Ryles are different ryalty
If Liz Windsor's visit increased everyone's house price by 50K and turned NAMA into a cash bucket rather than a money sucking pipe you'd all be loving her.
Quote from: Aerlik on June 24, 2010, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 23, 2010, 06:57:58 PM
So, where would you take Lily on her wee trip? Croker? The Curragh? Killarney? Or Killinarden?
Croker and Kilmainham, as a wee refresher of the crimes in Dublin then across to Connaught to the genocide region of 1845-49, in case she never heard of it. But I'm sure she's been versed on these three.
If she does visit, then the justification of the bigots in the 6 counties from preventing the Holy Father visiting that part of Ireland, no longer holds any sway. Can't wait to see the saccharin-sweet swooning of the quasi-imperialists from D4 getting revved up.
You'd be better off boycotting CRH whose products are used to build settlements all over the West Bank and thereby make money for every Irish pension fund.
QuoteThere is a clear hierarchy of victims in Ireland and it's shamefull.
What is this hierarchy, in your view?
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 24, 2010, 11:03:32 AM
QuoteThere is a clear hierarchy of victims in Ireland and it's shamefull.
What is this hierarchy, in your view?
Victims of church abuse and victims of state violence.
Quote
Isn't it about time you showed some maturity as a country and see it for what it is a visit from the head of state of another country. You don't have the french/dutch etc getting into a tizzy when the germans come calling.
The Germans own up to their history and most are ashamed of it. When the Brits do the same the queen is welcome.
Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 24, 2010, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 12:33:30 AM
At what stage of the visit will she be offering an apology for what her armed forces have done in Ireland?
She can't do that because if she starts with 1798, goes on to the Black & Tans, Bloody Sunday and ends up with the present day she would be here for weeks apologising.
BTW Seafoid, we used to be called Queens County but it is no longer called that because we kicked the Brit's out of it. Maybe she might go down to the Royal County and have a barbeque under the Wellington Monument in Trim.
She could start apologising for their crimes while she was Commander-in-Chief. I would have thought it would be more appropriate for her to apologise for bloody sunday rather than a man that was only about 3 when it happened.
Arguably more Irish have been murdered by England's unjustified annexing of our nation than French by the Germans down the years. There is a subtle difference.
Hitler and his tyrants are recognised as evil, yet the expansion of the Brit empire somehow has gained justification, especially in English school history books - if, at all, it is studied.
Delboy I have a question, you say she is head of another state, btw she is also the head of a church i.e. the church of England, if you follow me here so is the Pope, head of state of the Vatican and head of the Catholic Church so what about all the hysterics over the Pope coming to visit the North of Ireland......
Quote from: Banana Man on June 24, 2010, 11:25:45 AM
Delboy I have a question, you say she is head of another state, btw she is also the head of a church i.e. the church of England, if you follow me here so is the Pope, head of state of the Vatican and head of the Catholic Church so what about all the hysterics over the Pope coming to visit the North of Ireland......
I think it's already been pointed out it's nonsense (in this thread and a few others if I can remember rightly) and if Lizzie comes to Ireland the Unionist/Loyallist/Religious Fundamentalists etc... arguments are all negated ::)
I actually couldn't give a fcuk if either of them come tbh and it won't make 1 bit of difference to my life either way. I think alot of you are going out of your way to try and be offended.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 23, 2010, 11:35:12 PM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 23, 2010, 06:57:58 PM
Mr Cowen said there was now no obstacle to the British Queen coming to Ireland.
Cowen and co make me sick. I actually feel sick when I hear comments like this. Maybe someone could tell me what has changed? What obstacles have been removed to allow this?
I guess he sees the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, voted for by the people of Ireland and formally accepted by both states as putting the relationship between between both states on a normal basis.
I know that not all people (even those that voted for it) see it as such but there you go............
/Jim.
She will visit and life will go on. While I don't agree as I didn't with God Save the Queen being played in Croke Park it will be hailed in the press as bridge building etc. So be it, I wouldn't get too worked up about it either. It should not happen until Britain withdraws from the North but not much word of that aspiration now either.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 24, 2010, 12:12:26 PM
She will visit and life will go on. While I don't agree as I didn't with God Save the Queen being played in Croke Park it will be hailed in the press as bridge building etc. So be it, I wouldn't get too worked up about it either. It should not happen until Britain withdraws from the North but not much word of that aspiration now either.
:o I agree with LRTF on something, I need to lie down.
Quote from: Banana Man on June 24, 2010, 11:25:45 AM
Delboy I have a question, you say she is head of another state, btw she is also the head of a church i.e. the church of England, if you follow me here so is the Pope, head of state of the Vatican and head of the Catholic Church so what about all the hysterics over the Pope coming to visit the North of Ireland......
Personally I don't give a flying f**k where the pope goes as far as im concerned hes welcome to come and go as he pleases end of. Unlike some of the knuckle heads on here i wouldn't dream of protesting and demanding apologies for past atrocities carried out in the name of the papacy, i'd see him for what his is the current head of a religion not somebody that should be held to account or apologise for burning protestants at the stake in the past.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 24, 2010, 11:03:32 AM
QuoteThere is a clear hierarchy of victims in Ireland and it's shamefull.
What is this hierarchy, in your view?
Victims of church abuse and victims of state violence.
I'm unclear, are you saying these are the only types of victims in Ireland?
Quote from: Alco Pup on June 24, 2010, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on June 24, 2010, 08:57:09 AM
That's right fellas, let's get ourselves in a tizzy about the visit of a head of state from our closest neighbour and strongest trade partner.
Some of you people would be happy to live in caves as long as it doesn't mean getting over the past.
Can we take it then that you will be one of the first in line waving a union jack and welcoming her then?
Yes, anyone who doesn't get worked up into an emotional frenzy by Lizzie's visit must be a true blue brit and will be out to welcome her :D
The knuckle draggers on here should grow up and stop stop trying to get offended at everything. Hardly a big deal when British mnisters, PMs etc regularly visit. I'll be ignoring the visit like most people.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 24, 2010, 01:17:21 PM
I'm unclear, are you saying these are the only types of victims in Ireland?
No that's not what i'm saying. I think it's quite clear what I am. If you don't understand it then I have failed but i'm not going to chase my tail explaining it to you.
Do you have anything to say on the content of my posts or are you just going to put words in my mouth and then ask for clarity on those words?
The existence of a hierarchy of victims is far from clear to me - that's why I asked you about it. Your own views are very clear to me; so don't be worrying about your failure on that part.
I hope prince Phillip comes because he will at least make an effort at trying to offend a few people.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 01:17:42 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 24, 2010, 12:51:09 PM
Personally I don't give a flying f**k where the pope goes as far as im concerned hes welcome to come and go as he pleases end of. Unlike some of the knuckle heads on here i wouldn't dream of protesting and demanding apologies for past atrocities carried out in the name of the papacy, i'd see him for what his is the current head of a religion not somebody that should be held to account or apologise for burning protestants at the stake in the past.
The head guy in BP didn't puch a hole in the side of an oil carrier. Do you think he doesn't hold any responibility?
Whats your point, you do think the pope should be held accountable or what ???
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 11:49:56 AM
This is along the same lines as Blair inviting Gadaffi to come to London before any apology.
Would the people asking me and others to grow up and move on ask the same of the lockerbie victims? When those victims were asking for an apology (and composation) did certain posters here ask them to grow up and move on?
Brian Cowen makes me sick!
Gadaffi ordered the Lockerbie attack.
Lizzy & Phil haven't the authority to order more than a gin and tonic.
Elderly woman, token head of a collapsed increasingly irrelevant empire, comes to town. That should be the title of this thread.
Thatcher and Heath etc are the ones who have questions to answer and apologies to make. As usual we are world champions of missing the point.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 11:06:31 AM
Quote
Isn't it about time you showed some maturity as a country and see it for what it is a visit from the head of state of another country. You don't have the french/dutch etc getting into a tizzy when the germans come calling.
The Germans own up to their history and most are ashamed of it. When the Brits do the same the queen is welcome.
The serbs played the germans in the world cup the other day, yet during the first world war the serbs had over a quarter of their population wiped out by the germans/austrians (no apologies), they banned their church and luanguage, and the country was carved up, after the war they had to cobble together with a lot of other regions to form yugoslavia. Only in the last few years have the got their independence back.
Did the serbs refuse to take to the pitch, or as a new country (2006) were they able to show the maturity (sadly lacking on here) to put the past where it belongs and move on.
Lets face it if the queen came over dropped to her knees and kissed each of your scabby toes in turn whilst begging forgiveness you'd still be f**king whineging about something.
Usual bunch of loons now on LiveWhine.
1850 715 815
Call Joe now lads
Its an Old Lady visiting the Country. Get over it. No doubt there will be plenty of tools out protesting.
Get over it i would hate to think that any fellow nationalsit or Republican could be as bitter as Geoffrey Campbell and his cronies were last week when the Saville report was posted.
Its time to move forward and forget the wrong doings of the past.
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_02/drag1MERCURY_468x653.jpg)
This is the only type of "queen" that should be allowed in Ireland :P To be honest, people are far too easily offended. Did the Queen authorise any of the actions that the Army carried out, no. She is the "head" of a family that has absolutely no power. She doesn't even recommend the "honours". they come from the mandarins in the civil service who make suggestions and the Queen's office rubber stamps them.
Get over it, an overt show of bon hommie with the country that is the main importer of our goods would be a very shrewd business move and show how as a nation Ireland has developed and matured and is more acceptable to the unionist community in the north.
'how as a nation Ireland has developed and matured and is more acceptable to the unionist community in the north.'
Even though they want nothing to do with you and still see you as a backward country full of drunks and gypsies? :)
I'd have no problem welcoming her to Ireland ... if her intention is to announce full British withdrawal from the six counties and to make a fulsome apology for 800 years of oppression ... the bitch :D
Maybe she could visit Parnell Park and a dubs training session, after all they are the only team in the championship playing in red white and blue!!!
On a more serious note the chattering classes and the s**d*y i****en*ent types will have themselves pulled inside out at the thoughts of a visit, hopefully phil the greek/german mongrel will offend all before and behind him, thank God i'm on the other side of the world so that i won't have to witness this shite at first hand
Will be totally ignoring this woman if she visits just like i totally ignored the visits of other ( outdated feudal nonsensical) monarchs and any Presidents that visited here over the years.
I hope that it will be short and confined to the Aras and maybe Dublin Castle so that the D4 types dont get a public chance to show how British they really are.
I presume the Reillyrag will totally cream itself with excitement.
ireland was partitioned against the wishes of the majority of the people and the british were the enforcer of that partition. small nations cant do a lot about it when bigger nations act like this except put up with the inevitable sh1t that follows and try to get on in a civilised manner while sticking to our principles. im sure lizzy hasnt lost any sleep over not visiting and it would be a principled move if the gov had the balls to put on record that there would be no visit until ireland is reunited in whatever manner that happens (and there may well be some roll for the british monarchy in that new ireland with 1 million unionists). in the meantime we could get on with normal relations in every other area. like i said lizzy more than likely wouldnt care and yet it would be a significant yet symbolic move on our behalf. along with a lot of other principles that this republic was based on thats focked now but who knows some good may yet come out of the visit...
Quote from: reddgnhand on June 24, 2010, 08:34:37 AM
Hows about a boat trip round Mullaghmore. It went down a bomb the last time her relatives did it.
There is no real reason for her to visit at all - and as someone else asked - who is footing the bill for all the fanfare that will come with it at a time when we are broke. There is more reason for her not to come, and there are some very valid points against her visit.
That said - Zap, are you sure that this post isnt the one you wanted to quote when you were talking about contempt?
This post is disgusting. Just goes to show you the quality of some posters on here. :-[
Quote from: delboy on June 24, 2010, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 11:06:31 AM
Quote
Isn't it about time you showed some maturity as a country and see it for what it is a visit from the head of state of another country. You don't have the french/dutch etc getting into a tizzy when the germans come calling.
The Germans own up to their history and most are ashamed of it. When the Brits do the same the queen is welcome.
The serbs played the germans in the world cup the other day, yet during the first world war the serbs had over a quarter of their population wiped out by the germans/austrians (no apologies), they banned their church and luanguage, and the country was carved up, after the war they had to cobble together with a lot of other regions to form yugoslavia. Only in the last few years have the got their independence back.
Did the serbs refuse to take to the pitch, or as a new country (2006) were they able to show the maturity (sadly lacking on here) to put the past where it belongs and move on.
Lets face it if the queen came over dropped to her knees and kissed each of your scabby toes in turn whilst begging forgiveness you'd still be f**king whineging about something.
What are you going on about, no one is talking not playing england in some sport. your post makes no sense.
I dont care either way about the queen what I do care about is the lack of a backbone the Irish government have, whether it be dealing with Israel or England. Pack of cowards.
Make sure the kiddies don't look at her.
(http://s1.hubimg.com/u/3335590.jpg)
Quote from: reddgnhand on June 24, 2010, 08:34:37 AM
Hows about a boat trip round Mullaghmore. It went down a bomb the last time her relatives did it.
Yep, I would say young Maxwells father still has a great oul chuckle about that bomb.
QuoteI'd have no problem welcoming her to Ireland ... if her intention is to announce full British withdrawal from the six counties and to make a fulsome apology for 800 years of oppression ... the bitch
+1
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 09:22:35 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 24, 2010, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 11:06:31 AM
Quote
Isn't it about time you showed some maturity as a country and see it for what it is a visit from the head of state of another country. You don't have the french/dutch etc getting into a tizzy when the germans come calling.
The Germans own up to their history and most are ashamed of it. When the Brits do the same the queen is welcome.
The serbs played the germans in the world cup the other day, yet during the first world war the serbs had over a quarter of their population wiped out by the germans/austrians (no apologies), they banned their church and luanguage, and the country was carved up, after the war they had to cobble together with a lot of other regions to form yugoslavia. Only in the last few years have the got their independence back.
Did the serbs refuse to take to the pitch, or as a new country (2006) were they able to show the maturity (sadly lacking on here) to put the past where it belongs and move on.
Lets face it if the queen came over dropped to her knees and kissed each of your scabby toes in turn whilst begging forgiveness you'd still be f**king whineging about something.
What are you going on about, no one is talking not playing england in some sport. your post makes no sense.
I dont care either way about the queen what I do care about is the lack of a backbone the Irish government have, whether it be dealing with Israel or England. Pack of cowards.
Im giving you an example in relation to a previous post of a nation that probably has more right to the MOPE title than most and which has shown in one of their first chances to display contempt at another nation that they had the ability to turn the other cheek and move on (something that i personally think ireland should do), if you haven't the wit to see the parallels or choose not to thats up to you.
You are right about one thing though if you want to express your chagrin it should be at the irish government rather than liz, she won't have asked to come it will have been the other way around.
Who knows maybe this is putting out the feelers for a rejoining of the commonwealth as part of the bigger picture of a UI which you all dream of.
Recently, on 2 seperate occasions, I met 2 reps from the Irish Government, MJ Nolan, and Cecilia Keavney.
When I asked them why they allow Shannon airport to be used by the US on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Their answer was simple: "It brings jobs to the Shannon area".
So, if the Irish Government is to be asked what are the benefits in Lizzie coming, we would probably hear the same reply.
As far as i'm concerned, she can come and go. It's the spinless leadership in the Irish Government that are to blame.
I will ignore her visit, and as others have pointed out, Thatcher and Heath have more to answer for.
I believe that the next British monarch will be helping out with the ceremonies for the termination of Northern Ireland. We are in the twilight of British rule in Ireland, we might like a quick tropical twilight, but this part of the Empire will have a long northern twilight, but it will end all the same. All that is needed is calm in the meantime.
Quote from: delboy on June 24, 2010, 11:16:01 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 09:22:35 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 24, 2010, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 11:06:31 AM
Quote
Isn't it about time you showed some maturity as a country and see it for what it is a visit from the head of state of another country. You don't have the french/dutch etc getting into a tizzy when the germans come calling.
The Germans own up to their history and most are ashamed of it. When the Brits do the same the queen is welcome.
The serbs played the germans in the world cup the other day, yet during the first world war the serbs had over a quarter of their population wiped out by the germans/austrians (no apologies), they banned their church and luanguage, and the country was carved up, after the war they had to cobble together with a lot of other regions to form yugoslavia. Only in the last few years have the got their independence back.
Did the serbs refuse to take to the pitch, or as a new country (2006) were they able to show the maturity (sadly lacking on here) to put the past where it belongs and move on.
Lets face it if the queen came over dropped to her knees and kissed each of your scabby toes in turn whilst begging forgiveness you'd still be f**king whineging about something.
What are you going on about, no one is talking not playing england in some sport. your post makes no sense.
I dont care either way about the queen what I do care about is the lack of a backbone the Irish government have, whether it be dealing with Israel or England. Pack of cowards.
Im giving you an example in relation to a previous post of a nation that probably has more right to the MOPE title than most and which has shown in one of their first chances to display contempt at another nation that they had the ability to turn the other cheek and move on (something that i personally think ireland should do), if you haven't the wit to see the parallels or choose not to thats up to you.
You are right about one thing though if you want to express your chagrin it should be at the irish government rather than liz, she won't have asked to come it will have been the other way around.
Who knows maybe this is putting out the feelers for a rejoining of the commonwealth as part of the bigger picture of a UI which you all dream of.
by playing each other in a sport? sure the Irish and English have been doing that for donkey's as have most countries at war with each other ::)
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 11:42:20 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on June 24, 2010, 11:28:43 PM
Recently, on 2 seperate occasions, I met 2 reps from the Irish Government, MJ Nolan, and Cecilia Keavney.
When I asked them why they allow Shannon airport to be used by the US on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Their answer was simple: "It brings jobs to the Shannon area".
So, if the Irish Government is to be asked what are the benefits in Lizzie coming, we would probably hear the same reply.
As far as i'm concerned, she can come and go. It's the spinless leadership in the Irish Government that are to blame.
I will ignore her visit, and as others have pointed out, Thatcher and Heath have more to answer for.
I agree completely that the Irish Government are to blame. That's why Cowen makes me sick while the Queen doesn't. The contempt of the victims (which seems to be dodged on this thread as I'm only getting asked for clarification on my posts and my views on other posts) being driven and upheld by the scum in Leinster House is whats is pissing me off. Their failure to take on any nation is support of Irish citizens be it Israel or Britain is disgusting. The Irish people are seen as second class by their own Government.
I could sit and talk about occupation and 800 years of blah blah and the men of 1916 etc. etc. but none of that is important to me, but the behaviour of the Cowards in Brian Cowens Government is treasonous to the Irish people of today.
Exactly how I feel!
I just don't like cowards.
When Brian Cowen threatened Israel with "Serious Consequenses" during the attacks on the recent Flotilla, what he really meant to say was that Ireland wouldn't vote for Israel in the next Eurovision Song Contest.
Tough talikng Biffo is a scary man indeed................
She'll hardly bother now that all you fellas are going to ignore her!
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 25, 2010, 12:58:07 AM
She'll hardly bother now that all you fellas are going to ignore her!
:D
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 11:46:17 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 24, 2010, 11:16:01 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 09:22:35 PM
Quote from: delboy on June 24, 2010, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2010, 11:06:31 AM
Quote
Isn't it about time you showed some maturity as a country and see it for what it is a visit from the head of state of another country. You don't have the french/dutch etc getting into a tizzy when the germans come calling.
The Germans own up to their history and most are ashamed of it. When the Brits do the same the queen is welcome.
The serbs played the germans in the world cup the other day, yet during the first world war the serbs had over a quarter of their population wiped out by the germans/austrians (no apologies), they banned their church and luanguage, and the country was carved up, after the war they had to cobble together with a lot of other regions to form yugoslavia. Only in the last few years have the got their independence back.
Did the serbs refuse to take to the pitch, or as a new country (2006) were they able to show the maturity (sadly lacking on here) to put the past where it belongs and move on.
Lets face it if the queen came over dropped to her knees and kissed each of your scabby toes in turn whilst begging forgiveness you'd still be f**king whineging about something.
What are you going on about, no one is talking not playing england in some sport. your post makes no sense.
I dont care either way about the queen what I do care about is the lack of a backbone the Irish government have, whether it be dealing with Israel or England. Pack of cowards.
Im giving you an example in relation to a previous post of a nation that probably has more right to the MOPE title than most and which has shown in one of their first chances to display contempt at another nation that they had the ability to turn the other cheek and move on (something that i personally think ireland should do), if you haven't the wit to see the parallels or choose not to thats up to you.
You are right about one thing though if you want to express your chagrin it should be at the irish government rather than liz, she won't have asked to come it will have been the other way around.
Who knows maybe this is putting out the feelers for a rejoining of the commonwealth as part of the bigger picture of a UI which you all dream of.
by playing each other in a sport? sure the Irish and English have been doing that for donkey's as have most countries at war with each other ::)
You've choosen to ignore my point about this being one of the first opportunities for serbia to express contempt, and despite your attempt to dismiss what i say its certainly not unique for a country to express contempt for another nation via sporting boycotts such as the olympics (moscow, LA) albeit it childish and wrong in my opinion.
But your point about countries at war playing sporting fixtures :-\ are you sure about that one ???
Perhaps you can refresh my memory and give me a few examples of countries actively engaged in warfare playing sport against each other, must be tonnes of examples im sure.
Or do you mean countries with grudges playing each other in sports, yes that does happen but then again countries that have reason to have grudges with each other also welcome each others heads of state to their country displaying good grace,
good manners, common courtesy and maturity, which rather brings me back to my original point ::)
While I don't agree with the prospect of a visit, whatever tit on here mentioned Mountbatten is an absolute disgrace.
Whatever you opinion of the provos, or a person's right to take up armed struggle, Mountbatten was a senseless, needless, pointless murder of an old man and family. Some people who try to defend it by pointing out that he was royalty and there for a legitimate target conveniently forget that a 15 year old local boy was blown to bits as well. Shame on you.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 05:00:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2010, 01:45:23 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 11:49:56 AM
This is along the same lines as Blair inviting Gadaffi to come to London before any apology.
Would the people asking me and others to grow up and move on ask the same of the lockerbie victims? When those victims were asking for an apology (and composation) did certain posters here ask them to grow up and move on?
Brian Cowen makes me sick!
Gadaffi ordered the Lockerbie attack.
Lizzy & Phil haven't the authority to order more than a gin and tonic.
Elderly woman, token head of a collapsed increasingly irrelevant empire, comes to town. That should be the title of this thread.
Thatcher and Heath etc are the ones who have questions to answer and apologies to make. As usual we are world champions of missing the point.
OK then Gadaffi isn't a good comparison but the innocent victims can be compared.
QuoteElderly woman, token head of a collapsed increasingly irrelevant empire, comes to town. That should be the title of this thread
Maybe you can help me here.
The above discription could be applied to the pope. If the Pope was making and unconditional state visit to Ireland would you be telling this to the victims of church abuse?
Same again, the Pope, allegedly, as Cardinal Ratzinger instructed Church Officials to report abuse to Rome, not to local authorities. He is the Executive head of that organisation, just as Gadaffi is the Executive Head of Libya, Lizzy is just a figurehead.
QuoteCop out.
Except that he's right. For the same reason that the CEO of BP is responsible, even if he didn't do it himself. Your 'argument' should be with the British PM, several of whom have visited our country, without major issue.
strange thing is that afterwards people will wonder what the fuss was about? We've already had Paisley and McGuiness doing their chuckle brothers act, Sinn Fein endorsing policing, soccer and God Save the Queen in Croke Park and Fermanagh getting to an All Ireland semi-final. Is incredible but the sky didnt fall in.
Havn't said that I still don't agree with it or some other things that have happened but guess we'll have to accept it.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 25, 2010, 10:05:46 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 25, 2010, 09:35:32 AM
Same again, the Pope, allegedly, as Cardinal Ratzinger instructed Church Officials to report abuse to Rome, not to local authorities. He is the Executive head of that organisation, just as Gadaffi is the Executive Head of Libya, Lizzy is just a figurehead.
Cop out.
:D I've been backed into a corner and I know it, so therefore your point is a cop out, even though it's me copping out
Quote from: Zapatista on June 25, 2010, 11:18:25 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 25, 2010, 10:37:12 AM
QuoteCop out.
Except that he's right. For the same reason that the CEO of BP is responsible, even if he didn't do it himself. Your 'argument' should be with the British PM, several of whom have visited our country, without major issue.
The point he makes is right but it ignores the similarities of which I am talking about. You can pick differences all day but it's a cop out. It's only longfingering the question and diguising it as though the question is wrong. You are longfingering it futher. I'm not going to be dragged into that. It does not take much thought to recognise the similarities and the essence of the question.
Look Zap, I respect your position and understand that it is a huge issue with a lot of our 6 county cousins and for good reason, but to me she is just an old woman who spent her life gardening and walking quirky little dogs.
I suggest we get a large number of this flag and fly it from each GAA ground in honour of the occasion.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/GB1603.png)
Quote from: Zapatista on June 25, 2010, 11:18:25 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 25, 2010, 10:37:12 AM
QuoteCop out.
Except that he's right. For the same reason that the CEO of BP is responsible, even if he didn't do it himself. Your 'argument' should be with the British PM, several of whom have visited our country, without major issue.
The point he makes is right but it ignores the similarities of which I am talking about. You can pick differences all day but it's a cop out. It's only longfingering the question and diguising it as though the question is wrong. You are longfingering it futher. I'm not going to be dragged into that. It does not take much thought to recognise the similarities and the essence of the question.
Maybe I'm missing the point - are you saying that you're happy to let the British PM visit (even though he's the one responsible for the predicament, as you admit), whereas you want to deny the visit of an elderly lady who can't do anything to change the situation? And muppet's copping out?
I think it's the tabloid mentality, Billy. The queen of the UK (or just "The Queen", as she's referred to even in the Irish media) is the important representative of the British state, cos she's a celebrity, like.
The office of the British Prime minister, ultimately responsible for the wrongs perpetrated on Irish people by Britain in the last generation or so, is flavour of the month even among the barstool patriots because it apologised last week for Bloody Sunday, so everything's OK on that front and not a firebrand "Republican" here mentions Campbell in the context of the victims of whose welfare they're so solicitous. But lock up your children lest the little ould wan in the funny hat should get them.
Looks like Danny Morrison is 'selling them out' today.
QuoteMy reasons for being pissed at this are directed at the Irish Government. If Cameron is need he to deal with political issues then he should be here. Frankly it's a stupid question.
Is that why you gave a stupid answer?
Quote from: armaghniac on June 25, 2010, 12:12:48 PM
I suggest we get a large number of this flag and fly it from each GAA ground in honour of the occasion.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/GB1603.png)
That flag is the union of England and Scotland. It's the red lines inside the angular ones that represent Ireland within the Union. That flag wouldn't bother me too much but I would be in favour of Scottish Independence too.
Not too pushed either way but the sanctimonious waffle wiil be hard to take. Ould dears will be wheeled out to "greet" her.
Only hope the cost to the State ("in these recessionary times") will get the same scrutiny that undoubtedly the centenary celebrations of 1916 will get in the media.
Never forget that the main reason the Queen of England hasn't come before is that the Crown was in dispute with the State over "unpaid" ground rents etc.
Always chuckle when I hear her real name Elizabeth von Saxe Coburg Gotha (I think).
It would be good if the Queen of Englnd's visit to the Free State was during September.
Then she could be a special guest of the GAA at one of the All-Ireland finals.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 25, 2010, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 25, 2010, 12:04:18 PM
Look Zap, I respect your position and understand that it is a huge issue with a lot of our 6 county cousins and for good reason, but to me she is just an old woman who spent her life gardening and walking quirky little dogs.
If that is all she is to you then you must be pissed that she is to be recieved by the State. What if this take off and all old ladies expect the same?
I have a neighbour, she is just an old woman who spends her life gardening and walking quirky little dogs. The only time she is recieved by the state is when she is laying in pain on a trolly in Connolly Hospital. There is a difference in these two though. One is not the Queen of England.
I'm not pissed at all. There is enough wrong around Ireland without getting upset at an octogenarian token figurehead being met by our leaders in one of those pompous shiny button rituals that all countries do.
I wouldn't like to see the child abuse protector pope or the miserable old bag of a queen in this country. But to be honest what would sicken my hole about such a visit is the moronic idiots that will go out cheering and waving flags like gombeens. Wait till ye northern boys get a look at the D4's out welcoming their messiah back, you won't believe the amount of Union Jacks these people will produce. Then there will be the D4 infested RTE coverage of it which will make ye want to puke, it will be labelled as the most important thing that ever happened to us.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 25, 2010, 02:35:29 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 25, 2010, 12:12:48 PM
I suggest we get a large number of this flag and fly it from each GAA ground in honour of the occasion.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/GB1603.png)
That flag is the union of England and Scotland. It's the red lines inside the angular ones that represent Ireland within the Union. That flag wouldn't bother me too much but I would be in favour of Scottish Independence too.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Flags_of_the_Union_Jack-fr.png)
Quote from: Zapatista on June 24, 2010, 11:53:20 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on June 24, 2010, 11:45:51 AM
I guess he sees the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, voted for by the people of Ireland and formally accepted by both states as putting the relationship between between both states on a normal basis.
I know that not all people (even those that voted for it) see it as such but there you go............
/Jim.
If this is the case Jim it's clear abuse of the GFA. By that conclusion there would have been no need to finish saville or have an inquiry into Dublin and Monaghan bombings. There would also be no need for an historical enquires team or calls for a system to deal with the past to help all innocent victims.
How is it an abuse) The HET and Saville inquiry have been implemented.
It is government policy here that the GFA was a settlement between both states and Cowan commented that said settlement was implemented. Hence normal relations between both countries allows for state visits.
I don't see much of a groundswell against that policy in the Republic.
/Jim.
To be honest Zap I'm glad you're not in a position of influence.
Re-read your last spiel.
You portray Ireland as a second class country and want to blame everyone for this apart from the general Irish population.
That's the kind of mindset prevalent on giro day down at the post office.
Thankfully, most of us would rather get on with our lives and make the best of what lies ahead rather than ponder the imponderables of the past, adjusting them to suit their needs.
Quote from: thewobbler on June 26, 2010, 09:32:01 AM
To be honest Zap I'm glad you're not in a position of influence.
Re-read your last spiel.
You portray Ireland as a second class country and want to blame everyone for this apart from the general Irish population.
That's the kind of mindset prevalent on giro day down at the post office.
Thankfully, most of us would rather get on with our lives and make the best of what lies ahead rather than ponder the imponderables of the past, adjusting them to suit their needs.
Well said
Quote from: Zapatista on June 26, 2010, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 25, 2010, 08:20:34 PM
I'm not pissed at all. There is enough wrong around Ireland without getting upset at an octogenarian token figurehead being met by our leaders in one of those pompous shiny button rituals that all countries do.
I think you are intentionally missing my point. You have set a ceiling to this discussion which you refuse to be drawn above. The avoidance of proper debate around serious issues is directly in line with the current political class we are forever complaining about. Your assertion that this is nothing more than a little old lady visiting is such a low level of understanding it's barely worth debating, which I think is the intention here. It's along the lines of claiming that the Sam Maguire Cup is merely a cup and if people want a cup that badly I'll give them one I have plenty in my cupboard at home.
The fact that you keep dragging the discussion back to the low level within your comfort zone is telling. The fact that we don't have any decent engagement from other posters who revert back to trying to find my stereotypes to discredit my points or picking holes in simple questions in order to avoid the question is telling also. I have clearly stated that I have no animosity towards the lady herself.
The victims of British State violence are viewed as a lower form of victim by the Irish Government and many of it's citizens. This invite to the queen (not the gardener but the symbolic leader of Britain, it's armed forces, the common wealth and the Church of England) is evidence of that. If this happens it will be the end to any possible chance that the innocent victims will have to get recognition. This is futher evidenced by Brian Cowen, who waited only a week after innocent victims of Bloody Sunday who had been criminalised for 40 years got their names cleared through Saville. Cowen claimed that there is now no Obstacle to prevent the Queen visiting. This tells me that Cowen sees the Criminalisation on innocent victims as nothing more than an obstacles that has to be removed. It also tells me that he believes that the victims of bloody Sunday are the only victims who are worthy of having their name cleared and that it was only ever an obstalce to a royal visit in the first place.
This shouldn't surprise me. For years the British have been killing and torturing innocent people on this Island. These victims were then often wrongly criminalised in order to justify the killings. This extended to criminalising whole communities. These communities still live in the shackles of this criminalisation and their loved ones still lay dead as criminals. This British policy was aided by the Irish Government and now they are looking to confine it to history forever.
The collaborators in the British and Irish Governments are writing the history of the conflict and it is a false history. The Irish Governments unwillingness to take a stand against anyone leaves us in a position that we will forever be second class citizens in Europe. This is the Ireland we will leave behind. This is the Ireland we inherited. Another generation of Irish people who have failed to improve the nation. The phrase that Ireland should rise up and take her place among the Nations is now Ireland should stay put among the secondary nations.
Well said.
And how right you were about the bit in bold.
Quote from: thewobbler on June 26, 2010, 09:32:01 AM
To be honest Zap I'm glad you're not in a position of influence.
Re-read your last spiel.
You portray Ireland as a second class country and want to blame everyone for this apart from the general Irish population.
That's the kind of mindset prevalent on giro day down at the post office.
Thankfully, most of us would rather get on with our lives and make the best of what lies ahead rather than ponder the imponderables of the past, adjusting them to suit their needs.
Cutting through the nonsense - Ireland is a second class country because the government has no backbone and will not defend it's citizens, whether it be against the Israelis or the Brits.
I'm glad you can get on with your life, stick the head in the sand, "lets move on", "nothing here concerns me". Maybe you should give a thought to those visiting graves of loved ones killed by the British state and who still have never had any apology, explanation or acknowledgment their loved one didn't bring it upon themselves.
but hey, it doesnt affect you so why should you give a shit.
and you know, thinking about it, it's not the fact the queen is coming which annoys me, I don't really care. It's the lack of any backbone from the Irish government and Cowen's declaration that there are no obstacles.
If he had to say she was coming but we've still got work to do, still need answers in relation to dozens of murders by British forces etc I'd be fine with that.
QuoteI'm glad you can get on with your life, stick the head in the sand, "lets move on", "nothing here concerns me". Maybe you should give a thought to those visiting graves of loved ones killed by the British state and who still have never had any apology, explanation or acknowledgment their loved one didn't bring it upon themselves.
So it all comes down to
Apologies, Explanations and Acknowledgments .
Tell me POG, how would you like these presented? And even at that, would you accept them?
Who would you like to present them? Should we fill a committee with someone past and present from the various strands of the UK army, the UK government, the UK monarchy, the Irish government, the RUC, etc etc?
Do you want to make these apologies on an individual basis for every single person who died during any Anglo-Irish problems? That would be good craic, spending another one hundred years digging up the "facts".
What about a sliding scale whereby we have to investigate every death over the past 800 years, and make more sincere apologies for those who were innocent bystanders, and less sincere ones for those who maybe "had it coming to them"?
Or how about typecasting each individual into groups and offering apologies in kind to each group. At least that way we could ply more money into the pockets of barristers. People would then get to sue twice, once for the injustice of being placed in a group, once for the injustices of the time.
Beyond that, surely only one unilateral apology would work. But then you would begrudge it for a lack of effort.
In all seriousness though, I do not believe for one second that the receipt any apology, explanation or acknowledgment will make a damn bit of difference to the mindset of those who are demanding them. It's a cover, a folly, a plain and simple fuking excuse to gripe, moan and begrudge.
Also, please tell me if "we" will apologise back for any innocent bystanders who got whalloped during the IRA's bombing of britain campaign? Or is that fair game during war? If not, tell me who "we" are, and who in particular will be doing the apologising.
QuoteHowever if we do not address the problems of the past they will repeat themselves. We need an honest historical record in order to move on and in order to prevent it from happening again
This is nonsense. Utter nonsense. The building block of every problem over the past 800 years is that England invaded Ireland, and that's not going to happen again.
I don't see why we shouldn't expect explanations and investigations for british state murders. Unlike other murders there were no investigations done at the time, it was just lies that were told so why shouldn't we expect proper investigations? Yes it would cost money but then so do investigations in to any murder. Apologies are the least I would accept although we should see prosecutions.
With the advancement of DNA now we have old cases opened and the new technology finds those responsible. This costs time and money but you wouldn't dream of saying to those victim's families "well it's going to cost too much money, they're already dead aren't they, they're not going to be killed again, it's a long time ago, aren't you over it yet, move on" so why is that good enough for the families of those killed by british forces?
I don't know who you mean when you says should "we" apologise for the IRA killing innocent victims. The only people who can do that are the IRA. I also thought they done something like that previously but if not they should have.
'For years the British have been killing and torturing innocent people on this Island. These victims were then often wrongly criminalised in order to justify the killings.'
Irish republicans have killed more and tortured more. They have, by their actions, deepened the divisions on this island and pushed back by many decades the time when we will see our country reunited. The 'problems' we are left with have nothing to do with the British, who would be out of this place in the morning, left to themselves. They have everything to do with the fact that 20% of the people on this island do not want to be reunited with the the other 80%. The fact that Irish republicans spent 25 years bombing and shooting this 20% in an effort to make them change their minds has simply reinforced their desire to remain part of the UK. A visit by the British head of state to the republic would no doubt be welcomed by northern unionists. It might convince some of them that Ireland has changed, has become more tolerant, more self assured, that it is no longer a priest ridden, republican ghetto. For that reason alone, I too would welcome it.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 26, 2010, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 26, 2010, 10:58:51 AM
'For years the British have been killing and torturing innocent people on this Island. These victims were then often wrongly criminalised in order to justify the killings.'
Irish republicans have killed more and tortured more. They have, by their actions, deepened the divisions on this island and pushed back by many decades the time when we will see our country reunited. The 'problems' we are left with have nothing to do with the British, who would be out of this place in the morning, left to themselves. They have everything to do with the fact that 20% of the people on this island do not want to be reunited with the the other 80%. The fact that Irish republicans spent 25 years bombing and shooting this 20% in an effort to make them change their minds has simply reinforced their desire to remain part of the UK. A visit by the British head of state to the republic would no doubt be welcomed by northern unionists. It might convince some of them that Ireland has changed, has become more tolerant, more self assured, that it is no longer a priest ridden, republican ghetto. For that reason alone, I too would welcome it.
Perhaps you have posted on the wrong thread? This isn't a United Ireland thread.
Perhaps you read the wrong post? Mine was about the proposed visit to Ireland by the British head of state. Which post were you referring to?
Quote from: Zapatista on June 26, 2010, 11:41:29 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 26, 2010, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on June 26, 2010, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 26, 2010, 10:58:51 AM
'For years the British have been killing and torturing innocent people on this Island. These victims were then often wrongly criminalised in order to justify the killings.'
Irish republicans have killed more and tortured more. They have, by their actions, deepened the divisions on this island and pushed back by many decades the time when we will see our country reunited. The 'problems' we are left with have nothing to do with the British, who would be out of this place in the morning, left to themselves. They have everything to do with the fact that 20% of the people on this island do not want to be reunited with the the other 80%. The fact that Irish republicans spent 25 years bombing and shooting this 20% in an effort to make them change their minds has simply reinforced their desire to remain part of the UK. A visit by the British head of state to the republic would no doubt be welcomed by northern unionists. It might convince some of them that Ireland has changed, has become more tolerant, more self assured, that it is no longer a priest ridden, republican ghetto. For that reason alone, I too would welcome it.
Perhaps you have posted on the wrong thread? This isn't a United Ireland thread.
Perhaps you read the wrong post? Mine was about the proposed visit to Ireland by the British head of state. Which post were you referring to?
Just the parts in bold seem to be more about a UI than anything else. The closing point seems to be that this is a good thing as it's a step to a UI. I haven't thought of this thread along tose lines at all and therefore was throwen by the post. Apologies.
No problem.
Good stuff wobbler.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 26, 2010, 10:05:33 AM
it's not the fact the queen is coming which annoys me,
I presume you meang "going", pints.
Quote from: Hardy on June 26, 2010, 01:42:21 PM
Good stuff wobbler.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 26, 2010, 10:05:33 AM
it's not the fact the queen is coming which annoys me,
I presume you meang "going", pints.
No, I'm spiritually still in Ireland.
I dont know what yous are commending wobbler for, he hasn't actually said anything, wheeled out the "move on" nonsense and made a few digs while acting a snob.
I'm commending him for articulating a viewpoint on the controversty with which I agree.
POG and Zap, you can wheel out evasive lines all you like about me being patronising and snobby and setting a bar to high, but it doesn't get away from the simple fact that you fellas haven't actually pointed out what the UK monarchy and the Irish Government must deliver in order to appease you.
That's why I highlighted apologies, explanations and acknowledgements in bold. I would love you to offer a brief explanation as to what form of these would make you happy, and why.
And please don't revert to a United Ireland line. That's simply not a plausible option at present without a bloodbath. And if you think its worth a bloodbath, good for you - that's your privilege, but then I'll expect to be reading your names in stone before too long.
QuoteDo you think that the recipients of Ireland's socail welfare's opinion is less worthy than your own? It's for another thread but the vast majority of these people do not fit into that description.
As you say, this is another discussion. But the long-term unemployed are parasites on society. They have no interest in furthering themselves, their families or their communities. When they start contributing to society instead of taking from it, then they can try to shape its future.
Wobbler, I think you need to read through the posts again, you are the only one who is being evasive, you actually haven't said anything or made any argument. You're posts on this matter, if we take out the snide digs, can be summed up in two words "move on".
I don't want the UK monarchy to do anything really and I've already pointed out the least I would expect from the Irish Government.
Quote from: thewobbler on June 26, 2010, 03:26:01 PM
POG and Zap, you can wheel out evasive lines all you like about me being patronising and snobby and setting a bar to high, but it doesn't get away from the simple fact that you fellas haven't actually pointed out what the UK monarchy and the Irish Government must deliver in order to appease you.
That's why I highlighted apologies, explanations and acknowledgements in bold. I would love you to offer a brief explanation as to what form of these would make you happy, and why.
And please don't revert to a United Ireland line. That's simply not a plausible option at present without a bloodbath. And if you think its worth a bloodbath, good for you - that's your privilege, but then I'll expect to be reading your names in stone before too long.
QuoteDo you think that the recipients of Ireland's socail welfare's opinion is less worthy than your own? It's for another thread but the vast majority of these people do not fit into that description.
As you say, this is another discussion. But the long-term unemployed are parasites on society. They have no interest in furthering themselves, their families or their communities. When they start contributing to society instead of taking from it, then they can try to shape its future.
Disgusting remark Wobbler. It's the Irish Government and their greedy banker friends who are the real parasites and they are responsible for so many people who are now on the dole.
Ah okay, we're going to get personal by the look of it.
QuoteDisgusting remark Wobbler. It's the Irish Government and their greedy banker friends who are the real parasites and they are responsible for so many people who are now on the dole
1. I described the long-term unemployed as parasites, not the recently unemployed. So let's not start twisting.
2. The bankers and government fucked the country, no doubt. But the twin terrors of greed and unwillingness to put in a good shift of work run much deeper in Irish society than at the top table, and present the biggest stumblings blocks for recovery.
Sinn Fein's take on the topic. Make sure you've been to the toilet before you start reading this, otherwise there's a real danger you'll wet your pants laughing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/northern_ireland_politics/10421223.stm
Here's the bit where I lost control of my bladder:
"Sinn Fein opposes the proposed state visit of the Queen of England, commander-in-chief of the British armed forces," said TD Caoimhghin O Caolain.
"Until there is complete withdrawal of the British military and the British administration from Ireland, and until there is justice and truth for victims of collusion, no official welcome should be accorded to any officer of the British armed forces of any rank," he continued.
So that'll be the British administration up at Stormont, then, the one in which SF hopes to have the most MLA's next year?
:D :D :D
It seems some people are more upset by their own imaginations conjuring images of the D4 types (I can see Ross O'Carroll-Kelly now) waving Union Jacks, all shown 24/7 by the treacherous RTE of course, than they are of any likely reality.
When Queenie shows up, shepherded by Cowen, we will have no British flags (unless it is British citizens). We will no doubt have the usual suspects protesting as they are entitled to do, without my support, a position I'm entitled to.
With the exception of some dissident republicans, the war is over. I will not spend every day worrying about some dead guy and whether his decomposed body is capable of turning in its grave because of my thoughts on the matter. I have my own ancestors to think about and more particularly their most recent descendants.
I lived for a while in Queenie's country, didn't like it that much but was made pretty welcome. I won't be cheering because that would require giving a damn, which despite people posting Union Jacks and trying every provocative trick in the book, I wont be changing my mind.
lads lads you have to see the big picture here. while I'm am vehemently opposed to the queen of england coming to Dublin we must look at where the 26 counties find themselves, 1. the government since the foundation of the state have been rotten and corrupt passing their power from generation to generation like royalty. 2. these selfish b**tards have sunk the Irish people into debts that it will take 100years to clear if ever. 3. what we are seeing is large blocks of power emerging who are divvying up the worlds dwindling resources and basically ireland is aligning itself with Britain and America.(hence the use of Shannon etc) while trying to keep in with the Europeans. 4. the rise in the strenght of stirling makes ireland more attractive to Brit holiday makers whose numbers have fallen 15% since last year the ash cloud stuff also makes ireland attractive and if the queen has a nice time all the better.(they need their £££'s) 5. paisley has just been wined and dined all round Dublin visits like this paved the way for what we all strive for-- a peaceful and inclusive country.. theres no easy way to get rid of 900,000 prods. people will notice if they start disappearing, we must accommodate them and truthfully there are alot of them who have been everywhere and never been south. 6. this move by cowen should finally get the idea out of our heads that the freestaters give a flying fuk what we think here in the 6 counties. we are in this crap on our own and we always have been. 7. as for protests anyone protesting will be portrayed as knuckle trailing trouble makers and the state police will have no hesitation in beating the living sh1te out of them, and the state broadcaster will make sure that only drunken hippy types are shown (badly dressed) getting whacked, whereas only nice people will meet Liz. 8. the English monarchy still own a huge amount of property here eg lord Shirley carrickmacross, lord caledon caledon and on and on.. they still own areas of Dublin newry Belfast cork limerick on and on.. buildings that the people in them cant even find out who owns them because they are handled by agents. eg donegal square in Belfast has nothing to do with donegal the county, the land there is owned by lord donegal, these lands were awarded to the lords by the royals and remain the gift of the monarchy. while Liz will not see all her property rest assured she will be among friends and relations when she makes it to Dublin.
Finally this whole thing will go down well cause Irish people are stupid- they take it up the arse. it doesn't matter whether its the queen, the Irish chieftains, the politicians, the clergy, the bankers, the landlords, the Brits, the yanks etc etc we've been doing it since the vikings, a boat load or two of guys wearing horns on their heads landed here and gave a whole country a kicking and took all our good looking women away back to Scandinavia and left us with the mullingar heifers we have now. :) >:( ::) and what did we do? NOTHING! its what we do best >:(
Quote from: lawnseed on June 27, 2010, 01:57:15 AM
lads lads you have to see the big picture here. while I'm am vehemently opposed to the queen of england coming to Dublin we must look at where the 26 counties find themselves, 1. the government since the foundation of the state have been rotten and corrupt passing their power from generation to generation like royalty. 2. these selfish b**tards have sunk the Irish people into debts that it will take 100years to clear if ever. 3. what we are seeing is large blocks of power emerging who are divvying up the worlds dwindling resources and basically ireland is aligning itself with Britain and America.(hence the use of Shannon etc) while trying to keep in with the Europeans. 4. the rise in the strenght of stirling makes ireland more attractive to Brit holiday makers whose numbers have fallen 15% since last year the ash cloud stuff also makes ireland attractive and if the queen has a nice time all the better.(they need their £££'s) 5. paisley has just been wined and dined all round Dublin visits like this paved the way for what we all strive for-- a peaceful and inclusive country.. theres no easy way to get rid of 900,000 prods. people will notice if they start disappearing, we must accommodate them and truthfully there are alot of them who have been everywhere and never been south. 6. this move by cowen should finally get the idea out of our heads that the freestaters give a flying fuk what we think here in the 6 counties. we are in this crap on our own and we always have been. 7. as for protests anyone protesting will be portrayed as knuckle trailing trouble makers and the state police will have no hesitation in beating the living sh1te out of them, and the state broadcaster will make sure that only drunken hippy types are shown (badly dressed) getting whacked, whereas only nice people will meet Liz. 8. the English monarchy still own a huge amount of property here eg lord Shirley carrickmacross, lord caledon caledon and on and on.. they still own areas of Dublin newry Belfast cork limerick on and on.. buildings that the people in them cant even find out who owns them because they are handled by agents. eg donegal square in Belfast has nothing to do with donegal the county, the land there is owned by lord donegal, these lands were awarded to the lords by the royals and remain the gift of the monarchy. while Liz will not see all her property rest assured she will be among friends and relations when she makes it to Dublin.
Finally this whole thing will go down well cause Irish people are stupid- they take it up the arse. it doesn't matter whether its the queen, the Irish chieftains, the politicians, the clergy, the bankers, the landlords, the Brits, the yanks etc etc we've been doing it since the vikings, a boat load or two of guys wearing horns on their heads landed here and gave a whole country a kicking and took all our good looking women away back to Scandinavia and left us with the mullingar heifers we have now. :) >:( ::) and what did we do? NOTHING! its what we do best >:(
After a bad morning, that has cheered me up no end - that piece in bold in particular is up there with the best that's been written on this board
Quote from: lawnseed on June 27, 2010, 01:57:15 AM
lads lads you have to see the big picture here. while I'm am vehemently opposed to the queen of england coming to Dublin we must look at where the 26 counties find themselves, 1. the government since the foundation of the state have been rotten and corrupt passing their power from generation to generation like royalty. 2. these selfish b**tards have sunk the Irish people into debts that it will take 100years to clear if ever. 3. what we are seeing is large blocks of power emerging who are divvying up the worlds dwindling resources and basically ireland is aligning itself with Britain and America.(hence the use of Shannon etc) while trying to keep in with the Europeans. 4. the rise in the strenght of stirling makes ireland more attractive to Brit holiday makers whose numbers have fallen 15% since last year the ash cloud stuff also makes ireland attractive and if the queen has a nice time all the better.(they need their £££'s) 5. paisley has just been wined and dined all round Dublin visits like this paved the way for what we all strive for-- a peaceful and inclusive country.. theres no easy way to get rid of 900,000 prods. people will notice if they start disappearing, we must accommodate them and truthfully there are alot of them who have been everywhere and never been south. 6. this move by cowen should finally get the idea out of our heads that the freestaters give a flying fuk what we think here in the 6 counties. we are in this crap on our own and we always have been. 7. as for protests anyone protesting will be portrayed as knuckle trailing trouble makers and the state police will have no hesitation in beating the living sh1te out of them, and the state broadcaster will make sure that only drunken hippy types are shown (badly dressed) getting whacked, whereas only nice people will meet Liz. 8. the English monarchy still own a huge amount of property here eg lord Shirley carrickmacross, lord caledon caledon and on and on.. they still own areas of Dublin newry Belfast cork limerick on and on.. buildings that the people in them cant even find out who owns them because they are handled by agents. eg donegal square in Belfast has nothing to do with donegal the county, the land there is owned by lord donegal, these lands were awarded to the lords by the royals and remain the gift of the monarchy. while Liz will not see all her property rest assured she will be among friends and relations when she makes it to Dublin.
Finally this whole thing will go down well cause Irish people are stupid- they take it up the arse. it doesn't matter whether its the queen, the Irish chieftains, the politicians, the clergy, the bankers, the landlords, the Brits, the yanks etc etc we've been doing it since the vikings, a boat load or two of guys wearing horns on their heads landed here and gave a whole country a kicking and took all our good looking women away back to Scandinavia and left us with the mullingar heifers we have now. :) >:( ::) and what did we do? NOTHING! its what we do best >:(
Sums it all up in one post......
If only Lawnseed had an opportunity to make that speech in the Dail.
Tell it like it is LS. That last bit was priceless. :D
Thats the post of the year for me LS. Sums it all up pretty well. I would say the amount of land the brits control on the this island as a whole would if published shock alot of people. Once again great post.
Quotewe've been doing it since the vikings, a boat load or two of guys wearing horns on their heads landed here and gave a whole country a kicking and took all our good looking women away back to Scandinavia and left us with the mullingar heifers we have now. and what did we do? NOTHING! its what we do best
I'd say you would be a great man to go for a pint with.
I watched on TV the other night the discussions in the Seanad about this. Members were tripping over themselves to talk about how it would be an honour to have the English Queen visit and speak of their aspirations to have her visit their own areas. I was bubbling with anger because I couldnt's stop thinking about the families, including neighbours of my own, who lost people to collusion and were possibly watching that. I know where my support lies.
Alot of you seem to have forgotten that she has been visiting Ireland...you know that part of Ireland that SOOOOO many of you in the 26 forget (either by function, complacency or design) exists. And where are you when she was here? The silence about your loyalty to your countrymen in the 6 counties is not only deafening, but f**king sickening. Take the carrot out of your arses and start standing up for you fellow Irishpeople in the north rather than trying to outscore each other with your quasi-policital soundbites. F U C K I N G cringeworthy.
This is our island, our nation as much as yours.
Quote from: Aerlik on June 27, 2010, 04:01:08 PM
Alot of you seem to have forgotten that she has been visiting Ireland...you know that part of Ireland that SOOOOO many of you in the 26 forget (either by function, complacency or design) exists. And where are you when she was here? The silence about your loyalty to your countrymen in the 6 counties is not only deafening, but f**king sickening. Take the carrot out of your arses and start standing up for you fellow Irishpeople in the north rather than trying to outscore each other with your quasi-policital soundbites. F U C K I N G cringeworthy.
This is our island, our nation as much as yours.
You said it.
Quote from: Aerlik on June 27, 2010, 04:01:08 PM
Alot of you seem to have forgotten that she has been visiting Ireland...you know that part of Ireland that SOOOOO many of you in the 26 forget (either by function, complacency or design) exists. And where are you when she was here? The silence about your loyalty to your countrymen in the 6 counties is not only deafening, but f**king sickening. Take the carrot out of your arses and start standing up for you fellow Irishpeople in the north rather than trying to outscore each other with your quasi-policital soundbites. F U C K I N G cringeworthy.
This is our island, our nation as much as yours.
Our island in heart, if not in legislation. The Queen can do what she likes up "there"
Bottom line, I am taking a few days off, and on the drink, when Thatcher checks out. The queen? Couldn't give a do dah about her, she is there by accident. It's the ones they elect that have done the damage, north, south and in Engerland.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 27, 2010, 08:51:21 PM
Bottom line, I am taking a few days off, and on the drink, when Thatcher checks out. The queen? Couldn't give a do dah about her, she is there by accident. It's the ones they elect that have done the damage, north, south and in Engerland.
Nail on the head.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 27, 2010, 02:20:00 PM
I watched on TV the other night the discussions in the Seanad about this. Members were tripping over themselves to talk about how it would be an honour to have the English Queen visit and speak of their aspirations to have her visit their own areas. I was bubbling with anger because I couldnt's stop thinking about the families, including neighbours of my own, who lost people to collusion and were possibly watching that. I know where my support lies.
Republican or loyalist collusion?
Perhaps by inviting Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to the Irish Republic, Cowan intends to thank her, her family, and everyone else in her Kingdom and Empire for preventing the Republic from being invaded by the Nazis in 1940?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0628/1224273464332.html
"[Dublin] was identified by the Nazis as one of six regional administrative centres for the British Isles had occupation taken place. Dublin's Gauleiter was to have sweeping executive powers and would have had instructions to dismantle, and if necessary, liquidate, any of Ireland's remaining indigenous political apparatus, her intellectual leadership and any non-Aryan social institutions such as the trade union movement or the GAA, for example. Irish Jews would have been murdered en masse"
(http://whynow.dumka.us/grfx/PrincLiz.jpg)
During her Itinerary, it would be entirely suitable, for example, to visit the Memorial Garden at Baldonnel Aerodrome and return her hosts thanks, by paying tribute to the many Free State men and women who joined the fight against the Nazis, such as this notable member of "The Few":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Finucane
(http://www.bbm.org.uk/Finucane-rose-opt.jpg)
(http://www.bbm.org.uk/Finucane-Bdonnel1-opt.jpg)
Who should Cowan thank first, her or Uncle Eddie?
Quote from: whiskeysteve on June 29, 2010, 02:56:24 PM
Who should Cowan thank first, her or Uncle Eddie?
Seeing as her "Uncle Eddie" is dead, thanking him would be as futile a gesture as, eg, Cowan sending his condolences to the German Embassy in Dublin on the anniversary of Hitler's death... ::)
More futile than thanking 'her, her family' for saving us from Nazi occupation?
You're not suggesting Lizzy stormed up the beaches at Normandy with an M16, Futile Genius?
So cut me some slack for calling up her Nazi Uncle
What makes me laugh is that she still uses the title 'Defender of the Faith', EG you do realise this title was first awarded by the Pope to Henry VIII??
He kicked up a stink and threw a strop that the other Kings of Europe had titles bestowed by the Pope and in order to earn one and take his place among Europe's 'elite monarchies' led a thinly veiled attack on the early Protestant reformation - the irony beggars belief
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 29, 2010, 02:40:13 PM
Perhaps by inviting Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to the Irish Republic, Cowan intends to thank her, her family, and everyone else in her Kingdom and Empire for preventing the Republic from being invaded by the Nazis in 1940?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0628/1224273464332.html
"[Dublin] was identified by the Nazis as one of six regional administrative centres for the British Isles had occupation taken place. Dublin's Gauleiter was to have sweeping executive powers and would have had instructions to dismantle, and if necessary, liquidate, any of Ireland's remaining indigenous political apparatus, her intellectual leadership and any non-Aryan social institutions such as the trade union movement or the GAA, for example. Irish Jews would have been murdered en masse"
(http://whynow.dumka.us/grfx/PrincLiz.jpg)
During her Itinerary, it would be entirely suitable, for example, to visit the Memorial Garden at Baldonnel Aerodrome and return her hosts thanks, by paying tribute to the many Free State men and women who joined the fight against the Nazis, such as this notable member of "The Few":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Finucane
(http://www.bbm.org.uk/Finucane-rose-opt.jpg)
(http://www.bbm.org.uk/Finucane-Bdonnel1-opt.jpg)
You're more of a bollix I made out.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on June 29, 2010, 03:48:22 PM
More futile than thanking 'her, her family' for saving us from Nazi occupation?
You're not suggesting Lizzy stormed up the beaches at Normandy with an M16, Futile Genius?
So cut me some slack for calling up her Nazi Uncle
My point was that people are saying as that Head of State of an "occupying power" [
sic], it is inappropriate to invite her to the Republic.
I was merely making the counterpoint that she was also heir to (her father's) throne when that same State was instrumental in
protecting the Republic from occupation, as outlined in yesterday's Irish Times article which I quoted (and you ignored).
In both such situations, her role is entirely ceremonial and symbolic.
So I'm not suggesting that she "stormed the beaches at Normandy", any more than that eg she rampaged through the Bogside on Bloody Sunday (or any other of the events which seem to give offence to certain posters).
Still, it is no surprise that such posters invariably "cherry-pick" their way through (their own version of) History to find the construction which best reflects their own prejudices...
QuoteStill, it is no surprise that such posters invariably "cherry-pick" their way through (their own version of) History to find the construction which best reflects their own prejudices...
Well said ... :P
Quote from: Banana Man on June 29, 2010, 04:22:39 PM
What makes me laugh is that she still uses the title 'Defender of the Faith', EG you do realise this title was first awarded by the Pope to Henry VIII?
I was well aware of that, thank you very much, just as I am aware eg, that when William of Orange ("of pious, glorious and immortal memory") and his Catholic Dutch Blue Guards etc sent "Seamus a' chaca" running at Aughrim and the Boyne etc, they did so with the express approval of the Pope of the day.
Quote from: Banana Man on June 29, 2010, 04:22:39 PMHe kicked up a stink and threw a strop that the other Kings of Europe had titles bestowed by the Pope and in order to earn one and take his place among Europe's 'elite monarchies' led a thinly veiled attack on the early Protestant reformation - the irony beggars belief
Aye, that's what Popes were like in those days - didn't give a stuff who they honoured, even "The English Nero".
Indeed, some would argue that the present and recent incumbents are not much better... ::)
Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 29, 2010, 04:32:00 PMYou're more of a bollix I made out.
Well, that's my case clinically and comprehensively dismantled, and no mistake.
And with such grammatical elegance, too... :D
farrandeelin
Quote
You're more of a bollix I made out.
Maybe we should bump the bloody sunday thread, eg was quiet that week.
Sorry Evil Genius, what I meant to say is that, 'You are more of a bollix than I have made you out to be'. That's my grammatical elegance fixed for you. You can't hide the fact that the queen of England's government tried to exterminate the Irish people during the famine of 1845-1849. I also know she wasn't queen back then, but she wasn't queen when Hitler was in control of Nazi Germany either. As for the recent troubles, imagine if the nationalists had taken a 'let's leave it as it is' approach, bloody hell I think the U.N should have been brought in... but wait, didn't the British government dissuade the U.N.
P.S. You don't start a sentence with 'and'. It looks rather childish. It shows up your lack of grammatical understanding.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0628/1224273464332.html
interesting article.
i read that a coalition government including SF would withdraw the invitation. could get messy ???
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 29, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0628/1224273464332.html
interesting article.
Things would have been really bad under the Nazis. Social conditions would probably have gotten so bad that millions of Irish people would starve to death and millions more would have to leave these shores. The irish would have been reduced to a serf-like existence in their own country.
Quote from: Arthur_Friend on July 03, 2010, 12:27:47 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 29, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0628/1224273464332.html
interesting article.
Things would have been really bad under the Nazis. Social conditions would probably have gotten so bad that millions of Irish people would starve to death and millions more would have to leave these shores. The irish would have been reduced to a serf-like existence in their own country.
Yeah, that's mad isn't it. Oh wait...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11210372 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11210372)
Well that's news to me, I musn't have been listening in class the day they taught Ireland won independence in 1921 - lazy journalism wouldn't begin to describe it ::)
aaaaah, we haven't "won" independence. Part of our country is still illegally annexed by Britain.
I know whay you are saying Aerlik but I was referring to the point that Ireland was only declared a free state in 1921 and not independent, it was still owned by England - ill informed at best
Quote from: Aerlik on September 08, 2010, 11:37:41 AM
aaaaah, we haven't "won" independence. Part of our country is still illegally annexed by Britain.
How's the legal case coming along in Australia?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Naivety in the extreme.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
I wonder how he feels about the sycophantic welcoming of the Pope to Britain. He must empathise with the die-hard irrational Paisley then?
Quote from: Franko on September 18, 2010, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Naivety in the extreme.
Deliberately so, in order to make a point. Republicans like Joe say there is a conflict because they don't have a united Ireland. In their analysis, the conflict will only end when there is a united Ireland. Yet that would leave a lot of unionists unhappy, so the 'conflict' would continue. Conflict doesn't end when republicans get what they want.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 18, 2010, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Naivety in the extreme.
Deliberately so, in order to make a point. Republicans like Joe say there is a conflict because they don't have a united Ireland. In their analysis, the conflict will only end when there is a united Ireland. Yet that would leave a lot of unionists unhappy, so the 'conflict' would continue. Conflict doesn't end when republicans get what they want.
Should that not read 'when nationalists get what we want'?? ;)
And how do you describe Fr. Joe as a 'republican' (remembering your description of a republican from a few days back) when his suggested methods for achieving a united Ireland (bold) would equate entirely with your own (going by your posts anyway).
Quote from: Franko on September 18, 2010, 01:28:19 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 18, 2010, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Naivety in the extreme.
Deliberately so, in order to make a point. Republicans like Joe say there is a conflict because they don't have a united Ireland. In their analysis, the conflict will only end when there is a united Ireland. Yet that would leave a lot of unionists unhappy, so the 'conflict' would continue. Conflict doesn't end when republicans get what they want.
Should that not read 'when nationalists get what we want'?? ;)
And how do you describe Fr. Joe as a 'republican' (remembering your description of a republican from a few days back) when his suggested methods for achieving a united Ireland (bold) would equate entirely with your own (going by your posts anyway).
Nationalism and republicanism aren't the same thing, though there is an overlap on occasions.
And I'm not the only person in Ireland who thinks that Joe's a republican:
http://irishexaminer.ie/ireland/dissident-republicans-only-concerned-with-sinn-fein-130636.html
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 18, 2010, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Naivety in the extreme.
Deliberately so, in order to make a point. Republicans like Joe say there is a conflict because they don't have a united Ireland. In their analysis, the conflict will only end when there is a united Ireland. Yet that would leave a lot of unionists unhappy, so the 'conflict' would continue. Conflict doesn't end when republicans get what they want.
Why shouldn't republicans and unionists from the North be able to vote in Presidential elections, though? That would be a feasible and reasonable means of including all traditions on this island in a coherent democratic structure. It would, at least on a small scale, demonstrate the unity of the island's identity as well as including northern unionists. Partition left a lot of southern unionists unhappy as well, mind.
Quote from: stibhan on September 18, 2010, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 18, 2010, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Naivety in the extreme.
Deliberately so, in order to make a point. Republicans like Joe say there is a conflict because they don't have a united Ireland. In their analysis, the conflict will only end when there is a united Ireland. Yet that would leave a lot of unionists unhappy, so the 'conflict' would continue. Conflict doesn't end when republicans get what they want.
Why shouldn't republicans and unionists from the North be able to vote in Presidential elections, though? That would be a feasible and reasonable means of including all traditions on this island in a coherent democratic structure. It would, at least on a small scale, demonstrate the unity of the island's identity as well as including northern unionists. Partition left a lot of southern unionists unhappy as well, mind.
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
But at least the choice would be there for them. And over time more and more may wish to excerise that right. Then if there is a change in the future it may mean unionists may feel more involved in any process towards a united ireland. And that can't be a bad thing.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on September 18, 2010, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 18, 2010, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
ALLOWING IRISH citizens living in Northern Ireland to vote in presidential elections would make a more meaningful contribution to achieving a united Ireland than a "sycophantic" welcoming of Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin, Fr Joe McVeigh said yesterday.
"The creeping partitionism of recent years has to be stopped and reversed," said the Fermanagh born priest.
Speaking at the annual General Liam Lynch Commemoration in Fermoy, Co Cork Fr McVeigh said that instead of adopting such practical measures, political maturity in Ireland is measured "on how low we can prostrate ourselves before the current British monarch".
Anyone who objects to the proposed visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin will be branded as "die-hard and irrational while those who bow and scrape will be praised for their political maturity" Fr McVeigh told the 200 or so strong gathering at Kilcrumper Cemetery.
Asked how Northern nationalists would view such a visit, Fr McVeigh said most will ignore it as they do when the queen visits the North but he counselled strongly against any "slavish and sickeningly sycophantic behaviour by the institutions of State"
Fr McVeigh said the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition had led to the abandonment by Dublin of Irish nationalists in the six counties. However, the Good Friday agreement, despite its shortcomings, have given many people the hope that the conflict can be resolved through dialogue and that Irish unity can be achieved by "negotiation, political persuasion and political pressure and political mobilisation".
Fr McVeigh said dissident republicans opposed to the Good Friday agreement have no support among the mass of Northern nationalists and represent nobody but a rump of embittered individuals whose gripe is not with British imperialism but with the Sinn Féin leadership.
"It's as simple, as petty and as personal as that," he said.
The task for Irish republicans living in the real world is two-fold – to persuade Unionists that their best interests lie in a unified Ireland and perhaps the even greater challenge of persuading people in the 26 counties that their best interests lie in a united Ireland, he said.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Got that bit wrong, Fr Joe. The conflict has been resolved - no change until the people north and south vote for it. At the moment, the people don't want change so there won't be any. Where's the conflict?
Naivety in the extreme.
Deliberately so, in order to make a point. Republicans like Joe say there is a conflict because they don't have a united Ireland. In their analysis, the conflict will only end when there is a united Ireland. Yet that would leave a lot of unionists unhappy, so the 'conflict' would continue. Conflict doesn't end when republicans get what they want.
Why shouldn't republicans and unionists from the North be able to vote in Presidential elections, though? That would be a feasible and reasonable means of including all traditions on this island in a coherent democratic structure. It would, at least on a small scale, demonstrate the unity of the island's identity as well as including northern unionists. Partition left a lot of southern unionists unhappy as well, mind.
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
No, it would demonstrate that it was one island. The word 'country' isn't easily definable anyway, and voting rights won't change that. It's about including people who want to be included, and encouraging others to include themselves.
Quote from: stibhan on September 18, 2010, 03:41:44 PM
Why shouldn't republicans and unionists from the North be able to vote in Presidential elections, though? That would be a feasible and reasonable means of including all traditions on this island in a coherent democratic structure. It would, at least on a small scale, demonstrate the unity of the island's identity as well as including northern unionists. Partition left a lot of southern unionists unhappy as well, mind.
Myles is right on what you say here. You're talking about creating an all-Ireland polity of some kind, and a trying to show that everyone in the island shares an identity, one that fits comfortably under the auspcies of the Republic of Ireland's president. Seems to me to be close to the constant attempts to alchemise the "President of Ireland", and the state more generally, into an all-island entity, even though the Ireland in question is the 26-county republic.
Linking an "island" identity to the (southern) Irish state is precisely why people like me wouldn't call themselves Irish. Other unionists do of course use the label Irish, but it's effectively using the same word for more than one concept.
Owen Patterson in the crowd today in Croke Park.
The Queen could be in Croker at next year's AI final at this rate.
The GAA would do anything at the minute and principles that were set in stone are now gone.
Quote from: orangeman on September 19, 2010, 08:21:03 PM
Owen Patterson in the crowd today in Croke Park.
The Queen could be in Croker at next year's AI final at this rate.
The GAA would do anything at the minute and principles that were set in stone are now gone.
It's hard to get the balance right here. People are 'disgusted' that Nelson McCausland won't do his job, but are equally disgusted when others from 'the other side' turn up.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 19, 2010, 08:51:10 PM
Quote from: orangeman on September 19, 2010, 08:21:03 PM
Owen Patterson in the crowd today in Croke Park.
The Queen could be in Croker at next year's AI final at this rate.
The GAA would do anything at the minute and principles that were set in stone are now gone.
It's hard to get the balance right here. People are 'disgusted' that Nelson McCausland won't do his job, but are equally disgusted when others from 'the other side' turn up.
I'm not. That's his decison and his right. Fair play to him for sticking by his principles.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 19, 2010, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
There is bigger resistance in the Dailto this than in Stormont.
I thought it looked stupid today watching a Down woman be paraded along by Coulter introducing the Down team to her and not one of them can vote for her.
Is she not from North Belfast?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 19, 2010, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 19, 2010, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
There is bigger resistance in the Dailto this than in Stormont.
I thought it looked stupid today watching a Down woman be paraded along by Coulter introducing the Down team to her and not one of them can vote for her.
Is she not from North Belfast?
So she can stand in an election she can't vote in? OK....
Quote from: ziggysego on September 20, 2010, 02:19:52 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 19, 2010, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 19, 2010, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
There is bigger resistance in the Dailto this than in Stormont.
I thought it looked stupid today watching a Down woman be paraded along by Coulter introducing the Down team to her and not one of them can vote for her.
Is she not from North Belfast?
So she can stand in an election she can't vote in? OK....
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Back to the original title of the thread, it appears that Castlebar Town council have invited her to the town.
Quote from: MW on September 19, 2010, 07:19:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on September 18, 2010, 03:41:44 PM
Why shouldn't republicans and unionists from the North be able to vote in Presidential elections, though? That would be a feasible and reasonable means of including all traditions on this island in a coherent democratic structure. It would, at least on a small scale, demonstrate the unity of the island's identity as well as including northern unionists. Partition left a lot of southern unionists unhappy as well, mind.
Myles is right on what you say here. You're talking about creating an all-Ireland polity of some kind, and a trying to show that everyone in the island shares an identity, one that fits comfortably under the auspcies of the Republic of Ireland's president. Seems to me to be close to the constant attempts to alchemise the "President of Ireland", and the state more generally, into an all-island entity, even though the Ireland in question is the 26-county republic.
Linking an "island" identity to the (southern) Irish state is precisely why people like me wouldn't call themselves Irish. Other unionists do of course use the label Irish, but it's effectively using the same word for more than one concept.
Yea, you're right. McAleese, the Irishwoman from the North who was voted in as President of Ireland, is linking the Irish identity to the Southern state. I for one welcome the day that a Northern Unionist and Protestant man or woman becomes president of 'the south', especially if it is done by all 32 counties of the island.
That wouldn't be considered a polity or anything by me, it would be considered a positive step towards reconciliation, and I have similar qualms about 'Irish' being used in a southern context but not a northern one. It's a misnomer to suggest that 'southerness' amounts to full 'Irishness' and 'Northern-ness' amounts to partial.
Quote from: stibhan on September 20, 2010, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: MW on September 19, 2010, 07:19:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on September 18, 2010, 03:41:44 PM
Why shouldn't republicans and unionists from the North be able to vote in Presidential elections, though? That would be a feasible and reasonable means of including all traditions on this island in a coherent democratic structure. It would, at least on a small scale, demonstrate the unity of the island's identity as well as including northern unionists. Partition left a lot of southern unionists unhappy as well, mind.
Myles is right on what you say here. You're talking about creating an all-Ireland polity of some kind, and a trying to show that everyone in the island shares an identity, one that fits comfortably under the auspcies of the Republic of Ireland's president. Seems to me to be close to the constant attempts to alchemise the "President of Ireland", and the state more generally, into an all-island entity, even though the Ireland in question is the 26-county republic.
Linking an "island" identity to the (southern) Irish state is precisely why people like me wouldn't call themselves Irish. Other unionists do of course use the label Irish, but it's effectively using the same word for more than one concept.
Yea, you're right. McAleese, the Irishwoman from the North who was voted in as President of Ireland, is linking the Irish identity to the Southern state. I for one welcome the day that a Northern Unionist and Protestant man or woman becomes president of 'the south', especially if it is done by all 32 counties of the island.
That wouldn't be considered a polity or anything by me, it would be considered a positive step towards reconciliation, and I have similar qualms about 'Irish' being used in a southern context but not a northern one. It's a misnomer to suggest that 'southerness' amounts to full 'Irishness' and 'Northern-ness' amounts to partial.
Good points well made. Maith an fear
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on September 20, 2010, 02:19:52 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 19, 2010, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 19, 2010, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
There is bigger resistance in the Dailto this than in Stormont.
I thought it looked stupid today watching a Down woman be paraded along by Coulter introducing the Down team to her and not one of them can vote for her.
Is she not from North Belfast?
So she can stand in an election she can't vote in? OK....
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Is Ardoyne not in Antrim?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 20, 2010, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on September 20, 2010, 02:19:52 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 19, 2010, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 19, 2010, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
There is bigger resistance in the Dailto this than in Stormont.
I thought it looked stupid today watching a Down woman be paraded along by Coulter introducing the Down team to her and not one of them can vote for her.
Is she not from North Belfast?
So she can stand in an election she can't vote in? OK....
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Is Ardoyne not in Antrim?
It is yes, although Down is more than welcome to it.
Mrs McAleese is originally from north Belfast.
Myles has got something right at long, long last.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on September 21, 2010, 08:34:39 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 20, 2010, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on September 20, 2010, 02:19:52 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 19, 2010, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 19, 2010, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
There is bigger resistance in the Dailto this than in Stormont.
I thought it looked stupid today watching a Down woman be paraded along by Coulter introducing the Down team to her and not one of them can vote for her.
Is she not from North Belfast?
So she can stand in an election she can't vote in? OK....
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Is Ardoyne not in Antrim?
It is yes, although Down is more than welcome to it.
Mrs McAleese is originally from north Belfast.
Myles has got something right at long, long last.
8)
Quote from: saffron sam2 on September 21, 2010, 08:34:39 AM
Is she not from North Belfast?
County Down I thought? [/quote]
Is Ardoyne not in Antrim?
[/quote]
It is yes, although Down is more than welcome to it.
Mrs McAleese is originally from north Belfast.
Myles has got something right at long, long last.
[/quote]
No matter where she come from herself she has made the excellent choice of returning to her father's roots in lovely north Roscommon when she retires from th'Aras.
And she will be staying among us for ever as she has the plot booked in that historic cemetery on the hillside just off the N4 .
A woman who nows where she really belongs is our Mary.
I wonder will she be at the County final on Sunday to see her neighbours take on the mighty Bridgets?
WTF ?
Queen may pay tribute to Irish rebels in Dublin visit
The Garden of Remembrance in Dublin commemorates those who died for Irish freedom The Queen may pay tribute to Irish men and women who fought British forces when she visits Dublin later this year.
A former Irish cabinet minister said it was normal protocol for a visiting head of state to lay a wreath at Dublin's Garden of Remembrance.
The garden is dedicated to those who died for Irish Freedom.
Officials in Dublin and at Buckingham Palace said the Queen's itinerary has not been finalised and declined to comment further.
What is expected to be a three-day visit is expected in two months' time.
It will be the first visit by a British monarch to the south of Ireland in 100 years and has been billed as a hugely symbolic moment in relations between Britain and the Irish Republic.
The last British Monarch to visit Dublin was George V who inspected what was then part of his realm in 1911.
In tonight's Spotlight programme, Eamon O'Cuiv, a member of the former Fianna Fail-led government that gave the go-ahead to Irish President Mary McAleese to issue the invitation, said: "This is the head of state of our neighbouring country, and of course the normal protocol in these affairs are followed.
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on September 20, 2010, 02:19:52 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 19, 2010, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 19, 2010, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 18, 2010, 06:29:08 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I can't see unionists buying into it for the very reason you identify, namely that it would demonstrate that Ireland is one country, not two.
There is bigger resistance in the Dailto this than in Stormont.
I thought it looked stupid today watching a Down woman be paraded along by Coulter introducing the Down team to her and not one of them can vote for her.
Is she not from North Belfast?
So she can stand in an election she can't vote in? OK....
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Pardon me if I am wrong but I think Mrs McAleese is entitled to vote in any election in the Republic that takes her fancy. She is entitled to carry an Irish passport as a person born on this island. Dual citizenship applies to everyone in Northern Ireland, doesn't it?
I certainly recall a news clip of Mary casting her vote in some election or other in a school beside the park.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 15, 2011, 10:47:19 PM
Pardon me if I am wrong but I think Mrs McAleese is entitled to vote in any election in the Republic that takes her fancy. She is entitled to carry an Irish passport as a person born on this island. Dual citizenship applies to everyone in Northern Ireland, doesn't it?
I certainly recall a news clip of Mary casting her vote in some election or other in a school beside the park.
She couldn't vote in the first election she stood in. However, haven taken up residence in the park she could register and vote locally there in all relevant elections.
/Jim.
Full statement from the GAA:
The Gaelic Athletic Association has for well over a hundred years embodied and taken its stand with the mood of the nation, culturally, socially and politically. In unity with our players, administrators and supporters throughout the island and abroad, we were strongly committed advocates of the peace process, and we have welcomed, supported and celebrated the developing reconciliation which has resulted from the Good Friday Agreement and its endorsement by the people, North and South, in referenda.
We now welcome the further development of this process, and the consequential deepening of relationships, which will flow from the invitation by President McAleese to Queen Elizabeth to pay a State visit to Ireland. The GAA is pleased to have been asked to receive Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by President McAleese, at our headquarters in Croke Park and to showcase our stadium and facilities to the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and their accompanying party. We believe that this request reflects and acknowledges the special place of the GAA in the life and history of the nation.
We are confident that this historic visit to Croke Park will be welcomed by those who play, administer and support our games, at home and abroad, including of course throughout Britain. We hope also that it will encourage a greater interest and participation in our games by our fellow Irishmen and women of the Unionist tradition.
The visit to Croke Park will provide the Uachtarán of Cumann Lúthchleas Gael with the opportunity to convey to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh a sense of the history and values of the Gaelic Athletic Association, and its unique and leading place in Irish society.
In the best traditions of our Association, we will extend a warm welcome to Croke Park - a Céad Míle Fáilte - to Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, accompanied by the President and Dr. McAleese.
The GAA will be making no further comment.
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
Not as bad as being from rhubarbland ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2011, 09:43:21 PM
Queen may pay tribute to Irish rebels in Dublin visit
The Garden of Remembrance in Dublin commemorates those who died for Irish freedom The Queen may pay tribute to Irish men and women who fought British forces when she visits Dublin later this year.
A former Irish cabinet minister said it was normal protocol for a visiting head of state to lay a wreath at Dublin's Garden of Remembrance.
The garden is dedicated to those who died for Irish Freedom.
Jaysis, the worlds gone mad. Anyone else think of the episode of Father Ted where he kicks the bishop up the arse when you read the bit about her laying a wreath.
Sorry, I know we're all supposed to have stopped thinking like that,
OK Mr Juice,
Write 100 times:
"We played rugby in Croker and everything changed, changed uttlerly."
Quote from: Rossfan on April 07, 2011, 07:48:58 PM
Not as bad as being from rhubarbland ;D ;D ;D
Or shagging sheep.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
So on partitionism, we just have to accept it and live with it & with patriotism, be wary of it as it is a bad thing?
Spoken like a true FGer.
Quote from: thejuice on April 07, 2011, 08:33:34 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2011, 09:43:21 PM
Queen may pay tribute to Irish rebels in Dublin visit
The Garden of Remembrance in Dublin commemorates those who died for Irish freedom The Queen may pay tribute to Irish men and women who fought British forces when she visits Dublin later this year.
A former Irish cabinet minister said it was normal protocol for a visiting head of state to lay a wreath at Dublin's Garden of Remembrance.
The garden is dedicated to those who died for Irish Freedom.
Jaysis, the worlds gone mad. Anyone else think of the episode of Father Ted where he kicks the bishop up the arse when you read the bit about her laying a wreath.
Sorry, I know we're all supposed to have stopped thinking like that,
OK Mr Juice,
Write 100 times:
"We played rugby in Corker and everything changed, changed uttlerly."
is that beside Kerryer and Limericker
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 08:58:44 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
So on partitionism, we just have to accept it and live with it & with patriotism, be wary of it as it is a bad thing?
Spoken like a true FGer.
Patriotism is fine in limited measures. Extreme patriotism is a nasty thing. Also remember the other side can resort to patriotism too (thats if you believe there is anotherside).
On parition, the rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past. The fact is, is that our island is partitioned, until the majority of the populations of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland choose to judge otherwise, that is the way it is. End of story.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 08:58:44 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
So on partitionism, we just have to accept it and live with it & with patriotism, be wary of it as it is a bad thing?
Spoken like a true FGer.
Patriotism is fine in limited measures. Extreme patriotism is a nasty thing. Also remember the other side can resort to patriotism too (thats if you believe there is anotherside).
On parition, the rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past. The fact is, is that our island is partitioned, until the majority of the populations of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland choose to judge otherwise, that is the way it is. End of story.
"The rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past"?? Again, spoken like a true FGer. The complete WRONG of partition is very much in the present as far as I'm concerned. Respect for my unionist neighbours doesn't mean that I have to regard partition as no longer an issue or no longer wrong. It is WRONG.
On patriotism; well anything is fine in moderation, and excess of anything can be bad. Just seems odd that you bring the "dangers" of patriotism into the thing all of a sudden. Anyway partition is a reality - I don't deny that, but I also don't think that just because it is a reality, nothing can be done to hasten it's end and that we should just forget about it in the meantime. To hasten it's end, people north and south who claim to aspire to Irish Unity should drop partitionist mindsets, attitudes and language. It is the partitionist mindset which I described as a disease. And a disease is what it is.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:09:40 PM
Full statement from the GAA:
The Gaelic Athletic Association has for well over a hundred years embodied and taken its stand with the mood of the nation, culturally, socially and politically. In unity with our players, administrators and supporters throughout the island and abroad, we were strongly committed advocates of the peace process, and we have welcomed, supported and celebrated the developing reconciliation which has resulted from the Good Friday Agreement and its endorsement by the people, North and South, in referenda.
We now welcome the further development of this process, and the consequential deepening of relationships, which will flow from the invitation by President McAleese to Queen Elizabeth to pay a State visit to Ireland. The GAA is pleased to have been asked to receive Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by President McAleese, at our headquarters in Croke Park and to showcase our stadium and facilities to the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and their accompanying party. We believe that this request reflects and acknowledges the special place of the GAA in the life and history of the nation.
We are confident that this historic visit to Croke Park will be welcomed by those who play, administer and support our games, at home and abroad, including of course throughout Britain. We hope also that it will encourage a greater interest and participation in our games by our fellow Irishmen and women of the Unionist tradition.
The visit to Croke Park will provide the Uachtarán of Cumann Lúthchleas Gael with the opportunity to convey to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh a sense of the history and values of the Gaelic Athletic Association, and its unique and leading place in Irish society.
In the best traditions of our Association, we will extend a warm welcome to Croke Park - a Céad Míle Fáilte - to Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, accompanied by the President and Dr. McAleese.
The GAA will be making no further comment.
This is a disgrace to the founders of the GAA shame on Cristy Cooney and the leadership of the GAA.
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 08:58:44 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
So on partitionism, we just have to accept it and live with it & with patriotism, be wary of it as it is a bad thing?
Spoken like a true FGer.
Patriotism is fine in limited measures. Extreme patriotism is a nasty thing. Also remember the other side can resort to patriotism too (thats if you believe there is anotherside).
On parition, the rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past. The fact is, is that our island is partitioned, until the majority of the populations of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland choose to judge otherwise, that is the way it is. End of story.
"The rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past"?? Again, spoken like a true FGer. The complete WRONG of partition is very much in the present as far as I'm concerned. Respect for my unionist neighbours doesn't mean that I have to regard partition as no longer an issue or no longer wrong. It is WRONG.
On patriotism; well anything is fine in moderation, and excess of anything can be bad. Just seems odd that you bring the "dangers" of patriotism into the thing all of a sudden. Anyway partition is a reality - I don't deny that, but I also don't think that just because it is a reality, nothing can be done to hasten it's end and that we should just forget about it in the meantime. To hasten it's end, people north and south who claim to aspire to Irish Unity should drop partitionist mindsets, attitudes and language. It is the partitionist mindset which I described as a disease. And a disease is what it is.
On Patriotism, I was playing on the similarity of the visual look of the word with Partitionism at a quick glance. O by the way, did you read the front page of the Irish Independent today, I was so proud to be Irish when I read it and bought my paper from a street vendor in the centre of Liverpool today. You will need to look at the front page of todays Irish Independent to know what I am talking about. I also felt great sorrow, and more than ever want the bullshit of causes to feck off forever.
On Partition, sorry the wrongs of it are the past. The majority of the people on the Island North and South, the governments of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom and the International community believe it to be, SO IT IS. We can not create new wrongs to cancel out old ones. It was wrong for the Normans to invade Ireland, it was wrong for the Gaels to force the Britons and Picts out of West Scotand etc. etc. etc.
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Its so feckn obvious, but maybe they can't see it through their balaclavas.
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
+1
Jaysus, who gives a feck about the Queen of England? What power or interest in anything has she ever exercised?
It'd be better craic if no one turned up to see the oul bag wherever she goes apart from the mad priest in the kilt and Louie Walsh.
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:06:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 08:58:44 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
So on partitionism, we just have to accept it and live with it & with patriotism, be wary of it as it is a bad thing?
Spoken like a true FGer.
Patriotism is fine in limited measures. Extreme patriotism is a nasty thing. Also remember the other side can resort to patriotism too (thats if you believe there is anotherside).
On parition, the rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past. The fact is, is that our island is partitioned, until the majority of the populations of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland choose to judge otherwise, that is the way it is. End of story.
"The rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past"?? Again, spoken like a true FGer. The complete WRONG of partition is very much in the present as far as I'm concerned. Respect for my unionist neighbours doesn't mean that I have to regard partition as no longer an issue or no longer wrong. It is WRONG.
On patriotism; well anything is fine in moderation, and excess of anything can be bad. Just seems odd that you bring the "dangers" of patriotism into the thing all of a sudden. Anyway partition is a reality - I don't deny that, but I also don't think that just because it is a reality, nothing can be done to hasten it's end and that we should just forget about it in the meantime. To hasten it's end, people north and south who claim to aspire to Irish Unity should drop partitionist mindsets, attitudes and language. It is the partitionist mindset which I described as a disease. And a disease is what it is.
On Patriotism, I was playing on the similarity of the visual look of the word with Partitionism at a quick glance. O by the way, did you read the front page of the Irish Independent today, I was so proud to be Irish when I read it and bought my paper from a street vendor in the centre of Liverpool today. You will need to look at the front page of todays Irish Independent to know what I am talking about. I also felt great sorrow, and more than ever want the bullshit of causes to feck off forever.
On Partition, sorry the wrongs of it is in the past. The majority of the people on the Island North and South, the governments of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom and the International community believe it to be, SO IT IS. We can not create new wrongs to cancel out old ones. It was wrong for the Normans to invade Ireland, it was wrong for the Gaels to force the Britons and Picts out of West Scotand etc. etc. etc.
The Irish Independent? No I didn't read it. I make a point to not give Sir Tony a red cent of my hard earned cash. But I have seen the front cover and know what you are talking about. I would prefer if Ronan's murder wasn't cheaply dragged into this argument. He was a friend. You have to ask, are all causes wrong? Or just causes that you deem not to be worthy? Was freedom for the 26 counties a wrong cause? You may regard the wrongs of partition as being in the past. As I say, I certainly don't. I also believe that the wrongs of partition can now be challenged and righted PEACEFULLY for the first time.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:06:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 08:58:44 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
So on partitionism, we just have to accept it and live with it & with patriotism, be wary of it as it is a bad thing?
Spoken like a true FGer.
Patriotism is fine in limited measures. Extreme patriotism is a nasty thing. Also remember the other side can resort to patriotism too (thats if you believe there is anotherside).
On parition, the rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past. The fact is, is that our island is partitioned, until the majority of the populations of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland choose to judge otherwise, that is the way it is. End of story.
"The rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past"?? Again, spoken like a true FGer. The complete WRONG of partition is very much in the present as far as I'm concerned. Respect for my unionist neighbours doesn't mean that I have to regard partition as no longer an issue or no longer wrong. It is WRONG.
On patriotism; well anything is fine in moderation, and excess of anything can be bad. Just seems odd that you bring the "dangers" of patriotism into the thing all of a sudden. Anyway partition is a reality - I don't deny that, but I also don't think that just because it is a reality, nothing can be done to hasten it's end and that we should just forget about it in the meantime. To hasten it's end, people north and south who claim to aspire to Irish Unity should drop partitionist mindsets, attitudes and language. It is the partitionist mindset which I described as a disease. And a disease is what it is.
On Patriotism, I was playing on the similarity of the visual look of the word with Partitionism at a quick glance. O by the way, did you read the front page of the Irish Independent today, I was so proud to be Irish when I read it and bought my paper from a street vendor in the centre of Liverpool today. You will need to look at the front page of todays Irish Independent to know what I am talking about. I also felt great sorrow, and more than ever want the bullshit of causes to feck off forever.
On Partition, sorry the wrongs of it is in the past. The majority of the people on the Island North and South, the governments of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom and the International community believe it to be, SO IT IS. We can not create new wrongs to cancel out old ones. It was wrong for the Normans to invade Ireland, it was wrong for the Gaels to force the Britons and Picts out of West Scotand etc. etc. etc.
The Irish Independent? No I didn't read it. I make a point to not give Sir Tony a red cent of my hard earned cash. But I have seen the front cover and know what you are talking about. I would prefer if Ronan's murder wasn't cheaply dragged into this argument. He was a friend. You have to ask, are all causes wrong? Or just causes that you deem not to be worthy? Was freedom for the 26 counties a wrong cause? You may regard the wrongs of partition as being in the past. As I say, I certainly don't. I also believe that the wrongs of partition can now be challenged and righted PEACEFULLY for the first time.
The rights or wrongs of the independence of the 26 counties is in the past too. It is a reality.
People with your mindset challenge peacefully by calling people from the 26 who disagree Free Staters, Blueshirts, traitors, West Brits, and those from the North Huns and Castle Catholics. See how many votes that wins you?
People like you are pushing a United Irish Republic further back every day. That is borderline treahery in my books.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did the real leaders ;) apologise?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:22:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:06:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 08:58:44 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 20, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
County Down I thought? Either way, the first President who is eligible to stand in an election she cant vote in. Partitionism: A disease rampant in Ireland.
Or Partitionism: A reflection of reality in Ireland?
/Jim.
Patriotism can be another rampant disease.
So on partitionism, we just have to accept it and live with it & with patriotism, be wary of it as it is a bad thing?
Spoken like a true FGer.
Patriotism is fine in limited measures. Extreme patriotism is a nasty thing. Also remember the other side can resort to patriotism too (thats if you believe there is anotherside).
On parition, the rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past. The fact is, is that our island is partitioned, until the majority of the populations of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland choose to judge otherwise, that is the way it is. End of story.
"The rights and wrongs of the original partition of Ireland is in the past"?? Again, spoken like a true FGer. The complete WRONG of partition is very much in the present as far as I'm concerned. Respect for my unionist neighbours doesn't mean that I have to regard partition as no longer an issue or no longer wrong. It is WRONG.
On patriotism; well anything is fine in moderation, and excess of anything can be bad. Just seems odd that you bring the "dangers" of patriotism into the thing all of a sudden. Anyway partition is a reality - I don't deny that, but I also don't think that just because it is a reality, nothing can be done to hasten it's end and that we should just forget about it in the meantime. To hasten it's end, people north and south who claim to aspire to Irish Unity should drop partitionist mindsets, attitudes and language. It is the partitionist mindset which I described as a disease. And a disease is what it is.
On Patriotism, I was playing on the similarity of the visual look of the word with Partitionism at a quick glance. O by the way, did you read the front page of the Irish Independent today, I was so proud to be Irish when I read it and bought my paper from a street vendor in the centre of Liverpool today. You will need to look at the front page of todays Irish Independent to know what I am talking about. I also felt great sorrow, and more than ever want the bullshit of causes to feck off forever.
On Partition, sorry the wrongs of it is in the past. The majority of the people on the Island North and South, the governments of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom and the International community believe it to be, SO IT IS. We can not create new wrongs to cancel out old ones. It was wrong for the Normans to invade Ireland, it was wrong for the Gaels to force the Britons and Picts out of West Scotand etc. etc. etc.
The Irish Independent? No I didn't read it. I make a point to not give Sir Tony a red cent of my hard earned cash. But I have seen the front cover and know what you are talking about. I would prefer if Ronan's murder wasn't cheaply dragged into this argument. He was a friend. You have to ask, are all causes wrong? Or just causes that you deem not to be worthy? Was freedom for the 26 counties a wrong cause? You may regard the wrongs of partition as being in the past. As I say, I certainly don't. I also believe that the wrongs of partition can now be challenged and righted PEACEFULLY for the first time.
The rights or wrongs of the independence of the 26 counties is in the past too. It is a reality.
People with your mindset challenge peacefully by calling people from the 26 who disagree Free Staters, Blueshirts, traitors, West Brits, and those from the North Huns and Castle Catholics. See how many votes that wins you?
People like you are pushing a United Irish Republic further back every day. That is borderline treahery in my books.
Answer the question? Was your freedom "OK" as a cause?? When Britain controlled all 32 counties, was the Tan War a "wrong cause"? It seems you regard some causes OK and some not.
And people with my mindset are wholeheartedly non-partitionist. If you don't believe that much, then maybe you need to re-read my last few posts.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did the real leaders ;) apologise?
Of the British Army? Well she is it's real leader, more of a figurehead, but no she hasn't apologised. Though if you mean the leaders of the British Army as in it's Generals etc? Then no, they haven't apologised to their victims in Ireland either. Glad I could clear that up for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6j12LLIm1M&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: ONeill on April 07, 2011, 10:44:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6j12LLIm1M&feature=player_embedded
:D :D
Ah Feck! Don't tell me she's a DUB!
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Anyway partition is a reality - I don't deny that, but I also don't think that just because it is a reality, nothing can be done to hasten it's end and that we should just forget about it in the meantime. To hasten it's end, people north and south who claim to aspire to Irish Unity should drop partitionist mindsets, attitudes and language. It is the partitionist mindset which I described as a disease. And a disease is what it is.
You are very definitive in all you say there. Would it be reasonable to append the whole lot with "in my view".
For example, over my lifetime I have learnt not to give a fiddler's fart about patriotism. I have a little bit tucked away for Irish sporting teams (but even that would vastly outweighed by my feelings if Clare hurlers ever return to winning ways....). My life view is that people need to create a fair society in terms of how we live our lives. If all other rights are assured to people in any particular state on this island then I can live with that because all state/country lines are arbitrary anyhow. To my mind there are still issues with Northern Ireland context in terms of treatment and rights of it's citizens. However, I am firmly convinced that due to accepted framework (GFA) they are more likely to be addressed in a "partitionist" context than an All-Ireland. Accepting that reality bounds my views.
My beef with most strains of republicanism (and very particularly the barstool kind so comment in the "Free State") is that somehow does not make me an Irish man with contrary views but actually a flawed person and probably a blueshirt, west brit, self loather etc. etc.. To top it all off, I find out today that I am diseased too.
/Jim.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will
Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did they lie and lie and lie and then apologise when there was no other option? The disappeared being an obvious example.
Quote from: Minder on April 08, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will
Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did they lie and lie and lie and then apologise when there was no other option? The disappeared being an obvious example.
Yes
Quote from: Minder on April 08, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will
Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did they lie and lie and lie and then apologise when there was no other option? The disappeared being an obvious example.
That's pretty much exactly what they did!
Quote from: Franko on April 08, 2011, 01:09:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 08, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will
Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did they lie and lie and lie and then apologise when there was no other option? The disappeared being an obvious example.
That's pretty much exactly what they did!
No other option? They could continue to lie if they so wished. Nobody knows who was individually responsible for those deaths but do you think that the bodies which are now beginning to be found are being found without the assistance of the IRA? That would be slightly naive. But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there? The IRA at least apologised to all it's victims's families and accepted the hurt it caused. To get it back to the original topic, has the british army yet admitted that it was not just a "peacemaker" or a "referee" and came clean about its involvement in an unknown amount of state murders? Maybe when they do, QU2 might be more welcome.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 08, 2011, 01:09:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 08, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will
Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did they lie and lie and lie and then apologise when there was no other option? The disappeared being an obvious example.
That's pretty much exactly what they did!
No other option? They could continue to lie if they so wished. Nobody knows who was individually responsible for those deaths but do you think that the bodies which are now beginning to be found are being found without the assistance of the IRA? That would be slightly naive. But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there? The IRA at least apologised to all it's victims's families and accepted the hurt it caused. To get it back to the original topic, has the british army yet admitted that it was not just a "peacemaker" or a "referee" and came clean about its involvement in an unknown amount of state murders? Maybe when they do, QU2 might be more welcome.
:D :D :D
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 08, 2011, 01:09:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 08, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 07, 2011, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 07, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Go home ref on April 07, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Amazing reactions to a gesture of reconciliation, given the week that's in it.
A true gesture of reconciliation would be for her to apologise for her army murdering Aidan Mc Anespie and the many other GAA members the British Army murdered over the years . I wonder will
Cooney&Co even explain to her why the Hogan Stand is called the Hogan Stand?
When are the lads in Sinn Féin going to apologise?
For the death of Michael Hogan? Never.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims' families? Yes.
Has Britain done so? No.
Did they lie and lie and lie and then apologise when there was no other option? The disappeared being an obvious example.
That's pretty much exactly what they did!
No other option? They could continue to lie if they so wished. Nobody knows who was individually responsible for those deaths but do you think that the bodies which are now beginning to be found are being found without the assistance of the IRA? That would be slightly naive. But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there? The IRA at least apologised to all it's victims's families and accepted the hurt it caused. To get it back to the original topic, has the british army yet admitted that it was not just a "peacemaker" or a "referee" and came clean about its involvement in an unknown amount of state murders? Maybe when they do, QU2 might be more welcome.
:D :D :D
My original point was that QE2s forces should accept they were a protagonist in the conflict and come clean about their role and apologise. This was in the context of the visit of QE2. The disappeared were not victims of the british army so ignoring my point and bringing up that topic is whataboutery.
P.S. Have you no opinion to offer on the rest of my post which you didn't put into bold writing?
Be great to see the wee kids from the schools rolled out to line the streets for her waving their little Union Jacks, be like the colonial days of yore!
Quote from: ONeill on April 07, 2011, 10:12:55 PM
Jaysus, who gives a feck about the Queen of England? What power or interest in anything has she ever exercised?
It'd be better craic if no one turned up to see the oul bag wherever she goes apart from the mad priest in the kilt and Louie Walsh.
A truer word never spoken. Same goes for all Royalty/Monarchs etc.
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
EDIT: You know what, scrap that 'p.s.' bit. You won't find such a quote and your attempts to bluff it off will only add to the thread going off topic)
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
It's called getting back on topic. The queen of England is the head of the British Armed Forces. They were not responsible for the disappeared. Bringing it up is just a cynical attempt to change the subject. Whataboutery even.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
It's called getting back on topic. The queen of England is the head of the British Armed Forces. They were not responsible for the disappeared. Bringing it up is just a cynical attempt to change the subject. Whataboutery even.
One man's whataboutery is another man's elephant in the room.
Anyway be telling me how many people Queenie shot or ordered shot?
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
It's called getting back on topic. The queen of England is the head of the British Armed Forces. They were not responsible for the disappeared. Bringing it up is just a cynical attempt to change the subject. Whataboutery even.
One man's whataboutery is another man's elephant in the room.
Anyway be telling me how many people Queenie shot or ordered shot?
Diana Spencer whose ancestors hail from Castlebar, County Mayo (so she was Irish :P :P :P )
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
It's called getting back on topic. The queen of England is the head of the British Armed Forces. They were not responsible for the disappeared. Bringing it up is just a cynical attempt to change the subject. Whataboutery even.
One man's whataboutery is another man's elephant in the room.
Anyway be telling me how many people Queenie shot or ordered shot?
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 08, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
Diana Spencer whose ancestors hail from Castlebar, County Mayo (so she was Irish :P :P :P )
Jaysus will ya stop.
She was from Ballina.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
EDIT: You know what, scrap that 'p.s.' bit. You won't find such a quote and your attempts to bluff it off will only add to the thread going off topic)
What about the British? I'm talking about the ra, not the Brits.
"They could have continued to lie if they so wished". f**k right off and stop making out as if this came about through some form of overwhelming guilt and remorse. They had no other option.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 06:37:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
EDIT: You know what, scrap that 'p.s.' bit. You won't find such a quote and your attempts to bluff it off will only add to the thread going off topic)
What about the British? I'm talking about the ra, not the Brits.
"They could have continued to lie if they so wished". f**k right off and stop making out as if this came about through some form of overwhelming guilt and remorse. They had no other option.
I know you are talking about the 'ra. That is what my point is. The ra are not the issue of this visit. The queen of England was the head of the
british army hence I am referring to the victims of the
british army. It's not complicated. Whataboutery.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 08, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
Diana Spencer whose ancestors hail from Castlebar, County Mayo (so she was Irish :P :P :P )
Jaysus will ya stop.
She was from Ballina.
O fck her so, she deserved it then.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
It's called getting back on topic. The queen of England is the head of the British Armed Forces. They were not responsible for the disappeared. Bringing it up is just a cynical attempt to change the subject. Whataboutery even.
One man's whataboutery is another man's elephant in the room.
Anyway be telling me how many people Queenie shot or ordered shot?
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
f**k sake you sound like the Sun Newspaper after Maggie sunk the General Belgrano.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.
Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
It's called getting back on topic. The queen of England is the head of the British Armed Forces. They were not responsible for the disappeared. Bringing it up is just a cynical attempt to change the subject. Whataboutery even.
One man's whataboutery is another man's elephant in the room.
Anyway be telling me how many people Queenie shot or ordered shot?
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
Ah poor Nally. Is the "disappeared" subject boring ya. Bet you wish it would "go away" alright ::)
Quote from: ross matt on April 08, 2011, 08:00:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Jesus Christ, the IRA should apparently be commended for it's actions in relation to the disappeared.
f**k me pink, you learn something new every day.
OK, and the British?? (To get back to the actual topic?)
(p.s. quote where I said they should be commended)
"But there's nothing like a bit of whataboutery is there?"
Sure isn't.
It's called getting back on topic. The queen of England is the head of the British Armed Forces. They were not responsible for the disappeared. Bringing it up is just a cynical attempt to change the subject. Whataboutery even.
One man's whataboutery is another man's elephant in the room.
Anyway be telling me how many people Queenie shot or ordered shot?
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
Ah poor Nally. Is the "disappeared" subject boring ya. Bet you wish it would "go away" alright ::)
No I just wish people would remember that there were more victims than the disappeared, Jean McConville & Jerry McCabe. Not much to ask. Furthermore, I wish people would simply stick to the actual discussion of the thread instead of trying to make some tedious link between this visit and the disappeared.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.
Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?
Are you the representative for the disappeared though yes? Or is my referring to how uncomfortable this visit might be for a lot of the families of british army victims just uncomfortable for you?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 10:02:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.
Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?
Are you the representative for the disappeared though yes? Or is my referring to how uncomfortable this visit might be for a lot of the families of british army victims just uncomfortable for you?
I have never mentioned the disappeared.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 10:04:01 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 10:02:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.
Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?
Are you the representative for the disappeared though yes? Or is my referring to how uncomfortable this visit might be for a lot of the families of british army victims just uncomfortable for you?
I have never mentioned the disappeared.
Oh so you were referring to something else completely when you mentioned the "elephant in the room". You haven't been too quick wither to mention to others trying to link the disappeared into the debate, to keep on topic. Anyway, this thread is turning into a bit of a farce with the likes of minder or rossman or yourself trying to change the subject at the first mention of the queen of england's army's activities in Ireland.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 10:04:01 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 10:02:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.
Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?
Are you the representative for the disappeared though yes? Or is my referring to how uncomfortable this visit might be for a lot of the families of british army victims just uncomfortable for you?
I have never mentioned the disappeared.
Oh so you were referring to something else completely when you mentioned the "elephant in the room". You haven't been too quick wither to mention to others trying to link the disappeared into the debate, to keep on topic. Anyway, this thread is turning into a bit of a farce with the likes of minder or rossman or yourself trying to change the subject at the first mention of the queen of england's army's activities in Ireland.
The 'elephant in the room' is Warrington. It is Birmingham and Guildford. It is Omagh twice. It is John Morley and Gerry McCabe. It is everyone who has been killed, kidnapped and injured in any way by those now taking the high moral ground about military activity and claiming a monopoly on being victims. Gerry Adams can go to London and sit in the Dáil because lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 06:03:13 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 10:04:01 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 10:02:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
The disappeared is the elephant in the room of the debate on this visit and not the victims of her army? Gotcha.
As for your last question, ask her army's victims. Or do they not matter? Such as the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan Bombs who will have the 37th Anniversary of their murders marked by this visit? No? Better get back on topic then...."the disappeared, the disappeared, the disappeared....."
So Queen Elizabeth was responsible and should apologise for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Wow #didnotknowthat
On behalf of her army? I'd say the victims families would like that, yes.
Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of all of the victims of the troubles?
Are you the representative for the disappeared though yes? Or is my referring to how uncomfortable this visit might be for a lot of the families of british army victims just uncomfortable for you?
I have never mentioned the disappeared.
Oh so you were referring to something else completely when you mentioned the "elephant in the room". You haven't been too quick wither to mention to others trying to link the disappeared into the debate, to keep on topic. Anyway, this thread is turning into a bit of a farce with the likes of minder or rossman or yourself trying to change the subject at the first mention of the queen of england's army's activities in Ireland.
The 'elephant in the room' is Warrington. It is Birmingham and Guildford. It is Omagh twice. It is John Morley and Gerry McCabe. It is everyone who has been killed, kidnapped and injured in any way by those now taking the high moral ground about military activity and claiming a monopoly on being victims. Gerry Adams can go to London and sit in the Dáil because lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on.
Oh so now you have developed this "elephant in the room" metaphor? It's just, you seemed very specific in implying that the disappeared was the "elephant".
Did Gerry Adams or the IRA ever claim they weren't even a protagonist in the conflict?? No. Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims families? Yes. Has the British Army? No.
As I have repeatedly said, perhaps, when the British Army can do as the IRA did, and admit it's responsibility and apologise, then it's head may be more welcome than she currently is.
And enough with the condescending mature act bullshit of "lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on." Typical to insinuate that if you oppose this visit, you must be a dissident who can't move on. I have always supported the GFA.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 11:52:07 AM
Oh so now you have developed this "elephant in the room" metaphor? It's just, you seemed very specific in implying that the disappeared was the "elephant".
You can't even admit you got this wrong. I have not commented on the disappeared on this or the other Queenie thread. Not that it matters.
Quote
Did Gerry Adams or the IRA ever claim they weren't even a protagonist in the conflict?? No. Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cameron+apologises+ireland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cameron+apologises+ireland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Quote
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims families? Yes. Has the British Army? No
See above link again. Not ideal granted but it answers your myopia.
Quote
As I have repeatedly said, perhaps, when the British Army can do as the IRA did, and admit it's responsibility and apologise, then it's head may be more welcome than she currently is.
See above quote.
Quote
And enough with the condescending mature act bullshit of "lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on." Typical to insinuate that if you oppose this visit, you must be a dissident who can't move on. I have always supported the GFA.
I have not insinuated anything of the sort. I complimented BrokenCrossbar1 for his post and respect that position even if it is not mine.
If you support the GFA then you support that what happened prior has been consigned to the past. You might find me more agreeable if this was about Margaret Thatcher visiting since she had executive authority during some of the worst of the troubles. But attacking a token figurehead is the same as blaming Paddy Hillary or Mary McAleese for Irish terrorist atrocities.
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 11:52:07 AM
Oh so now you have developed this "elephant in the room" metaphor? It's just, you seemed very specific in implying that the disappeared was the "elephant".
You can't even admit you got this wrong. I have not commented on the disappeared on this or the other Queenie thread. Not that it matters.
Quote
Did Gerry Adams or the IRA ever claim they weren't even a protagonist in the conflict?? No. Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cameron+apologises+ireland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cameron+apologises+ireland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Quote
Did the IRA apologise to all it's victims families? Yes. Has the British Army? No
See above link again. Not ideal granted but it answers your myopia.
Quote
As I have repeatedly said, perhaps, when the British Army can do as the IRA did, and admit it's responsibility and apologise, then it's head may be more welcome than she currently is.
See above quote.
Quote
And enough with the condescending mature act bullshit of "lots of the rest of us have accepted the GFA and moved on." Typical to insinuate that if you oppose this visit, you must be a dissident who can't move on. I have always supported the GFA.
I have not insinuated anything of the sort. I complimented BrokenCrossbar1 for his post and respect that position even if it is not mine.
If you support the GFA then you support that what happened prior has been consigned to the past. You might find me more agreeable if this was about Margaret Thatcher visiting since she had executive authority during some of the worst of the troubles. But attacking a token figurehead is the same as blaming Paddy Hillary or Mary McAleese for Irish terrorist atrocities.
That entire post is more or less based around an apology for the 14 deaths of Bloody Sunday. I was under the impression that the British were responsible for more than 14 deaths. Did I ask has britain ever apologised for a small nuber of it's killings here? If I did, then your response above might be appropriate, but that wasn't was I asked. As well you know. Also, where in Cameron's apology did he accept that Britain was an active protagonist in the conflict and not a referee, like I originally mentioned? So hardly myopia, you just answered a question I didn't ask.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.
So if you oppose the visit, then "slow" can also be added to the list of condescending terms of abuse from those who "are mature" and "can move on"?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
That entire post is more or less based around an apology for the 14 deaths of Bloody Sunday. I was under the impression that the British were responsible for more than 14 deaths. Did I ask has britain ever apologised for a small nuber of it's killings here? If I did, then your response above might be appropriate, but that wasn't was I asked. As well you know. Also, where in Cameron's apology did he accept that Britain was an active protagonist in the conflict and not a referee, like I originally mentioned? So hardly myopia, you just answered a question I didn't ask.
This is what you said: "Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.
Apologising for murdering albeit some of the people is hardly claiming 'that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day' is it?
And if the IRA are absolved simply by an apology, surely an apology by the Queen in Ireland will put an enter to your whataboutery?
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 04:16:46 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
That entire post is more or less based around an apology for the 14 deaths of Bloody Sunday. I was under the impression that the British were responsible for more than 14 deaths. Did I ask has britain ever apologised for a small nuber of it's killings here? If I did, then your response above might be appropriate, but that wasn't was I asked. As well you know. Also, where in Cameron's apology did he accept that Britain was an active protagonist in the conflict and not a referee, like I originally mentioned? So hardly myopia, you just answered a question I didn't ask.
This is what you said: "Do the British Army (whom our taxes fund) claim that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day? Yes.
Apologising for murdering albeit some of the people is hardly claiming 'that they were not a protagonist, and claim that to this very day' is it?
And if the IRA are absolved simply by an apology, surely an apology by the Queen in Ireland will put an enter to your whataboutery?
So Camerons apology for Bloody Sunday was an admittance of britain being a protagonist and not a peacemaker for the conflict??!! Why did Cameron himself, in his statement say "We do not honour all those who have served with distinction
in keeping the peace and
upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.....Bloody Sunday
is not the defining story of
the service the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969-2007.....Our Armed Forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in
upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible...
Without their work the peace process would not have happened.".
Funny way of admitting they were not "referees", or "peacemakers" and in fact were active willing protagonists on one side of a conflict, as you claim, would you not say?
And I did not start whataboutery by talking about IRA violence when the topic was violence of her majesty's forces. As for an apology from her, I have repeatedly stated that if the british army admitted it was a participant rather than a referee in the conflict (all of it, muppet, not just one day in Derry) and came clean on it's activities, then her visit would be less offensive.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.
So if you oppose the visit, then "slow" can also be added to the list of condescending terms of abuse from those who "are mature" and "can move on"?
You can add it if you think it fits. I didn't call anyone slow for opposing the visit, rather for not understanding the likely purpose of the visit. If that describes you, then yes, feel free to describe yourself as 'slow' on the uptake.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 05:13:33 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.
So if you oppose the visit, then "slow" can also be added to the list of condescending terms of abuse from those who "are mature" and "can move on"?
You can add it if you think it fits. I didn't call anyone slow for opposing the visit, rather for not understanding the likely purpose of the visit. If that describes you, then yes, feel free to describe yourself as 'slow' on the uptake.
I'm asking if you think it fits. Seems you believe firmly that it should happen, and if anyone doesn't, they don't understand and are "slow". But sure backtrack away!
The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.
You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.
Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:24:03 PM
The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.
You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.
Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.
No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:34:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:24:03 PM
The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.
You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.
Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.
No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.
So it is ok if she visits but just not yet?
Who decides how long?
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:34:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:24:03 PM
The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.
You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.
Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.
No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.
So it is ok if she visits but just not yet?
Who decides how long?
Who decides right now? Is it too much to ask that consideration be given to people who feel is it premature? Why MUST it happen now when it is still clearly so divisive?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:56:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:34:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:24:03 PM
The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.
You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.
Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.
No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.
So it is ok if she visits but just not yet?
Who decides how long?
Who decides right now? Is it too much to ask that consideration be given to people who feel is it premature? Why MUST it happen now when it is still clearly so divisive?
Go on, answer that yourself.
I'm somewhere between both sides on this debate. I don't like the british royals, their history in this and any other country and I agree that this "lets show the brits how mature we are" attitude by many politicians and media is sickening to me. Most of these people of course haven't got a clue what they are talking about but its the same old argument that was beaten into GAA people when the debate about allowing soccer/rugby in croke park was going on - your just backward so your opinion doesn't count.
The other side of it is that the British Queen is a head of state of a neighbouring friendly nation that we do a lot of trade with. Her appearing here doesn't sit well with me but I think the possibility of increasing trade links in these tough times means I can stomach her being here by simply ignoring it. I'm sure there will be plenty of west brit tossers out waving union jacks to make up for my absence.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 09, 2011, 06:04:43 PM
I'm somewhere between both sides on this debate. I don't like the british royals, their history in this and any other country and I agree that this "lets show the brits how mature we are" attitude by many politicians and media is sickening to me. Most of these people of course haven't got a clue what they are talking about but its the same old argument that was beaten into GAA people when the debate about allowing soccer/rugby in croke park was going on - your just backward so your opinion doesn't count.
The other side of it is that the British Queen is a head of state of a neighbouring friendly nation that we do a lot of trade with. Her appearing here doesn't sit well with me but I think the possibility of increasing trade links in these tough times means I can stomach her being here by simply ignoring it. I'm sure there will be plenty of west brit t**sers out waving union jacks to make up for my absence.
+ 1.
Nally, Sinn Féin are reported as saying they won't be protesting as it would be unfair to two elderly people. They will organise other events of a "cultural nature " instead.
Sinn Féin are part of the northern Establishment and are comfortable with running the 6 Cos under British overlordship and the nominal overlordship of oul Mrs windsor.
Time for Nally to catch up with his favourite political party methinks ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 09, 2011, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 09, 2011, 06:04:43 PM
I'm somewhere between both sides on this debate. I don't like the british royals, their history in this and any other country and I agree that this "lets show the brits how mature we are" attitude by many politicians and media is sickening to me. Most of these people of course haven't got a clue what they are talking about but its the same old argument that was beaten into GAA people when the debate about allowing soccer/rugby in croke park was going on - your just backward so your opinion doesn't count.
The other side of it is that the British Queen is a head of state of a neighbouring friendly nation that we do a lot of trade with. Her appearing here doesn't sit well with me but I think the possibility of increasing trade links in these tough times means I can stomach her being here by simply ignoring it. I'm sure there will be plenty of west brit t**sers out waving union jacks to make up for my absence.
+ 1.
Nally, Sinn Féin are reported as saying they won't be protesting as it would be unfair to two elderly people. They will organise other events of a "cultural nature " instead.
Sinn Féin are part of the northern Establishment and are comfortable with running the 6 Cos under British overlordship and the nominal overlordship of oul Mrs windsor.
Time for Nally to catch up with his favourite political party methinks ;)
They also are part of the southern establishment and have a strategy for developing All-Ireland co-operation. But anyway.....what's your point?
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 06:00:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:56:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:34:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:24:03 PM
The topic is a visit of the token head of state of our neighbour. This happens between former adversaries all over the world. It happens on the next island to us.
You have hijacked the thread with talk of her token role in the British Army. This probably means game, set and match in certain circles. If anyone counters with anything else you accuse them of going off thread or of abuse.
Different Irish people have different views. Non-Sinn Fein Irish are as Irish as Sinn Fein. Time to accept that.
No shit, anyone born here is as Irish as anyone else. Remind me where I stated otherwise if you get the chance. And I have not hijacked anything. I am simply pointing out a reason why so many will be insulted by this visit and contered claims that anyone who feels that way are "dinosaurs" or "can't move on". Of course old adversaries have visits between heads of state. However, that does not mean we have to rush into it before the people who would be most hurt by such a visit, are ready to see it. Do we have to do it because others did, and f**k the people who will be hurting? Or do we show GENUINE maturity and undertake such a visit when it will not be so offensive to so many? So many people are tripping over each other in their attempts to seem "mature" and to look like they are so "capable of moving on" that they have lost sight of how this visit will be deeply hurtful to the people who have suffered more many of the "mature" brigade will ever begin (or even try) to understand.
So it is ok if she visits but just not yet?
Who decides how long?
Who decides right now? Is it too much to ask that consideration be given to people who feel is it premature? Why MUST it happen now when it is still clearly so divisive?
Go on, answer that yourself.
How about you answer my post? (And not just the piece you put in bold)
I have been thinking about this alot over the last couple of days and whilst my initial reaction was one of revulsion and dismay, I have had to analyse these feelings and put them into some sort of perspective. Whilst the sovereign head of the British state gives me no positive feelings due to the fact that she remains the head of an army that played a major role in the oppression of my community, without much acceptance of that part, I have had to step back and look at this logically.
1 - the results of a census is due to be published in the near future. It is highly suspicious that now, NISRA have suddenly removed the legal requirement to state religious background but beyond that I am expecting the gap between Protestant and Catholic in the North to close further. It is stated by law in the GFA that when requisite numbers are reached, a referendum must be called to determine whether or not a United Ireland is possible. I'm not saying that this time there will be sufficient numbers to enable this but once a referendum on the constitutional question is called, by law, it MUST be repeated every 7 years - something Unionists do not want to focus on - this fact will not have escaped the establishment in Britain!
2 - Looking at history, usually whenever a state visit of a British Monarch has occured in Ireland, some major constitutional change is occurring. Perhaps, the planned visit by the Queen of England is to increase relations so that the inevitable can happen peacefully in the future. I would not forsee an Ireland where Unionist people would be afraid of being participant in because they continue to see Irish people unwilling to embrace their culture - it will not be a success if this is to occur.
3 - Time to move on and wait and see what happens. Let her come, it is the first time that a ruling monarch will give credence to the fact that her country was in a war with the Irish people. She will do this by simply visiting the sites that she is intending. By visiting Croke park, it will be highlighted what happened there so many years ago by troops acting in her country's name, by visiting the memorial, she will recognise for the first time those men who died for Irish freedom against her country. In doing so she is recognising her country's part in this conflict.
So in weighing things up, and taking my instinctive feelings into account, I think I've concluded for myself that instead of this visit being opposed it should be welcomed and recognised as the first stage of the handover that will in the future be an inevitability. Both establishments know this, its time we stopped opposing everything British for the sake of an apology that will never suffice and start preparing for our inception into a new constitutional island and if this is the first stage then so be it!!!
Quote from: Aoise on April 09, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
I have been thinking about this alot over the last couple of days and whilst my initial reaction was one of revulsion and dismay, I have had to analyse these feelings and put them into some sort of perspective. Whilst the sovereign head of the British state gives me no positive feelings due to the fact that she remains the head of an army that played a major role in the oppression of my community, without much acceptance of that part, I have had to step back and look at this logically.
1 - the results of a census is due to be published in the near future. It is highly suspicious that now, NISRA have suddenly removed the legal requirement to state religious background but beyond that I am expecting the gap between Protestant and Catholic in the North to close further. It is stated by law in the GFA that when requisite numbers are reached, a referendum must be called to determine whether or not a United Ireland is possible. I'm not saying that this time there will be sufficient numbers to enable this but once a referendum on the constitutional question is called, by law, it MUST be repeated every 7 years - something Unionists do not want to focus on - this fact will not have escaped the establishment in Britain!
2 - Looking at history, usually whenever a state visit of a British Monarch has occured in Ireland, some major constitutional change is occurring. Perhaps, the planned visit by the Queen of England is to increase relations so that the inevitable can happen peacefully in the future. I would not forsee an Ireland where Unionist people would be afraid of being participant in because they continue to see Irish people unwilling to embrace their culture - it will not be a success if this is to occur.
3 - Time to move on and wait and see what happens. Let her come, it is the first time that a ruling monarch will give credence to the fact that her country was in a war with the Irish people. She will do this by simply visiting the sites that she is intending. By visiting Croke park, it will be highlighted what happened there so many years ago by troops acting in her country's name, by visiting the memorial, she will recognise for the first time those men who died for Irish freedom against her country. In doing so she is recognising her country's part in this conflict.
So in weighing things up, and taking my instinctive feelings into account, I think I've concluded for myself that instead of this visit being opposed it should be welcomed and recognised as the first stage of the handover that will in the future be an inevitability. Both establishments know this, its time we stopped opposing everything British for the sake of an apology that will never suffice and start preparing for our inception into a new constitutional island and if this is the first stage then so be it!!!
Very good post.
Quote from: Aoise on April 09, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
I have been thinking about this alot over the last couple of days and whilst my initial reaction was one of revulsion and dismay, I have had to analyse these feelings and put them into some sort of perspective. Whilst the sovereign head of the British state gives me no positive feelings due to the fact that she remains the head of an army that played a major role in the oppression of my community, without much acceptance of that part, I have had to step back and look at this logically.
1 - the results of a census is due to be published in the near future. It is highly suspicious that now, NISRA have suddenly removed the legal requirement to state religious background but beyond that I am expecting the gap between Protestant and Catholic in the North to close further. It is stated by law in the GFA that when requisite numbers are reached, a referendum must be called to determine whether or not a United Ireland is possible. I'm not saying that this time there will be sufficient numbers to enable this but once a referendum on the constitutional question is called, by law, it MUST be repeated every 7 years - something Unionists do not want to focus on - this fact will not have escaped the establishment in Britain!
2 - Looking at history, usually whenever a state visit of a British Monarch has occured in Ireland, some major constitutional change is occurring. Perhaps, the planned visit by the Queen of England is to increase relations so that the inevitable can happen peacefully in the future. I would not forsee an Ireland where Unionist people would be afraid of being participant in because they continue to see Irish people unwilling to embrace their culture - it will not be a success if this is to occur.
3 - Time to move on and wait and see what happens. Let her come, it is the first time that a ruling monarch will give credence to the fact that her country was in a war with the Irish people. She will do this by simply visiting the sites that she is intending. By visiting Croke park, it will be highlighted what happened there so many years ago by troops acting in her country's name, by visiting the memorial, she will recognise for the first time those men who died for Irish freedom against her country. In doing so she is recognising her country's part in this conflict.
So in weighing things up, and taking my instinctive feelings into account, I think I've concluded for myself that instead of this visit being opposed it should be welcomed and recognised as the first stage of the handover that will in the future be an inevitability. Both establishments know this, its time we stopped opposing everything British for the sake of an apology that will never suffice and start preparing for our inception into a new constitutional island and if this is the first stage then so be it!!!
You make some good points there Aoise.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 06:55:40 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 09, 2011, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 09, 2011, 06:04:43 PM
I'm somewhere between both sides on this debate. I don't like the british royals, their history in this and any other country and I agree that this "lets show the brits how mature we are" attitude by many politicians and media is sickening to me. Most of these people of course haven't got a clue what they are talking about but its the same old argument that was beaten into GAA people when the debate about allowing soccer/rugby in croke park was going on - your just backward so your opinion doesn't count.
The other side of it is that the British Queen is a head of state of a neighbouring friendly nation that we do a lot of trade with. Her appearing here doesn't sit well with me but I think the possibility of increasing trade links in these tough times means I can stomach her being here by simply ignoring it. I'm sure there will be plenty of west brit t**sers out waving union jacks to make up for my absence.
+ 1.
Nally, Sinn Féin are reported as saying they won't be protesting as it would be unfair to two elderly people. They will organise other events of a "cultural nature " instead.
Sinn Féin are part of the northern Establishment and are comfortable with running the 6 Cos under British overlordship and the nominal overlordship of oul Mrs windsor.
Time for Nally to catch up with his favourite political party methinks ;)
They also are part of the southern establishment and have a strategy for developing All-Ireland co-operation. But anyway.....what's your point?
THey are NOT part of the "southern " establishment. Very much an opposition and basically "agin" everything .
My point is you're favourite party have moved on from you so you'd betetr get chasing after them.
Quote from: Aoise on April 09, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
1 - the results of a census is due to be published in the near future. It is highly suspicious that now, NISRA have suddenly removed the legal requirement to state religious background but beyond that I am expecting the gap between Protestant and Catholic in the North to close further. It is stated by law in the GFA that when requisite numbers are reached, a referendum must be called to determine whether or not a United Ireland is possible. I'm not saying that this time there will be sufficient numbers to enable this but once a referendum on the constitutional question is called, by law, it MUST be repeated every 7 years - something Unionists do not want to focus on - this fact will not have escaped the establishment in Britain!
It cannot be repeated any sonner than 7 years, but I don't believe there's any requirement for it to repeated every seven years. Fron the Agreement itself:
3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1
earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this
Schedule.
As for the census question, i'm not sure what there is to be suspicious about. Surely part strength as voted for at elections is a much better indicator than religious background of the population?
Anyway, I can't see anyone calling for a referendum anytime soon.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:56:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:34:02 PM
Who decides right now? Is it too much to ask that consideration be given to people who feel is it premature? Why MUST it happen now when it is still clearly so divisive?
Go on, answer that yourself.
How about you answer my post? (And not just the piece you put in bold)
Who decides? The President of Ireland would have sought advise from the Government of Ireland who would have consulted with the Government of England. Once they agreed the President of Ireland would have sent an invitation which she would already have known would be accepted. This was obviously discussed between Mary and Lizzy in advance and something they both wanted.
Is it too much...? Not at all. There are reasonable people making a reasonable case for this and they should probably have been consulted. However we all know unfortunately that certain unelected groups will most likely show up to protest and possible even try to pull something major off.
Why must it happen now? Hard to know what exactly is driving it but if I had to guess I'm thinking McAleese is coming to the end of her term while Lizzy isn't getting any younger. They may have established a real relationship (odd as it may sound) and agreed that they would go where the likes of John Major and Albert Reynolds had gone (not forgetting John Hume's vital role here) and where Bertie and Blair went.
I really am indifferent to her coming but now that it has been announced I would hate to see the visit stopped by protests or threats of violence or whatever.
Quote from: Aoise on April 09, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
I have been thinking about this alot over the last couple of days and whilst my initial reaction was one of revulsion and dismay, I have had to analyse these feelings and put them into some sort of perspective. Whilst the sovereign head of the British state gives me no positive feelings due to the fact that she remains the head of an army that played a major role in the oppression of my community, without much acceptance of that part, I have had to step back and look at this logically.
1 - the results of a census is due to be published in the near future. It is highly suspicious that now, NISRA have suddenly removed the legal requirement to state religious background but beyond that I am expecting the gap between Protestant and Catholic in the North to close further. It is stated by law in the GFA that when requisite numbers are reached, a referendum must be called to determine whether or not a United Ireland is possible. I'm not saying that this time there will be sufficient numbers to enable this but once a referendum on the constitutional question is called, by law, it MUST be repeated every 7 years - something Unionists do not want to focus on - this fact will not have escaped the establishment in Britain!
2 - Looking at history, usually whenever a state visit of a British Monarch has occured in Ireland, some major constitutional change is occurring. Perhaps, the planned visit by the Queen of England is to increase relations so that the inevitable can happen peacefully in the future. I would not forsee an Ireland where Unionist people would be afraid of being participant in because they continue to see Irish people unwilling to embrace their culture - it will not be a success if this is to occur.
3 - Time to move on and wait and see what happens. Let her come, it is the first time that a ruling monarch will give credence to the fact that her country was in a war with the Irish people. She will do this by simply visiting the sites that she is intending. By visiting Croke park, it will be highlighted what happened there so many years ago by troops acting in her country's name, by visiting the memorial, she will recognise for the first time those men who died for Irish freedom against her country. In doing so she is recognising her country's part in this conflict.
So in weighing things up, and taking my instinctive feelings into account, I think I've concluded for myself that instead of this visit being opposed it should be welcomed and recognised as the first stage of the handover that will in the future be an inevitability. Both establishments know this, its time we stopped opposing everything British for the sake of an apology that will never suffice and start preparing for our inception into a new constitutional island and if this is the first stage then so be it!!!
Her visit to the Garden Of Remembrance will recognise SOME of those who fought and died for Irish Freedom. And claiming an apology would never suffice is disingenuous. As I have repeatedly stated, if the british army, like most other participants in the conflict, stopped heading misery on it's victims families, and admitted that it was not just "peacemaker" or "referee", I personally would be delighted to accept such an apology. There is just a sickening acceptance that the British Army was up to it's ear in collusion which resulted in hundreds of hundreds of deaths and that they should not be expected to come clean on their role in the whole conflict based on this. It's about time people stood up and voiced some support for it's victims in the whole debate. I am fed up of being told that anyone who holds this view is just "intolerant" or "anti-agreement" or "unwilling to move forward".
Quote from: Rossfan on April 09, 2011, 07:11:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 06:55:40 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 09, 2011, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 09, 2011, 06:04:43 PM
I'm somewhere between both sides on this debate. I don't like the british royals, their history in this and any other country and I agree that this "lets show the brits how mature we are" attitude by many politicians and media is sickening to me. Most of these people of course haven't got a clue what they are talking about but its the same old argument that was beaten into GAA people when the debate about allowing soccer/rugby in croke park was going on - your just backward so your opinion doesn't count.
The other side of it is that the British Queen is a head of state of a neighbouring friendly nation that we do a lot of trade with. Her appearing here doesn't sit well with me but I think the possibility of increasing trade links in these tough times means I can stomach her being here by simply ignoring it. I'm sure there will be plenty of west brit t**sers out waving union jacks to make up for my absence.
+ 1.
Nally, Sinn Féin are reported as saying they won't be protesting as it would be unfair to two elderly people. They will organise other events of a "cultural nature " instead.
Sinn Féin are part of the northern Establishment and are comfortable with running the 6 Cos under British overlordship and the nominal overlordship of oul Mrs windsor.
Time for Nally to catch up with his favourite political party methinks ;)
They also are part of the southern establishment and have a strategy for developing All-Ireland co-operation. But anyway.....what's your point?
THey are NOT part of the "southern " establishment. Very much an opposition and basically "agin" everything .
My point is you're favourite party have moved on from you so you'd betetr get chasing after them.
Why the " marks around my references to 'southern' establishment? You didn't put them around 'northern' when you mentioned it? Whats the difference?
Anyway, I would say any party in the Dail is part of the southern political establishment.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:56:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 05:34:02 PM
Who decides right now? Is it too much to ask that consideration be given to people who feel is it premature? Why MUST it happen now when it is still clearly so divisive?
Go on, answer that yourself.
How about you answer my post? (And not just the piece you put in bold)
Who decides? The President of Ireland would have sought advise from the Government of Ireland who would have consulted with the Government of England. Once they agreed the President of Ireland would have sent an invitation which she would already have known would be accepted. This was obviously discussed between Mary and Lizzy in advance and something they both wanted.
Is it too much...? Not at all. There are reasonable people making a reasonable case for this and they should probably have been consulted. However we all know unfortunately that certain unelected groups will most likely show up to protest and possible even try to pull something major off.
Why must it happen now? Hard to know what exactly is driving it but if I had to guess I'm thinking McAleese is coming to the end of her term while Lizzy isn't getting any younger. They may have established a real relationship (odd as it may sound) and agreed that they would go where the likes of John Major and Albert Reynolds had gone (not forgetting John Hume's vital role here) and where Bertie and Blair went.
I really am indifferent to her coming but now that it has been announced I would hate to see the visit stopped by protests or threats of violence or whatever.
At least we can agree that threats of violence are wrong on this one. Though just to re-emphasise (not that I'm accusing you of saying otherwise) - not everyone who opposes this visit is a dissident or anti GFA as other posters have implied,
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2011, 07:22:27 PM
At least we can agree that threats of violence are wrong on this one. Though just to re-emphasise (not that I'm accusing you of saying otherwise) - not everyone who opposes this visit is a dissident or anti GFA as other posters have implied,
I support the GFA, warts and all.
More seriously though maybe it is just me but I am honestly not bothered with symbolism, tokenism and flags etc. Thatcher visiting would find me biting my tongue as I would see her as directly involved (hunger strike etc.) but I would still not object. Lizzy, unilke L'Oreal, is just not with it.
Quote from: Aoise on April 09, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
I have been thinking about this alot over the last couple of days and whilst my initial reaction was one of revulsion and dismay, I have had to analyse these feelings and put them into some sort of perspective. Whilst the sovereign head of the British state gives me no positive feelings due to the fact that she remains the head of an army that played a major role in the oppression of my community, without much acceptance of that part, I have had to step back and look at this logically.
1 - the results of a census is due to be published in the near future. It is highly suspicious that now, NISRA have suddenly removed the legal requirement to state religious background but beyond that I am expecting the gap between Protestant and Catholic in the North to close further. It is stated by law in the GFA that when requisite numbers are reached, a referendum must be called to determine whether or not a United Ireland is possible. I'm not saying that this time there will be sufficient numbers to enable this but once a referendum on the constitutional question is called, by law, it MUST be repeated every 7 years - something Unionists do not want to focus on - this fact will not have escaped the establishment in Britain!
2 - Looking at history, usually whenever a state visit of a British Monarch has occured in Ireland, some major constitutional change is occurring. Perhaps, the planned visit by the Queen of England is to increase relations so that the inevitable can happen peacefully in the future. I would not forsee an Ireland where Unionist people would be afraid of being participant in because they continue to see Irish people unwilling to embrace their culture - it will not be a success if this is to occur.
3 - Time to move on and wait and see what happens. Let her come, it is the first time that a ruling monarch will give credence to the fact that her country was in a war with the Irish people. She will do this by simply visiting the sites that she is intending. By visiting Croke park, it will be highlighted what happened there so many years ago by troops acting in her country's name, by visiting the memorial, she will recognise for the first time those men who died for Irish freedom against her country. In doing so she is recognising her country's part in this conflict.
So in weighing things up, and taking my instinctive feelings into account, I think I've concluded for myself that instead of this visit being opposed it should be welcomed and recognised as the first stage of the handover that will in the future be an inevitability. Both establishments know this, its time we stopped opposing everything British for the sake of an apology that will never suffice and start preparing for our inception into a new constitutional island and if this is the first stage then so be it!!!
Wow!
I have read some
fcuked up wishful thinking on this Board in my time, but that one must surely be up for some sort of award.
No doubt the prospect of Her Madge's Visit visit being some sort of precursor of Irish Unity warms your cockles etc, but when "thinking" [
sic] about these matters, you really must try to resist deciding what outcome it is you want first, then manipulating the "facts" so as to produce such an outcome.
First, the religious question is only one of a number of questions in the NI version of the Census which differs from that of England/Wales:
http://help.census.gov.uk/ni/help/help-and-information/AbouttheCensus/Howtotakepart/Topics/DifferencesonNorthernIrelandquestionnaire_W0007C.html
Second, it (religious affiliation) has no relevance whatever to the calling or outcome of any possible future Referendum on the constitutional position of NI within the UK etc. Rather, the GFA states quite simply that:
"... the Secretary of State shall exercise the power [to hold a referendum] if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf (see Schedule 1)
Third, even if religious affiliation (perceived or actual) were somehow relevant, it does not provide any reliable guide as to voting preferences in such a referendum. However, if you should require a guide towards likely voting intentions, rather than engaging in a sectarian headcount, you only have to look at the Unionist and Nationalist vote in any of the numerous elections in NI this century to note that the Nationalist (therefore pro-United Ireland) vote has clearly plateaued. Moreover, SF's favourite psephologist, Prof. Brendan O'Leary (http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/ppec/PPEC%20People/Brendan%20O'Leary/Brendan%20O'Leary%20CV%20html.html) has fairly recently concluded that he sees no sign of that changing in the foreseeable future. (Indeed not only did he disclose this before a handpicked audience at a SF "Unite Ireland Conference" in New York - how embarrassing :D - but this was in June 2009 i.e. well before the "Celtic Tiger" was revealed to be worth little more than a moth-eaten hearth rug.)
Fourth, rather than the law requiring that such a second referendum MUST be held within 7 years of any previous (failed) referendum, in fact the law states that a any such referendum MUST NOT be held any less than 7 years after the previous one:
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order [for a referendum] under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule."Therefore, whatever views the UK or Irish Governments may (privately) hold as to the desirability (or otherwise) of a United Ireland etc, their publicly stated and irrevocable position is quite clear, namely that it will not happen unless or until a majority of the people of NI vote for it.
On which point, the Queen's forthcoming visit to the Republic is lilkely to have as much influence as, say, Will and Kate's Wedding at the end of this month i.e. none.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 12:02:31 AM
... even if religious affiliation (perceived or actual) were somehow relevant, it does not provide any reliable guide as to voting preferences in such a referendum.
You must be new here.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2011, 12:08:00 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 12:02:31 AM
... even if religious affiliation (perceived or actual) were somehow relevant, it does not provide any reliable guide as to voting preferences in such a referendum.
You must be new here.
Very Good! :D
Anyhow, you may substitute "infallible" for "reliable", then...
P.S. "Castle Catholics" aren't just a southern phenomenon ;)
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the fu*k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:57:17 AM
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Moronic statement considering all the tourism and exposure the country will get from both visits.
Quote from: AbbeySider on April 12, 2011, 09:15:30 AM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:57:17 AM
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Moronic statement considering all the tourism and exposure the country will get from both visits.
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
furthermore Lizzie is coming here, what tourism will that generate? will a flurry of brits come over to ireland to see their monarch that most wouldn't bother to see in their own town? it's not even the same currency so why would they blow euros in ireland when they can blow euros in spain and get guaranteed weather
this 'tourism and exposure' argument doesn't wash, i want you to lay out for me exactly what tourism benefits this will bring instead of using a high level term that is all too often bandied about without drilling down and breaking it down on how it will be achieved, who will these tourists be, when will they come and why....
great post by Aoise - I fully agree with all of that, usual round the houses daft reply from evil myles though doesnt detract from its accuracy or personal opinion!
There wont be any reunification while we have economic problems.
I dont actually care whether the queen comes or not, and I dont think that she can be held accountable for the actions of british soldiers because she is head of the armed forces any more than we can hold her accountable for child abuse at the hands of church of england ministers just because she is head of the COE.
But, I am wary/worried about the cost for security for both her and obama. I dont think that there will be any significant increase in tourism returns to cover the cost of this security.
Lets face it, if you were not Irish, would you come here given the crap weather, expemsive food and drink and also now hearing that there are bombs going off all over the country (this is what foreigners used to think). I wouldnt.
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 09:35:13 AM
...
please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
furthermore Lizzie is coming here, what tourism will that generate? will a flurry of brits come over to ireland to see their monarch that most wouldn't bother to see in their own town?
..
...drilling down and breaking it down on how it will be achieved, who will these tourists be, when will they come and why....
Firstly, its not an argument, it is a fact.
Secondly, Im not really here to educate or break down things for you, but you can have a read of this to get an idea of how such visits boost tourism:
From transport.ie: (http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=296)
Quote
President Obama's visit welcome boost for tourism
The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Michael Ring TD, today welcomed the statement by the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, that he intends to visit Ireland in May. "As the Taoiseach said, this visit by President Obama will be another great day for Ireland. Coming so soon after the visit by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Ireland will have a golden opportunity to demonstrate its welcome to millions of potential visitors worldwide," said Minister of State Ring.
"I know that the tourism agencies will be pulling out all the stops to make the most of these visits to deliver a major boost for Irish tourism in 2011 and beyond. Not only are Queen Elizabeth and President Obama the Heads of State of our two most significant overseas tourism markets, they are figures who attract coverage from across the globe, in every marketplace."
The Minister of State added "Tourism Ireland, the all–island body which promotes the island of Ireland as a tourist destination overseas, is already working hard to make the most of the Queen's visit to show Ireland at its best to the world as well as to potential visitors from Great Britain. I am sure that they are already moving to bring more on board for the President's visit, particularly focusing on the opportunity to bring Ireland's attractions to potential US visitors. Fáilte Ireland, which supports the tourism industry in Ireland, will be working closely with Tourism Ireland to make sure that our official visitors - and those who travel with them - experience the very best that Ireland has to offer."
The US is traditionally Ireland's second largest overseas tourism market.
In 2010, there were 935,000 visits to Ireland from US and Canada and, while overall 2010 numbers were down on 2009, the last quarter of 2010 saw a strong rebound, with the number of visits from North America up by 13.9%.
The Minister of State commented "The upcoming visits by both Her Majesty the Queen and the President will allow Irish tourism to secure and build on the recovery in our North American markets – as well as keeping Ireland in the eye of potential visitors from Britain and help drive renewed growth from that market". Great Britain was the source of 2.7 million visits to Ireland in 2010.
"The forthcoming visit by President Obama is just one example of how the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, is highlighting Ireland's strengths to our overseas partners and is a strong vote of confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government. I am sure that his US visit will bring more good news to Ireland ", concluded Minister of State Ring.
Whatever about the cost of security, I definitely do think there will be more tourism if these visits go well. you could pay for the advertising time that this achieves. Ireland is not as expensive as it was, hotels in particular have good deals. Expensive drink is only an issue if you spend a lot of your budget on drink, which is only a certain class of tourist.
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:57:17 AM
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Good point rather than the Irish tax payers funding Lizzy's security we should ask her to pay it from the tax she takes out of your's/the North's/UK's pockets :P
Quote from: AbbeySider on April 12, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 09:35:13 AM
...
please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
furthermore Lizzie is coming here, what tourism will that generate? will a flurry of brits come over to ireland to see their monarch that most wouldn't bother to see in their own town?
..
...drilling down and breaking it down on how it will be achieved, who will these tourists be, when will they come and why....
Firstly, its not an argument, it is a fact.
Secondly, Im not really here to educate or break down things for you, but you can have a read of this to get an idea of how such visits boost tourism:
From transport.ie: (http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=296)
Quote
President Obama's visit welcome boost for tourism
The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Michael Ring TD, today welcomed the statement by the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, that he intends to visit Ireland in May. "As the Taoiseach said, this visit by President Obama will be another great day for Ireland. Coming so soon after the visit by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Ireland will have a golden opportunity to demonstrate its welcome to millions of potential visitors worldwide," said Minister of State Ring.
"I know that the tourism agencies will be pulling out all the stops to make the most of these visits to deliver a major boost for Irish tourism in 2011 and beyond. Not only are Queen Elizabeth and President Obama the Heads of State of our two most significant overseas tourism markets, they are figures who attract coverage from across the globe, in every marketplace."
The Minister of State added "Tourism Ireland, the all–island body which promotes the island of Ireland as a tourist destination overseas, is already working hard to make the most of the Queen's visit to show Ireland at its best to the world as well as to potential visitors from Great Britain. I am sure that they are already moving to bring more on board for the President's visit, particularly focusing on the opportunity to bring Ireland's attractions to potential US visitors. Fáilte Ireland, which supports the tourism industry in Ireland, will be working closely with Tourism Ireland to make sure that our official visitors - and those who travel with them - experience the very best that Ireland has to offer."
The US is traditionally Ireland's second largest overseas tourism market.
In 2010, there were 935,000 visits to Ireland from US and Canada and, while overall 2010 numbers were down on 2009, the last quarter of 2010 saw a strong rebound, with the number of visits from North America up by 13.9%.
The Minister of State commented "The upcoming visits by both Her Majesty the Queen and the President will allow Irish tourism to secure and build on the recovery in our North American markets – as well as keeping Ireland in the eye of potential visitors from Britain and help drive renewed growth from that market". Great Britain was the source of 2.7 million visits to Ireland in 2010.
"The forthcoming visit by President Obama is just one example of how the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, is highlighting Ireland's strengths to our overseas partners and is a strong vote of confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government. I am sure that his US visit will bring more good news to Ireland ", concluded Minister of State Ring.
saying it's a fact does not make it a fact, you made a sweeping statement and i have asked you to explain it, i'm taking it you can't - the article you posted does not explain it, it is more generalisations without telling me who will come and why, furthermore the highlighting of British tourists will not happen, why would they go south to an over priced economy in a foreign currency with questionable weather.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
again no attempt to explain it, a moronic comment to quote that other muppet (pun intended) about selling air
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Go read a book, good lad.
Quote from: AbbeySider on April 12, 2011, 01:42:06 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Go read a book, good lad.
brilliant, so you can't back it up, good man, that's mature
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
again no attempt to explain it, a moronic comment to quote that other muppet (pun intended) about selling air
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Some shoulders are just too chipped.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:00:22 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
again no attempt to explain it, a moronic comment to quote that other muppet (pun intended) about selling air
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Some shoulders are just too chipped.
Clearly we can't all be as mature and educated as you or Abbeysider.
Have either of you answered Bananaman or is calling him uneducated enough?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:00:22 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
again no attempt to explain it, a moronic comment to quote that other muppet (pun intended) about selling air
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Some shoulders are just too chipped.
Clearly we can't all be as mature and educated as you or Abbeysider.
Have either of you answered Bananaman or is calling him uneducated enough?
Like I said some shoulders are too chipped.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:36:36 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:00:22 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
again no attempt to explain it, a moronic comment to quote that other muppet (pun intended) about selling air
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Some shoulders are just too chipped.
Clearly we can't all be as mature and educated as you or Abbeysider.
Have either of you answered Bananaman or is calling him uneducated enough?
Like I said some shoulders are too chipped.
As I say, are you going to answer him?
Or in your ever so mature, educated manner, will you instead just call him uneducated and tell him he has a chip on his shoulder?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:41:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:36:36 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:00:22 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
again no attempt to explain it, a moronic comment to quote that other muppet (pun intended) about selling air
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Some shoulders are just too chipped.
Clearly we can't all be as mature and educated as you or Abbeysider.
Have either of you answered Bananaman or is calling him uneducated enough?
Like I said some shoulders are too chipped.
As I say, are you going to answer him?
Or in your ever so mature, educated manner, will you instead just call him uneducated and tell him he has a chip on his shoulder?
Please show me where I said I was educated?
And why would I tell someone who is blind to look?
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:57:17 AM
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Have you a better source for this than "heard on 2FM"? It seems an improbable statistic
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:49:25 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:41:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:36:36 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 02:00:22 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
moronic my hole, there's chat Obama will be here for maybe 5 hours and no more, please tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod?
We will be able to sell the air he exhales.
p.s. Did we really waste an education on you or are you just not finished yet?
again no attempt to explain it, a moronic comment to quote that other muppet (pun intended) about selling air
a dig at my education (an unfounded one by that matter) highlights your lack of ability to offer any backing to counter my original statement - feel free to have an attempt
Some shoulders are just too chipped.
Clearly we can't all be as mature and educated as you or Abbeysider.
Have either of you answered Bananaman or is calling him uneducated enough?
Like I said some shoulders are too chipped.
As I say, are you going to answer him?
Or in your ever so mature, educated manner, will you instead just call him uneducated and tell him he has a chip on his shoulder?
Please show me where I said I was educated?
And why would I tell someone who is blind to look?
It's just, when you said "we wasted an education" on bananaman. I took that to mean you were among the educated. But if you are not, that's OK. It might explain why you are resorting to petty abuse and avoiding answering him, instead implying he is uneducated/poorly educated and has a chip on his shoulder and is blind, and whatever other names you
crazy kids mature people like to call others these days.
Quote from: deiseach on April 12, 2011, 02:55:24 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:57:17 AM
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Have you a better source for this than "heard on 2FM"? It seems an improbable statistic
.rte.ie/news/2011/0412/garda.html (//http:///news/2011/0412/garda.html)
'Entire' was actually 'most of' and this is the GRA which is a trade union. Their concern is pay naturally not the visits themselves.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:58:12 PM
It's just, when you said "we wasted an education" on bananaman. I took that to mean you were among the educated. But if you are not, that's OK. It might explain why you are resorting to petty abuse and avoiding answering him, instead implying he is uneducated/poorly educated and has a chip on his shoulder and is blind, and whatever other names you crazy kids mature people like to call others these days.
I do not consider myself educated and I never said that I was.
You make assumptions about me, while criticising me for making assumptions about someone else, all while trying to take the high moral ground. I notice you don't bother addressing the issue either and play the man by attacking people for playing the man, all from your high horse.
You are clearly very educated as hypocrisy like that doesn't come naturally.
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:57:17 AM
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
I can't vouch for what you may have heard on 2FM, but I would advise you not to be relying on that august organ for your current affairs coverage. What actually happened was that a twonk called P.J. Stone, general secretary of the Garda Representative Association claimed that a separate budget of
€25M would have to be found for security for the state visits, which wouldn't have been anticipated when the annual Garda budget of
€1.4 billion was allocated.
Though what it has to do with him he didn't bother to exlain.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:58:12 PM
It's just, when you said "we wasted an education" on bananaman. I took that to mean you were among the educated. But if you are not, that's OK. It might explain why you are resorting to petty abuse and avoiding answering him, instead implying he is uneducated/poorly educated and has a chip on his shoulder and is blind, and whatever other names you crazy kids mature people like to call others these days.
I do not consider myself educated and I never said that I was.
You make assumptions about me, while criticising me for making assumptions about someone else, all while trying to take the high moral ground. I notice you don't bother addressing the issue either and play the man by attacking people for playing the man, all from your high horse.
You are clearly very educated as hypocrisy like that doesn't come naturally.
I'm playing the man? I was getting at how yourself and Abbeysider have been playing the man in the case of Bananaman. You both disagreed with his argument but when asked to explain any particular reasons why, you both resorted to personal attacks (education wasted on him/uneducated/needs to read a book/blind/chipped shoulder).
Defeats the purpose of a discussion board when he puts forward a point, invites a counter argument and is met with one consisting of nothing but childish personal abuse.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:14:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:58:12 PM
It's just, when you said "we wasted an education" on bananaman. I took that to mean you were among the educated. But if you are not, that's OK. It might explain why you are resorting to petty abuse and avoiding answering him, instead implying he is uneducated/poorly educated and has a chip on his shoulder and is blind, and whatever other names you crazy kids mature people like to call others these days.
I do not consider myself educated and I never said that I was.
You make assumptions about me, while criticising me for making assumptions about someone else, all while trying to take the high moral ground. I notice you don't bother addressing the issue either and play the man by attacking people for playing the man, all from your high horse.
You are clearly very educated as hypocrisy like that doesn't come naturally.
I'm playing the man? I was getting at how yourself and Abbeysider have been playing the man in the case of Bananaman. You both disagreed with his argument but when asked to explain any particular reasons why, you both resorted to personal attacks (education wasted on him/uneducated/needs to read a book/blind/chipped shoulder).
Defeats the purpose of a discussion board when he puts forward a point, invites a counter argument and is met with one consisting of nothing but childish personal abuse.
Well if we are too childish for you you can gallop off to something more high-brow. Before you go would you like to say whether you are against the Obama visit on grounds of costs or any other reason?
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:25:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:14:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:58:12 PM
It's just, when you said "we wasted an education" on bananaman. I took that to mean you were among the educated. But if you are not, that's OK. It might explain why you are resorting to petty abuse and avoiding answering him, instead implying he is uneducated/poorly educated and has a chip on his shoulder and is blind, and whatever other names you crazy kids mature people like to call others these days.
I do not consider myself educated and I never said that I was.
You make assumptions about me, while criticising me for making assumptions about someone else, all while trying to take the high moral ground. I notice you don't bother addressing the issue either and play the man by attacking people for playing the man, all from your high horse.
You are clearly very educated as hypocrisy like that doesn't come naturally.
I'm playing the man? I was getting at how yourself and Abbeysider have been playing the man in the case of Bananaman. You both disagreed with his argument but when asked to explain any particular reasons why, you both resorted to personal attacks (education wasted on him/uneducated/needs to read a book/blind/chipped shoulder).
Defeats the purpose of a discussion board when he puts forward a point, invites a counter argument and is met with one consisting of nothing but childish personal abuse.
Well if we are too childish for you you can gallop off to something more high-brow. Before you go would you like to say whether you are against the Obama visit on grounds of costs or any other reason?
Should I answer you? Or claim you have "a chip on your shoulder" and that "we wasted an education on you"?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:25:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:14:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:58:12 PM
It's just, when you said "we wasted an education" on bananaman. I took that to mean you were among the educated. But if you are not, that's OK. It might explain why you are resorting to petty abuse and avoiding answering him, instead implying he is uneducated/poorly educated and has a chip on his shoulder and is blind, and whatever other names you crazy kids mature people like to call others these days.
I do not consider myself educated and I never said that I was.
You make assumptions about me, while criticising me for making assumptions about someone else, all while trying to take the high moral ground. I notice you don't bother addressing the issue either and play the man by attacking people for playing the man, all from your high horse.
You are clearly very educated as hypocrisy like that doesn't come naturally.
I'm playing the man? I was getting at how yourself and Abbeysider have been playing the man in the case of Bananaman. You both disagreed with his argument but when asked to explain any particular reasons why, you both resorted to personal attacks (education wasted on him/uneducated/needs to read a book/blind/chipped shoulder).
Defeats the purpose of a discussion board when he puts forward a point, invites a counter argument and is met with one consisting of nothing but childish personal abuse.
Well if we are too childish for you you can gallop off to something more high-brow. Before you go would you like to say whether you are against the Obama visit on grounds of costs or any other reason?
Should I answer you? Or claim you have "a chip on your shoulder" and that "we wasted an education on you"?
Excellent. Now go back and read your posts and have a word with yourself.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:25:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:14:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 02:58:12 PM
It's just, when you said "we wasted an education" on bananaman. I took that to mean you were among the educated. But if you are not, that's OK. It might explain why you are resorting to petty abuse and avoiding answering him, instead implying he is uneducated/poorly educated and has a chip on his shoulder and is blind, and whatever other names you crazy kids mature people like to call others these days.
I do not consider myself educated and I never said that I was.
You make assumptions about me, while criticising me for making assumptions about someone else, all while trying to take the high moral ground. I notice you don't bother addressing the issue either and play the man by attacking people for playing the man, all from your high horse.
You are clearly very educated as hypocrisy like that doesn't come naturally.
I'm playing the man? I was getting at how yourself and Abbeysider have been playing the man in the case of Bananaman. You both disagreed with his argument but when asked to explain any particular reasons why, you both resorted to personal attacks (education wasted on him/uneducated/needs to read a book/blind/chipped shoulder).
Defeats the purpose of a discussion board when he puts forward a point, invites a counter argument and is met with one consisting of nothing but childish personal abuse.
Well if we are too childish for you you can gallop off to something more high-brow. Before you go would you like to say whether you are against the Obama visit on grounds of costs or any other reason?
Should I answer you? Or claim you have "a chip on your shoulder" and that "we wasted an education on you"?
Excellent. Now go back and read your posts and have a word with yourself.
Why? I just asked you which of those two options I should go with?
The first is what I would usually do, but then, the second is the responses you gave when bananaman asked you a question; so maybe you would prefer to be answered in the same way you answer people?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:40:36 PM
Why? I just asked you which of those two options I should go with?
The first is what I would usually do, but then, the second is the responses you gave when bananaman asked you a question; so maybe you would prefer to be answered in the same way you answer people?
Too late, we already have had the benefit of your moral authority ruling on the subject. You can't turn around and play me having lectured me on being me.
When I am me. You bash me.
But when you are me you don't bash you.
Now have a word with yourself.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AM
great post by Aoise - I fully agree with all of that, usual round the houses daft reply from evil myles though doesnt detract from its accuracy or personal opinion!
"Round the houses"?
I made a number of specific responses to the points she was trying to make, all backed up with links/sources/evidence. Your attempt to back her up might carry a shred of credibility if you had actually tried to respond in the same vein, rather than repeating your usual tack of "It's good/bad/whatever because I say it is".
Then again, seeing as you're the last poster on here who's still labouring under the delusion that I am also Myles naGopaleen, I'd be pretty surprised if you suddenly started to display judgement, reasoning or deduction etc in your posts.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMThere wont be any reunification while we have economic problems.
Seeing as the GFA has determined that it cannot happen until a majority of voters in NI agrees to it, the last realistic prospect of Irish unity disappeared completely along with the 20th Century.
The Republic's present economic crisis merely adds one more nail to the coffin. I don't know what age you are, but I'd be completely confident that it ain't gonna happen in your lifetime or mine.
In fact, rather than dreaming as you and Aoise do, that the Queen's visit is some sort of precursor to Irish unity etc, one might just as easily characterise it as final realisation and acceptance by the Republic that the Union of GB and NI, with Her Majesty as Head of State, is here to stay.
If so (and I personally wouldn't like to overstate its significance), then it is a welcome move in normalising relations between the two neighbouring countries (imo).
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMI dont actually care whether the queen comes or not
Really?
Despite the visit being some sort of first step towards softening us all up to the prospect of Irish unity etc?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMand I dont think that she can be held accountable for the actions of british soldiers because she is head of the armed forces any more than we can hold her accountable for child abuse at the hands of church of england ministers just because she is head of the COE.
Actually the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head ("Primate") of the CoE. The Queen is "Defender of the Faith", a now largely honorary title first conferred upon her predecessor, Henry VIII, by Pope Leo X.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 16, 1974, 03:18:44 PMBut, I am wary/worried about the cost for security for both her and obama. I dont think that there will be any significant increase in tourism returns to cover the cost of this security.
Lets face it, if you were not Irish, would you come here given the crap weather, expemsive food and drink and also now hearing that there are bombs going off all over the country (this is what foreigners used to think). I wouldnt.
I might have been inclined to agree with you (for once!), until I saw the extent of the attention* and publicity etc which the forthcoming Royal Wedding is bringing to the UK, from all over the world.
* - Don't quite understand it, myself, but if it gains us an extra Bank Holiday etc, then I'm all for it!
Hardy, this term of endearment is class. I'm going to appropriate it for my own use :)
' twonk '
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:40:36 PM
Why? I just asked you which of those two options I should go with?
The first is what I would usually do, but then, the second is the responses you gave when bananaman asked you a question; so maybe you would prefer to be answered in the same way you answer people?
Too late, we already have had the benefit of your moral authority ruling on the subject. You can't turn around and play me having lectured me on being me.
When I am me. You bash me.
But when you are me you don't bash you.
Now have a word with yourself.
When was I you? I just asked if I SHOULD be you, by answering your Obama question with personal abuse rather than a serious answer. Like you did when Bananaman asked his question.
So....which option??
Ah I dunno. I'll not use either for now. I think I'll engage in sensible discussion on your question on Obama's visit if you prove you can engage in sensible debate with Bananaman (i.e. no name calling!!) I'd hate to answer your question on Obama only to be told I'm uneducated or something. So I'll go away and get better educated, and maybe when I get back, you or Abbeysider might have engaged in an actual discussion with Bananaman without using personal abuse in place of answering his questions.
so lads have you had enough time to get over the name calling and personal abuse and back up your ''moronic'' claims....
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:55:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:40:36 PM
Why? I just asked you which of those two options I should go with?
The first is what I would usually do, but then, the second is the responses you gave when bananaman asked you a question; so maybe you would prefer to be answered in the same way you answer people?
Too late, we already have had the benefit of your moral authority ruling on the subject. You can't turn around and play me having lectured me on being me.
When I am me. You bash me.
But when you are me you don't bash you.
Now have a word with yourself.
When was I you? I just asked if I SHOULD be you, by answering your Obama question with personal abuse rather than a serious answer. Like you did when Bananaman asked his question.
So....which option??
Ah I dunno. I'll not use either for now. I think I'll engage in sensible discussion on your question on Obama's visit if you prove you can engage in sensible debate with Bananaman (i.e. no name calling!!) I'd hate to answer your question on Obama only to be told I'm uneducated or something. So I'll go away and get better educated, and maybe when I get back, you or Abbeysider might have engaged in an actual discussion with Bananaman without using personal abuse in place of answering his questions.
I suspect many posters here will see through the faux concern for the Garda budget.
If people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing. If they pretend that they are more concerned about the Garda overtime Budget than the Garda trade union are, then expect they shouldn't expect a serious response.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 12, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
Hardy, this term of endearment is class. I'm going to appropriate it for my own use :)
' twonk '
With my compliments. It's royalty-free.
Quote from: Hardy on April 12, 2011, 04:06:52 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 12, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
Hardy, this term of endearment is class. I'm going to appropriate it for my own use :)
' twonk '
With my compliments. It's royalty-free.
It fits perfectly.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 03:52:42 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 16, 1974, 03:18:44 PMBut, I am wary/worried about the cost for security for both her and obama. I dont think that there will be any significant increase in tourism returns to cover the cost of this security.
Lets face it, if you were not Irish, would you come here given the crap weather, expemsive food and drink and also now hearing that there are bombs going off all over the country (this is what foreigners used to think). I wouldnt.
I might have been inclined to agree with you (for once!), until I saw the extent of the attention* and publicity etc which the forthcoming Royal Wedding is bringing to the UK, from all over the world.
* - Don't quite understand it, myself, but if it gains us an extra Bank Holiday etc, then I'm all for it!
I guess the fact is that these visits garner a lot of television coverage in Britain and the U.S. If one was to compare that to the cost of putting a Irish Tourist Board ad on these channels at the same time it would make interesting comparisons. Sure you can't definitively quantify up front how many visitors you will get but hey isn't that always the issue with marketing? But on balance if people look in and say hey, that place looks nice they might consider it as a holiday destination.....it's a win.
I would also balance some of the wilder estimations of cost. I know that both visitors carry an extra security risk but are we going to ban all state visits or just set a threshold on possible security threat?
/Jim.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:55:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 03:40:36 PM
Why? I just asked you which of those two options I should go with?
The first is what I would usually do, but then, the second is the responses you gave when bananaman asked you a question; so maybe you would prefer to be answered in the same way you answer people?
Too late, we already have had the benefit of your moral authority ruling on the subject. You can't turn around and play me having lectured me on being me.
When I am me. You bash me.
But when you are me you don't bash you.
Now have a word with yourself.
When was I you? I just asked if I SHOULD be you, by answering your Obama question with personal abuse rather than a serious answer. Like you did when Bananaman asked his question.
So....which option??
Ah I dunno. I'll not use either for now. I think I'll engage in sensible discussion on your question on Obama's visit if you prove you can engage in sensible debate with Bananaman (i.e. no name calling!!) I'd hate to answer your question on Obama only to be told I'm uneducated or something. So I'll go away and get better educated, and maybe when I get back, you or Abbeysider might have engaged in an actual discussion with Bananaman without using personal abuse in place of answering his questions.
I suspect many posters here will see through the faux concern for the Garda budget.
If people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing. If they pretend that they are more concerned about the Garda overtime Budget than the Garda trade union are, then expect they shouldn't expect a serious response.
i would love to know exactly what you are inferring? You appear to be drawing a conclusion that i have no love or time for Obama ??? Now i'm pulling my chair up in anticipation of why i don't have any time for the president of America, this should be good, obviously it's my track record on Obama ha ha - Are you for real????
You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
i would love to know exactly what you are inferring? You appear to be drawing a conclusion that i have no love or time for Obama ??? Now i'm pulling my chair up in anticipation of why i don't have any time for the president of America, this should be good, obviously it's my track record on Obama ha ha - Are you for real????
You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet
I was giving you a little credit which now appears misguided. Jim pointed out the blatantly obvious answer to year earlier question.
QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on March 28, 2011, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 28, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
it's official, the world is a dark seedy place and you can take nothing at face value. The US are up to their neck in everything, talk about a modern day empire...
This is what had me thinking that.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
i would love to know exactly what you are inferring? You appear to be drawing a conclusion that i have no love or time for Obama ??? Now i'm pulling my chair up in anticipation of why i don't have any time for the president of America, this should be good, obviously it's my track record on Obama ha ha - Are you for real????
You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet
I was giving you a little credit which now appears misguided. Jim pointed out the blatantly obvious answer to year earlier question.
QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on March 28, 2011, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 28, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
it's official, the world is a dark seedy place and you can take nothing at face value. The US are up to their neck in everything, talk about a modern day empire...
This is what had me thinking that.
Jim had a reasonable stab at my question and in it it still doesn't answer my question but at least he points out it is hard to quantify and compare to a marketing advert that tourism ireland would run, you had no response until you tried to piggyback of his, you showed no attempt to think for yourself except an inexcusable volley of personal abuse which says more about your limited education than mine
Furthermore as for my quote, that makes me laugh, you actually trawled through my posts until a month ago and took something that was said in an entirely different context if you read the whole thread and how i was commenting on the quoted article, furthermore where did i mention Obama??? talk about trying to scoring cheap points when you are in a corner, the entire concept of debate seems to escape you
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
i would love to know exactly what you are inferring? You appear to be drawing a conclusion that i have no love or time for Obama ??? Now i'm pulling my chair up in anticipation of why i don't have any time for the president of America, this should be good, obviously it's my track record on Obama ha ha - Are you for real????
You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet
I was giving you a little credit which now appears misguided. Jim pointed out the blatantly obvious answer to year earlier question.
QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on March 28, 2011, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 28, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
it's official, the world is a dark seedy place and you can take nothing at face value. The US are up to their neck in everything, talk about a modern day empire...
This is what had me thinking that.
Jim had a reasonable stab at my question and in it it still doesn't answer my question but at least he points out it is hard to quantify and compare to a marketing advert that tourism ireland would run, you had no response until you tried to piggyback of his, you showed no attempt to think for yourself except an inexcusable volley of personal abuse which says more about your limited education than mine
Furthermore as for my quote, that makes me laugh, you actually trawled through my posts until a month ago and took something that was said in an entirely different context if you read the whole thread and how i was commenting on the quoted article, furthermore where did i mention Obama??? talk about trying to scoring cheap points when you are in a corner, the entire concept of debate seems to escape you
I never said you had anything against Obama. You do however have an opinion on the USA a country of which he just happens to be President.
As for the tourism, it is so blatantly in front of your nose obvious that I'd guess every single person you ask would say the same thing. IT is so blatantly obvious that I credited you with having another agenda but it seems I was mistaken. You actually didn't see the benefit of Coast to Coast prime time news images of Obama in Ireland, not to mention the print media. Incredible.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:05:35 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
i would love to know exactly what you are inferring? You appear to be drawing a conclusion that i have no love or time for Obama ??? Now i'm pulling my chair up in anticipation of why i don't have any time for the president of America, this should be good, obviously it's my track record on Obama ha ha - Are you for real????
You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet
I was giving you a little credit which now appears misguided. Jim pointed out the blatantly obvious answer to year earlier question.
QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on March 28, 2011, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 28, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
it's official, the world is a dark seedy place and you can take nothing at face value. The US are up to their neck in everything, talk about a modern day empire...
This is what had me thinking that.
Jim had a reasonable stab at my question and in it it still doesn't answer my question but at least he points out it is hard to quantify and compare to a marketing advert that tourism ireland would run, you had no response until you tried to piggyback of his, you showed no attempt to think for yourself except an inexcusable volley of personal abuse which says more about your limited education than mine
Furthermore as for my quote, that makes me laugh, you actually trawled through my posts until a month ago and took something that was said in an entirely different context if you read the whole thread and how i was commenting on the quoted article, furthermore where did i mention Obama??? talk about trying to scoring cheap points when you are in a corner, the entire concept of debate seems to escape you
I never said you had anything against Obama. You do however have an opinion on the USA a country of which he just happens to be President.
As for the tourism, it is so blatantly in front of your nose obvious that I'd guess every single person you ask would say the same thing. IT is so blatantly obvious that I credited you with having another agenda but it seems I was mistaken. You actually didn't see the benefit of Coast to Coast prime time news images of Obama in Ireland, not to mention the print media. Incredible.
don't try and backtrack, you had to wait for Jim to come on to even offer an argument, you stole his and now are trying to use it, when I and Nally both pushed you for a rationale to your persoanl abuse you couldn't do it
i think you will find you did say i had something against Obama, and i quote ''If people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing''- you really are in knots now you muppet
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:09:11 PM
don't try and backtrack, you had to wait for Jim to come on to even offer an argument, you stole his and now are trying to use it, when I and Nally both pushed you for a rationale to your persoanl abuse you couldn't do it
i think you will find you did say i had something against Obama, and i quote ''If people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing''- you really are in knots now you muppet
Your argument is that you couldn't see the tourism potential of Obama in Ireland and you are now arguing that others couldn't see it either? Wow.
Your second point is even more embarrassing. Notice the word President. All the arguments against the Queen are on the basis of what she represents (Head of the British Army etc.), any argument against Obama would obviously be the same. Unless of course you can find someone who thinks he shouldn't come because he is a shite basketballer.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:16:28 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:09:11 PM
don't try and backtrack, you had to wait for Jim to come on to even offer an argument, you stole his and now are trying to use it, when I and Nally both pushed you for a rationale to your persoanl abuse you couldn't do it
i think you will find you did say i had something against Obama, and i quote ''If people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing''- you really are in knots now you muppet
Your argument is that you couldn't see the tourism potential of Obama in Ireland and you are now arguing that others couldn't see it either? Wow.
Your second point is even more embarrassing. Notice the word President. All the arguments against the Queen are on the basis of what she represents (Head of the British Army etc.), any argument against Obama would obviously be the same. Unless of course you can find someone who thinks he shouldn't come because he is a shite basketballer.
it's like talking to a stuffed animal - sorry i am
no-one has offered me a breakdown of why President Obama will bring a tourism boost to Ireland, the demographic breakdown of the american visitors is massively limited to retired Irish Americans, America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there? highly doubtful, no one can give me an argument for the economic benefits that will accrue from this, least of all you
the only person that should be embarrased is you, you mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama now you are going round in circles trying to deflect from your terrible excuse for debating.
Now why don't you slide on back down to Sesame street, i think they are doing the letter 'Z' today, nice we easy one to break you in, good lad
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
it's like talking to a stuffed animal - sorry i am
no-one has offered me a breakdown of why President Obama will bring a tourism boost to Ireland, the demographic breakdown of the american visitors is massively limited to retired Irish Americans, America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there? highly doubtful, no one can give me an argument for the economic benefits that will accrue from this, least of all you
This is what you said.
Quoteplease tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod
The extra mass he will add to Ireland will increase our gravitational pull on Americans.......no that can't be it
All those extra people in his entourage will lower our elevation and some of the biggest americans will roll here....no wait.
What could the benefits possibly be?
Quote
the only person that should be embarrased is you, you mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama now you are going round in circles trying to deflect from your terrible excuse for debating.
Any chance of you putting up my exact quote which will easily prove whether I mentioned the word President or not? Didn't think so.
Quote
Now why don't you slide on back down to Sesame street, i think they are doing the letter 'Z' today, nice we easy one to break you in, good lad
I'm not as advanced as you I still watch cbeebies.
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there?
It is? I wish to f**k someone would tell us in Nevada.
Quote from: Puckoon on April 12, 2011, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there?
It is? I wish to f**k someone would tell us in Nevada.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/ireland-nevada/ (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/ireland-nevada/)
President Reagan Visitor Centre in Ballypooreen:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/President_Reagan_visitor_centre_-_geograph.org.uk_-_552701.jpg)
Website of the Kennedy Cultural Museum and Visitor Centre in Dunganstown in Wexford.
http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm (http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm)
Quote from: Puckoon on April 12, 2011, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there?
It is? I wish to f**k someone would tell us in Nevada.
I raised a bit of an eyebrow at that one too!
It's not entirely their fault back there... It's simply what's being sold them as to the fine job Obama would do/has done in office ::) inaccurate would be a massive understatement as the country is still well and truly on it's knees :'(
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:50:46 PM
President Reagan Visitor Centre in Ballypooreen:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/President_Reagan_visitor_centre_-_geograph.org.uk_-_552701.jpg)
Website of the Kennedy Cultural Museum and Visitor Centre in Dunganstown in Wexford.
http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm (http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm)
Notable Americans of Scotch-Irish descent:
Andrew Jackson
7th President, 1829-37: He was born in the predominantly Ulster-Scots Waxhaws area of South Carolina two years after his parents left Boneybefore, near Carrickfergus in County Antrim. A heritage centre in the village pays tribute to the legacy of 'Old Hickory', the People's President. Andrew Jackson then moved to Tennessee, where he served as Governor.
James Knox Polk
11th President, 1845-49: His ancestors were among the first Ulster-Scots settlers, emigrating from Coleraine in 1680 to become a powerful political family in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He moved to Tennessee and became its governor before winning the presidency.
James Buchanan
15th President, 1857-61: Born in a log cabin (which has been relocated to his old school in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania), 'Old Buck' cherished his origins: "My Ulster blood is a priceless heritage". The Buchanans were originally from Deroran, near Omagh in County Tyrone where the ancestral home still stands.
Andrew Johnson
17th President, 1865-69: His grandfather left Mounthill, near Larne in County Antrim around 1750 and settled in North Carolina. Andrew worked there as a tailor and ran a successful business in Greeneville, Tennessee, before being elected Vice-President. He became President following Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
Ulysses S. Grant
18th President, 1869-77: The home of his maternal great-grandfather, John Simpson, at Dergenagh, County Tyrone, is the location for an exhibition on the eventful life of the victorious Civil War commander who served two terms as President. Grant visited his ancestral homeland in 1878.
Chester A. Arthur
21st President, 1881-85: His election was the start of a quarter-century in which the White House was occupied by men of Ulster-Scots origins. His family left Dreen, near Cullybackey, County Antrim, in 1815. There is now an interpretive centre, alongside the Arthur Ancestral Home, devoted to his life and times.
Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th President, 1885-89 and 1893-97: Born in New Jersey, he was the maternal grandson of merchant Abner Neal, who emigrated from County Antrim in the 1790s. He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms.
Benjamin Harrison
23rd President, 1889-93: His mother, Elizabeth Irwin, had Ulster-Scots roots through her two great-grandfathers, James Irwin and William McDowell. Harrison was born in Ohio and served as a brigadier general in the Union Army before embarking on a career in Indiana politics which led to the White House.
William McKinley
25th President, 1897-1901: Born in Ohio, the descendant of a farmer from Conagher, near Ballymoney, County Antrim, he was proud of his ancestry and addressed one of the national Scotch-Irish congresses held in the late 19th century. His second term as president was cut short by an assassin's bullet.
Theodore Roosevelt
26th President, 1901-09: His mother, Mittie Bulloch, had Ulster Scots ancestors who emigrated from Glenoe, County Antrim, in May 1729. Roosevelt praised "Irish Presbyterians" as "a bold and hardy race."[67] However, he is also the man who said: "But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native"* before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen." [1] (*Roosevelt was referring to "nativists", not American Indians, in this context)
Woodrow Wilson
28th President, 1913-21: Of Ulster-Scot descent on both sides of the family, his roots were very strong and dear to him. He was grandson of a printer from Dergalt, near Strabane, County Tyrone, whose former home is open to visitors.
Richard Nixon
37th President, 1969-74: The Nixon ancestors left Ulster in the mid-18th century; the Quaker Milhous family ties were with County Antrim and County Kildare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American
I wonder will Barack O'Bama get Christy's approval?
HEY RONNIE REAGAN
(Spoken Intro)Their was a terrible fenzy when that man came here.
Their was a terrible frenzy when Ronnie Reagan came.
Himself and his wife and his entourage epitomised all that is unpalatable about America.
They came here and pushed everyone aside, walked upon our ways and trampled upon our culture
- purely for photo opportuinities.
All the gobshites and charaltans had a field day on this occasion of gross crassness and bad taste.
Doubtless there are a large amount of the same surrounding the visit of John F. Kennedy
and Bill Clinton but somehow their visits also had aspects of genuine empathy
and love for this tiny island.
At the time of Reagans visit I would not have been a big fan of the Irish special branch,
but I nevertheless was irked by the manner in which the U.S. police came in
and literally shoved our poor men aside. I recall seeing large helicopters
down in Munster one day and their was an eerie discomfort at the huge invasive
precence around the country. Babies were kissed, lounges got a coat of paint,
toilets got paper and Garret giggled and fawned.
The island of saints and scholars and gombeens and f**king arselickers.
CHORUS:
Hey Ronnie Reagan, I'm black and I'm pagan,
I'm gay and I'm left and I'm free.
I'm a non-fundamentalist environmentalist,
Please don't bother me.
You're so cool playing poker with death as the joker,
You've nerve but you don't assure us -
With your paranoid vistas of mad Sandinistas,
Are you really defending Honduras?
We can dig shelter holes when we've bartered our souls,
As for Pershing and Cruise we can shovel,
While the myth of our dreams turns to nightmares it seems,
From the White House straight back to the hovel.
(CHORUS)
Now the Irish dimension has caught your attention
I'm asking myself whats your game
Do you eyes share the tears of the last twenty years
Or is that just a vote catchers gleam
Your dollars may beckon but I think we should reckon
The cost of accepting your gold
If you get your way, what a price we will pay
Whats left when our freedom is sold
(CHORUS)
You'll be wearing the green down at Ballyporeen,
The town of the little potato
Put your arms around Garret and dangle your carrot
But you'll never get me to join NATO
I've watched you for years amongst laughter and tears
As you act out your games of deception
And despite what you see there's no welcome from me,
And I firmly oppose your reception
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 06:04:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:50:46 PM
President Reagan Visitor Centre in Ballypooreen:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/President_Reagan_visitor_centre_-_geograph.org.uk_-_552701.jpg)
Website of the Kennedy Cultural Museum and Visitor Centre in Dunganstown in Wexford.
http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm (http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm)
Notable Americans of Scotch-Irish descent:
Andrew Jackson
7th President, 1829-37: He was born in the predominantly Ulster-Scots Waxhaws area of South Carolina two years after his parents left Boneybefore, near Carrickfergus in County Antrim. A heritage centre in the village pays tribute to the legacy of 'Old Hickory', the People's President. Andrew Jackson then moved to Tennessee, where he served as Governor.
James Knox Polk
11th President, 1845-49: His ancestors were among the first Ulster-Scots settlers, emigrating from Coleraine in 1680 to become a powerful political family in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He moved to Tennessee and became its governor before winning the presidency.
James Buchanan
15th President, 1857-61: Born in a log cabin (which has been relocated to his old school in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania), 'Old Buck' cherished his origins: "My Ulster blood is a priceless heritage". The Buchanans were originally from Deroran, near Omagh in County Tyrone where the ancestral home still stands.
Andrew Johnson
17th President, 1865-69: His grandfather left Mounthill, near Larne in County Antrim around 1750 and settled in North Carolina. Andrew worked there as a tailor and ran a successful business in Greeneville, Tennessee, before being elected Vice-President. He became President following Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
Ulysses S. Grant
18th President, 1869-77: The home of his maternal great-grandfather, John Simpson, at Dergenagh, County Tyrone, is the location for an exhibition on the eventful life of the victorious Civil War commander who served two terms as President. Grant visited his ancestral homeland in 1878.
Chester A. Arthur
21st President, 1881-85: His election was the start of a quarter-century in which the White House was occupied by men of Ulster-Scots origins. His family left Dreen, near Cullybackey, County Antrim, in 1815. There is now an interpretive centre, alongside the Arthur Ancestral Home, devoted to his life and times.
Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th President, 1885-89 and 1893-97: Born in New Jersey, he was the maternal grandson of merchant Abner Neal, who emigrated from County Antrim in the 1790s. He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms.
Benjamin Harrison
23rd President, 1889-93: His mother, Elizabeth Irwin, had Ulster-Scots roots through her two great-grandfathers, James Irwin and William McDowell. Harrison was born in Ohio and served as a brigadier general in the Union Army before embarking on a career in Indiana politics which led to the White House.
William McKinley
25th President, 1897-1901: Born in Ohio, the descendant of a farmer from Conagher, near Ballymoney, County Antrim, he was proud of his ancestry and addressed one of the national Scotch-Irish congresses held in the late 19th century. His second term as president was cut short by an assassin's bullet.
Theodore Roosevelt
26th President, 1901-09: His mother, Mittie Bulloch, had Ulster Scots ancestors who emigrated from Glenoe, County Antrim, in May 1729. Roosevelt praised "Irish Presbyterians" as "a bold and hardy race."[67] However, he is also the man who said: "But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native"* before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen." [1] (*Roosevelt was referring to "nativists", not American Indians, in this context)
Woodrow Wilson
28th President, 1913-21: Of Ulster-Scot descent on both sides of the family, his roots were very strong and dear to him. He was grandson of a printer from Dergalt, near Strabane, County Tyrone, whose former home is open to visitors.
Richard Nixon
37th President, 1969-74: The Nixon ancestors left Ulster in the mid-18th century; the Quaker Milhous family ties were with County Antrim and County Kildare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American
Fixed that for ya E.G.
Actually mates with one of Woodrow Wilson's English relatives. Just back from the pub with here actually.
Quote from: Tyrones own on April 12, 2011, 05:53:23 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on April 12, 2011, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there?
It is? I wish to f**k someone would tell us in Nevada.
I raised a bit of an eyebrow at that one too!
It's not entirely their fault back there... It's simply what's being sold them as to the fine job Obama would do/has done in office ::) inaccurate would be a massive understatement as the country is still well and truly on it's knees :'(
lads i work for a company that has a sister US company, the CEO had a global call with everyone last week and stated that the recession is officially over in the states, it might not seem it but it goes on market growth and contraction, technically for a recession is 2 quarters of consecutive contractions and vice versa to come out, to qualify being out of recession is 2 quarters of growth no matter how small, that doesn't mean it filters through to day to day events and relaise it self with a feel good factor but that is the theoretical event for it.....
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:31:52 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
it's like talking to a stuffed animal - sorry i am
no-one has offered me a breakdown of why President Obama will bring a tourism boost to Ireland, the demographic breakdown of the american visitors is massively limited to retired Irish Americans, America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there? highly doubtful, no one can give me an argument for the economic benefits that will accrue from this, least of all you
This is what you said.
Quoteplease tell me what tourism benefits will be derived from Obama spending 5 hours on the aul sod
The extra mass he will add to Ireland will increase our gravitational pull on Americans.......no that can't be it
All those extra people in his entourage will lower our elevation and some of the biggest americans will roll here....no wait.
What could the benefits possibly be?
Quote
the only person that should be embarrased is you, you mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama now you are going round in circles trying to deflect from your terrible excuse for debating.
Any chance of you putting up my exact quote which will easily prove whether I mentioned the word President or not? Didn't think so.
Quote
Now why don't you slide on back down to Sesame street, i think they are doing the letter 'Z' today, nice we easy one to break you in, good lad
I'm not as advanced as you I still watch cbeebies.
right so for all your bluster you still can't answer the question and fire out childish points, no point engaging you further as you obviously don't want to seriously engage and no other method of debating (and i use the term loosely) than resorting to childish remarks and personal abuse
as for your exact quote it followed the line 'and i quote' can you not grasp that??? i give up
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 08:54:47 AM
Quote from: Tyrones own on April 12, 2011, 05:53:23 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on April 12, 2011, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
America is officially out of recession so we will see a bounce in those visiting these shores, the number of non irish americans increasing in visits to here will be largely limited, and him spending 5 hours here will not boost that in any way shape or form, i suspect it will not even make the news headlines so any exposure will be of little use, he was in south america a couple of weeks ago will that boost tourism there?
It is? I wish to f**k someone would tell us in Nevada.
I raised a bit of an eyebrow at that one too!
It's not entirely their fault back there... It's simply what's being sold them as to the fine job Obama would do/has done in office ::) inaccurate would be a massive understatement as the country is still well and truly on it's knees :'(
lads i work for a company that has a sister US company, the CEO had a global call with everyone last week and stated that the recession is officially over in the states, it might not seem it but it goes on market growth and contraction, technically for a recession is 2 quarters of consecutive contractions and vice versa to come out, to qualify being out of recession is 2 quarters of growth no matter how small, that doesn't mean it filters through to day to day events and relaise it self with a feel good factor but that is the theoretical event for it.....
Glad you cleared that up
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 08:57:35 AM
right so for all your bluster you still can't answer the question and fire out childish points, no point engaging you further as you obviously don't want to seriously engage and no other method of debating (and i use the term loosely) than resorting to childish remarks and personal abuse
as for your exact quote it followed the line 'and i quote' can you not grasp that??? i give up
Now you are simply lying.
This is what I wrote:
Quoteif people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing.
This is what you still claim I wrote:
Quoteyou mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama
By the way you fill your own posts with insults while whinging about other people insulting you. If you that easily offended maybe you should stay out of the fire.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 12, 2011, 06:24:01 PM
HEY RONNIE REAGAN
Hey Ronnie Reagan, I'm black and I'm pagan,
I'm gay and I'm left and I'm free.
I'm a non-fundamentalist environmentalist,
Please don't bother me.
You're so cool playing poker with death as the joker,
You've nerve but you don't assure us -
With your paranoid vistas of mad Sandinistas,
Are you really defending Honduras?
We can dig shelter holes when we've bartered our souls,
As for Pershing and Cruise we can shovel,
While the myth of our dreams turns to nightmares it seems,
From the White House straight back to the hovel.
(CHORUS)
Now the Irish dimension has caught your attention
I'm asking myself whats your game
Do you eyes share the tears of the last twenty years
Or is that just a vote catchers gleam
Your dollars may beckon but I think we should reckon
The cost of accepting your gold
If you get your way, what a price we will pay
Whats left when our freedom is sold
(CHORUS)
You'll be wearing the green down at Ballyporeen,
The town of the little potato
Put your arms around Garret and dangle your carrot
But you'll never get me to join NATO
I've watched you for years amongst laughter and tears
As you act out your games of deception
And despite what you see there's no welcome from me,
And I firmly oppose your reception
That song was a staple at many parties I would have attended in the 80s, although no-one ever seemed to know the first part of the second line of the chorus.
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 08:57:35 AM
right so for all your bluster you still can't answer the question and fire out childish points, no point engaging you further as you obviously don't want to seriously engage and no other method of debating (and i use the term loosely) than resorting to childish remarks and personal abuse
as for your exact quote it followed the line 'and i quote' can you not grasp that??? i give up
Now you are simply lying.
This is what I wrote:
Quoteif people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing.
This is what you still claim I wrote:
Quoteyou mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama
By the way you fill your own posts with insults while whinging about other people insulting you. If you that easily offended maybe you should stay out of the fire.
you still don't get this???
stay out of the fire??? i put up a point about the garda budget and you were the one who slid in with name calling and abuse, you're the one who took the first shot, continued to talk shite until you tried to piggyback of a sensible argument hours later then tried to twist things, i'd love to see what insults i threw
not easily offended, just disappointed that you can't be civil and try and make a point without trying to find ulterior motives for why someone would post something - you still haven't answered my point about the garda budget, i'm waiting....
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 11:32:23 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 08:57:35 AM
right so for all your bluster you still can't answer the question and fire out childish points, no point engaging you further as you obviously don't want to seriously engage and no other method of debating (and i use the term loosely) than resorting to childish remarks and personal abuse
as for your exact quote it followed the line 'and i quote' can you not grasp that??? i give up
Now you are simply lying.
This is what I wrote:
Quoteif people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing.
This is what you still claim I wrote:
Quoteyou mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama
By the way you fill your own posts with insults while whinging about other people insulting you. If you that easily offended maybe you should stay out of the fire.
you still don't get this???
stay out of the fire??? i put up a point about the garda budget and you were the one who slid in with name calling and abuse, you're the one who took the first shot, continued to talk shite until you tried to piggyback of a sensible argument hours later then tried to twist things, i'd love to see what insults i threw
not easily offended, just disappointed that you can't be civil and try and make a point without trying to find ulterior motives for why someone would post something - you still haven't answered my point about the garda budget, i'm waiting....
You could not see
any tourism benefits from a visit by the President of USA. I thought this was a straw man argument for some other agenda as, to me, it seems ludicrous. It now seems that you actually do hold really this opinion. That is your right and my mistake for assuming there had to be more to it than that.
As for your question this thread has offered many answers but you refuse to even acknowledge them. I posted links to two museum and visitor centres which came out of previous visits by serving Presidents. These have provided decades of employment and receive thousands of vistors annually. You ignored them. Jim Murphy posted the more obvious exposure angle of this type of visit.
You then resorted to misquoting me, I notice you have gone quiet on that.
As for your insults towards me, they are water off a ducks back like most people on here. This is an internet discussion board and flaming is pretty common place. But your indignation about insults thrown at you while doing exactly the same is hypocritical.
"You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet"
"you really are in knots now you muppet"
"it's like talking to a stuffed animal - sorry i am" -
"Now why don't you slide on back down to Sesame street, i think they are doing the letter 'Z' today, nice we easy one to break you in, good lad"
Finally I am now subject to accusations of 'anti-SF prejudice' on another thread specifically for arguing with you on this one. I am not saying that is anything to do with you but can you shed any light as to why a poster would write that?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 06:04:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:50:46 PM
President Reagan Visitor Centre in Ballypooreen:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/President_Reagan_visitor_centre_-_geograph.org.uk_-_552701.jpg)
Website of the Kennedy Cultural Museum and Visitor Centre in Dunganstown in Wexford.
http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm (http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm)
Notable Americans of Scotch-Irish descent:
Andrew Jackson
7th President, 1829-37: He was born in the predominantly Ulster-Scots Waxhaws area of South Carolina two years after his parents left Boneybefore, near Carrickfergus in County Antrim. A heritage centre in the village pays tribute to the legacy of 'Old Hickory', the People's President. Andrew Jackson then moved to Tennessee, where he served as Governor.
James Knox Polk
11th President, 1845-49: His ancestors were among the first Ulster-Scots settlers, emigrating from Coleraine in 1680 to become a powerful political family in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He moved to Tennessee and became its governor before winning the presidency.
James Buchanan
15th President, 1857-61: Born in a log cabin (which has been relocated to his old school in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania), 'Old Buck' cherished his origins: "My Ulster blood is a priceless heritage". The Buchanans were originally from Deroran, near Omagh in County Tyrone where the ancestral home still stands.
Andrew Johnson
17th President, 1865-69: His grandfather left Mounthill, near Larne in County Antrim around 1750 and settled in North Carolina. Andrew worked there as a tailor and ran a successful business in Greeneville, Tennessee, before being elected Vice-President. He became President following Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
Ulysses S. Grant
18th President, 1869-77: The home of his maternal great-grandfather, John Simpson, at Dergenagh, County Tyrone, is the location for an exhibition on the eventful life of the victorious Civil War commander who served two terms as President. Grant visited his ancestral homeland in 1878.
Chester A. Arthur
21st President, 1881-85: His election was the start of a quarter-century in which the White House was occupied by men of Ulster-Scots origins. His family left Dreen, near Cullybackey, County Antrim, in 1815. There is now an interpretive centre, alongside the Arthur Ancestral Home, devoted to his life and times.
Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th President, 1885-89 and 1893-97: Born in New Jersey, he was the maternal grandson of merchant Abner Neal, who emigrated from County Antrim in the 1790s. He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms.
Benjamin Harrison
23rd President, 1889-93: His mother, Elizabeth Irwin, had Ulster-Scots roots through her two great-grandfathers, James Irwin and William McDowell. Harrison was born in Ohio and served as a brigadier general in the Union Army before embarking on a career in Indiana politics which led to the White House.
William McKinley
25th President, 1897-1901: Born in Ohio, the descendant of a farmer from Conagher, near Ballymoney, County Antrim, he was proud of his ancestry and addressed one of the national Scotch-Irish congresses held in the late 19th century. His second term as president was cut short by an assassin's bullet.
Theodore Roosevelt
26th President, 1901-09: His mother, Mittie Bulloch, had Ulster Scots ancestors who emigrated from Glenoe, County Antrim, in May 1729. Roosevelt praised "Irish Presbyterians" as "a bold and hardy race."[67] However, he is also the man who said: "But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native"* before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen." [1] (*Roosevelt was referring to "nativists", not American Indians, in this context)
Woodrow Wilson
28th President, 1913-21: Of Ulster-Scot descent on both sides of the family, his roots were very strong and dear to him. He was grandson of a printer from Dergalt, near Strabane, County Tyrone, whose former home is open to visitors.
Richard Nixon
37th President, 1969-74: The Nixon ancestors left Ulster in the mid-18th century; the Quaker Milhous family ties were with County Antrim and County Kildare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American
Fixed that for ya E.G.
Actually mates with one of Woodrow Wilson's English relatives. Just back from the pub with here actually.
Actually, in this instance, altering it to "Ulster-Scots" would have been more accurate/illustrative than either "Scotch-Irish" or "Irish", but I wasn't bothered to alter it in my cut-and-paste.
Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.
"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 12:31:33 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 06:04:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2011, 05:50:46 PM
President Reagan Visitor Centre in Ballypooreen:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/President_Reagan_visitor_centre_-_geograph.org.uk_-_552701.jpg)
Website of the Kennedy Cultural Museum and Visitor Centre in Dunganstown in Wexford.
http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm (http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm)
Notable Americans of Scotch-Irish descent:
Andrew Jackson
7th President, 1829-37: He was born in the predominantly Ulster-Scots Waxhaws area of South Carolina two years after his parents left Boneybefore, near Carrickfergus in County Antrim. A heritage centre in the village pays tribute to the legacy of 'Old Hickory', the People's President. Andrew Jackson then moved to Tennessee, where he served as Governor.
James Knox Polk
11th President, 1845-49: His ancestors were among the first Ulster-Scots settlers, emigrating from Coleraine in 1680 to become a powerful political family in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He moved to Tennessee and became its governor before winning the presidency.
James Buchanan
15th President, 1857-61: Born in a log cabin (which has been relocated to his old school in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania), 'Old Buck' cherished his origins: "My Ulster blood is a priceless heritage". The Buchanans were originally from Deroran, near Omagh in County Tyrone where the ancestral home still stands.
Andrew Johnson
17th President, 1865-69: His grandfather left Mounthill, near Larne in County Antrim around 1750 and settled in North Carolina. Andrew worked there as a tailor and ran a successful business in Greeneville, Tennessee, before being elected Vice-President. He became President following Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
Ulysses S. Grant
18th President, 1869-77: The home of his maternal great-grandfather, John Simpson, at Dergenagh, County Tyrone, is the location for an exhibition on the eventful life of the victorious Civil War commander who served two terms as President. Grant visited his ancestral homeland in 1878.
Chester A. Arthur
21st President, 1881-85: His election was the start of a quarter-century in which the White House was occupied by men of Ulster-Scots origins. His family left Dreen, near Cullybackey, County Antrim, in 1815. There is now an interpretive centre, alongside the Arthur Ancestral Home, devoted to his life and times.
Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th President, 1885-89 and 1893-97: Born in New Jersey, he was the maternal grandson of merchant Abner Neal, who emigrated from County Antrim in the 1790s. He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms.
Benjamin Harrison
23rd President, 1889-93: His mother, Elizabeth Irwin, had Ulster-Scots roots through her two great-grandfathers, James Irwin and William McDowell. Harrison was born in Ohio and served as a brigadier general in the Union Army before embarking on a career in Indiana politics which led to the White House.
William McKinley
25th President, 1897-1901: Born in Ohio, the descendant of a farmer from Conagher, near Ballymoney, County Antrim, he was proud of his ancestry and addressed one of the national Scotch-Irish congresses held in the late 19th century. His second term as president was cut short by an assassin's bullet.
Theodore Roosevelt
26th President, 1901-09: His mother, Mittie Bulloch, had Ulster Scots ancestors who emigrated from Glenoe, County Antrim, in May 1729. Roosevelt praised "Irish Presbyterians" as "a bold and hardy race."[67] However, he is also the man who said: "But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native"* before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen." [1] (*Roosevelt was referring to "nativists", not American Indians, in this context)
Woodrow Wilson
28th President, 1913-21: Of Ulster-Scot descent on both sides of the family, his roots were very strong and dear to him. He was grandson of a printer from Dergalt, near Strabane, County Tyrone, whose former home is open to visitors.
Richard Nixon
37th President, 1969-74: The Nixon ancestors left Ulster in the mid-18th century; the Quaker Milhous family ties were with County Antrim and County Kildare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American
Fixed that for ya E.G.
Actually mates with one of Woodrow Wilson's English relatives. Just back from the pub with here actually.
Actually, in this instance, altering it to "Ulster-Scots" would have been more accurate/illustrative than either "Scotch-Irish" or "Irish", but I wasn't bothered to alter it in my cut-and-paste.
Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.
"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.
You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.
They all Irishmen to me. I wouldn't start dividing other Irishmen Irishwomen into Gaelic-Irish, Cymro-Norman-Irish, Norse-Irish, Ulster-Scot-Irish, Huguenot-Irish, Paletine-Irish, Immigrant-Irish, Irish Traveller etc. Being Irish does not alter your political or religious views, I am Nationalist, Republican in the European tradition and an Atheist, but Irish to the bone.
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 12:11:36 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 11:32:23 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 08:57:35 AM
right so for all your bluster you still can't answer the question and fire out childish points, no point engaging you further as you obviously don't want to seriously engage and no other method of debating (and i use the term loosely) than resorting to childish remarks and personal abuse
as for your exact quote it followed the line 'and i quote' can you not grasp that??? i give up
Now you are simply lying.
This is what I wrote:
Quoteif people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing.
This is what you still claim I wrote:
Quoteyou mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama
By the way you fill your own posts with insults while whinging about other people insulting you. If you that easily offended maybe you should stay out of the fire.
you still don't get this???
stay out of the fire??? i put up a point about the garda budget and you were the one who slid in with name calling and abuse, you're the one who took the first shot, continued to talk shite until you tried to piggyback of a sensible argument hours later then tried to twist things, i'd love to see what insults i threw
not easily offended, just disappointed that you can't be civil and try and make a point without trying to find ulterior motives for why someone would post something - you still haven't answered my point about the garda budget, i'm waiting....
You could not see any tourism benefits from a visit by the President of USA. I thought this was a straw man argument for some other agenda as, to me, it seems ludicrous. It now seems that you actually do hold really this opinion. That is your right and my mistake for assuming there had to be more to it than that.
As for your question this thread has offered many answers but you refuse to even acknowledge them. I posted links to two museum and visitor centres which came out of previous visits by serving Presidents. These have provided decades of employment and receive thousands of vistors annually. You ignored them. Jim Murphy posted the more obvious exposure angle of this type of visit.
You then resorted to misquoting me, I notice you have gone quiet on that.
As for your insults towards me, they are water off a ducks back like most people on here. This is an internet discussion board and flaming is pretty common place. But your indignation about insults thrown at you while doing exactly the same is hypocritical.
"You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet"
"you really are in knots now you muppet"
"it's like talking to a stuffed animal - sorry i am" -
"Now why don't you slide on back down to Sesame street, i think they are doing the letter 'Z' today, nice we easy one to break you in, good lad"
Finally I am now subject to accusations of 'anti-SF prejudice' on another thread specifically for arguing with you on this one. I am not saying that is anything to do with you but can you shed any light as to why a poster would write that?
Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.
you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at
i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it
furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.
you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at
i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it
furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself
This is great fun!
I ask you a simply question regarding another poster's comment about you and me, even giving you an out as I know how sensitive you are, and you say it shows a 'total lack of intelligence' on my part. You are 'absolutely astounded' with this? Really? Yet you derisively reference my 'sidekick' for doing something, who afaik I've never met. Where does this leave your intellect by your own logic.
As for your Pharaoh point, this really is funny and you are obviously not serious. But it is very entertaining. You would need to consider the Knights' (or whatever they had then) overtime bill if the Pharaoh visited. You would no doubt be against this.
Quotefacts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Many people seem to confuse 'facts' with opinion. Fact is, neither museum was there before the President in question visited. Fact is, those museums represent an economic benefit to Ireland from our connection to those US presidents. It is my opinion that the same may happen again.
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.
you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at
i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it
furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself
This is great fun!
I ask you a simply question regarding another poster's comment about you and me, even giving you an out as I know how sensitive you are, and you say it shows a 'total lack of intelligence' on my part. You are 'absolutely astounded' with this? Really? Yet you derisively reference my 'sidekick' for doing something, who afaik I've never met. Where does this leave your intellect by your own logic.
As for your Pharaoh point, this really is funny and you are obviously not serious. But it is very entertaining. You would need to consider the Knights' (or whatever they had then) overtime bill if the Pharaoh visited. You would no doubt be against this.
Quotefacts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Many people seem to confuse 'facts' with opinion. Fact is, neither museum was there before the President in question visited. Fact is, those museums represent an economic benefit to Ireland from our connection to those US presidents. It is my opinion that the same may happen again.
Not for everyone else!
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 12:31:33 PM
Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.
"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.
You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.
Re-read the quotation by Washington - he refers to the "Scotch-Irish". In 1777.
Listen, I don't want to make a big deal of it, but back then, the USA didn't exist at all (pre-1776), and even after that date, couldn't even be said to have been a truly unified, single Nation until after the Civil War.
Therefore my point was that the nascent/early United States was made up of a whole host of Nationalities/Races/Ethnic Groupings etc, often only very loosely "united" under one flag or cause.
However, when it came to the Independence Movement and founding of the new Republic etc, the influence of those people who generally called themselves "Scotch-Irish", but may be more properly termed Ulster-Scots (imo), was arguably the most influential of any grouping.
Which I accept is (or at least should be) of no great significance, other than the Historical, in the 21st Century. Except that in the rush to celebrate their "Irish" roots, the great majority of an estimated 40 million "Irish-Americans", including modern-day politicians on-the-make, usually claim a heritage deriving from the 19th Century Catholic-Irish emigrants, when if only they knew it, many (most?) actually descend from an earlier grouping which was markedly distinct in culture, politics, religion and history etc.
Then again, we shouldn't be surprised at this, since whatever their other many fine qualities etc, in my experience the average American's ignorance of History is perhaps exceeded only by his ignorance of Geography.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
They all Irishmen to me. I wouldn't start dividing other Irishmen Irishwomen into Gaelic-Irish, Cymro-Norman-Irish, Norse-Irish, Ulster-Scot-Irish, Huguenot-Irish, Paletine-Irish, Immigrant-Irish, Irish Traveller etc. Being Irish does not alter your political or religious views, I am Nationalist, Republican in the European tradition and an Atheist, but Irish to the bone.
I wouldn't argue with the principle in that, but my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
Which would be bad enough (imo), were it not a fact that the forgotten/excised tradition is/was at least as important in making them and their country what they are, if not rather
more important.
Oh well.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
… my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I’m not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don’t think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the “Scotch-Irish” tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.
you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at
i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it
furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself
This is great fun!
I ask you a simply question regarding another poster's comment about you and me, even giving you an out as I know how sensitive you are, and you say it shows a 'total lack of intelligence' on my part. You are 'absolutely astounded' with this? Really? Yet you derisively reference my 'sidekick' for doing something, who afaik I've never met. Where does this leave your intellect by your own logic.
As for your Pharaoh point, this really is funny and you are obviously not serious. But it is very entertaining. You would need to consider the Knights' (or whatever they had then) overtime bill if the Pharaoh visited. You would no doubt be against this.
Quotefacts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Many people seem to confuse 'facts' with opinion. Fact is, neither museum was there before the President in question visited. Fact is, those museums represent an economic benefit to Ireland from our connection to those US presidents. It is my opinion that the same may happen again.
[/quote]
that is a terrible reply even by your pathetic standard, you are still flogging that one? how would i know what he meant, i never commented on what he said, the key difference between you and abbeyside is that you chose to interpret what he said and comment on it, i never commented on the other person you chose to reference, your failure to see the key fundamental difference, leaves my intellect on this matter totally sound - so yes i am totally astounded
giving me an out? don't you worry about me looking out, why would i want when you are in tatters, you feel free to dive under the rock anytime you want my dear muppet
by the way what's a 'simply question' - i don't do muppet jargon, can you translate?
prove it, give me a breakdown of their running costs, turnover generated, how long the payback was on the original cap ex to build the museum and how the wages of these employees are paid i.e. are they fully self sustaining or are they part funded by the state, i.e. can they stand on their own 2 feet - in fact don't bother i know you can't, you just fire out soundbites about tourism and can't back it up when asked to drill down beneath the surface
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 12:31:33 PM
Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.
"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.
You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.
Re-read the quotation by Washington - he refers to the "Scotch-Irish". In 1777.
Listen, I don't want to make a big deal of it, but back then, the USA didn't exist at all (pre-1776), and even after that date, couldn't even be said to have been a truly unified, single Nation until after the Civil War.
Therefore my point was that the nascent/early United States was made up of a whole host of Nationalities/Races/Ethnic Groupings etc, often only very loosely "united" under one flag or cause.
However, when it came to the Independence Movement and founding of the new Republic etc, the influence of those people who generally called themselves "Scotch-Irish", but may be more properly termed Ulster-Scots (imo), was arguably the most influential of any grouping.
Which I accept is (or at least should be) of no great significance, other than the Historical, in the 21st Century. Except that in the rush to celebrate their "Irish" roots, the great majority of an estimated 40 million "Irish-Americans", including modern-day politicians on-the-make, usually claim a heritage deriving from the 19th Century Catholic-Irish emigrants, when if only they knew it, many (most?) actually descend from an earlier grouping which was markedly distinct in culture, politics, religion and history etc.
Then again, we shouldn't be surprised at this, since whatever their other many fine qualities etc, in my experience the average American's ignorance of History is perhaps exceeded only by his ignorance of Geography.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
They all Irishmen to me. I wouldn't start dividing other Irishmen Irishwomen into Gaelic-Irish, Cymro-Norman-Irish, Norse-Irish, Ulster-Scot-Irish, Huguenot-Irish, Paletine-Irish, Immigrant-Irish, Irish Traveller etc. Being Irish does not alter your political or religious views, I am Nationalist, Republican in the European tradition and an Atheist, but Irish to the bone.
I wouldn't argue with the principle in that, but my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
Which would be bad enough (imo), were it not a fact that the forgotten/excised tradition is/was at least as important in making them and their country what they are, if not rather more important.
Oh well.
No different from the millions of English who are proud Brits and love the Royalty, but claim Irish stock. Generally they are decended from people who hated British interference in Ireland and hated the British Royalty. They are often shocked when they find out the disloyalty and UN-Britishness of their ancestors, who more than often never spoke a word of English before landing in England. Then again many DUP folk are decended from United Irishmen who fought for Irish Independence or Border Reivers fighting off the Monarchs of England and Scotland. Versions of identity change over time. So maybe the Gaelic identity is more in vogue than the Lowlander one these days, in America at least.
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
Many of those were far from ever being termed Loyalist, part of the reason they were in America in the first place.
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make.
Evidently so. Let me try again.
It is my contention that recent American Presidents have generally only involved themselves with Ireland, whether substantively (Peace Process etc), or symbolically (roots etc), in order to curry favour with the "Irish-American" vote. (Which as I said, and you seemed to overlook, is "fair enough").
And since the overwhelming majority of Irish-American voters associate their Irishness with that of the (Catholic, Gaelic, Nationalist) emigration of the 19th Century, then it is hardly surprising that US politicians with Irish roots play up that particular aspect in their own background, regardless of how tenuous it may be.
However, many (even most?) Irish Americans actually derive their Irishness from the earlier (Ulster-Scots) migration, even if they are unaware of it. Furthermore, that earlier migration from Ireland was arguably more influential in the making of the modern USA than later waves of immigration (Irish or otherwise).
Of course such ignorance or misunderstanding is hardly critical in the grand scheme of things, but as someone who is interested in History generally, and who is also descended directly from the same Ulster-Scots roots specifically, I feel it is a shame that the full story is not better known.
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PMIt reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
Really? You may have inferred that, but nowhere did I imply that, either in word or tone. In fact, the only comment I made about the 19th Century Irish emigration to America was when I agreed it was "equally valid" to that of the 18th Century.
Of course, if you care to quote back to me anything which I posted which might reasonably be considered to be denigratory or whinging, I should be happy to address it.
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PMIn either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan.
Fine. That is your opinion.
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PMSurely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
I agree that the general perception by Irish Americans of exactly what the contribution of the various waves of emigration from Ireland to the New World entailed is woefully inadequate. In fact, I would go further and agree that that the resulting misunderstanding and ignorance etc is not confined to America, either, it is all-too-prevalent back in Ireland, too.
And where that ignorance or misunderstanding is of the contribution of the Ulster-Scots, I would accept that those people often are/were their own worst enemies in telling their story etc.
So be it; we cannot change past misunderstandings etc, but we may do something to redress the situation in future.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:57:27 PM
No different from the millions of English who are proud Brits and love the Royalty, but claim Irish stock. Generally they are decended from people who hated British interference in Ireland and hated the British Royalty. They are often shocked when they find out the disloyalty and UN-Britishness of their ancestors, who more than often never spoke a word of English before landing in England. Then again many DUP folk are decended from United Irishmen who fought for Irish Independence or Border Reivers fighting off the Monarchs of England and Scotland. Versions of identity change over time.
Don't disagree with any of that. But neither do I see how it negates or contradicts any of what I posted earlier, either.
Many Americans are ignorant of their heritage, as are many DUP voters. Bears s h i t in the woods. I am neither American, a DUP voter, nor a bear*.
* - Though tbf, I cannot be cartain that I've never done a s h i t in a wood, at least back in my student days...
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:57:27 PMSo maybe the Gaelic identity is more in vogue than the Lowlander one these days, in America at least.
No doubt, but surely History should be concerned with accuracy and fact, rather than fashion or vogueishness?
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 06:28:50 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:57:27 PM
No different from the millions of English who are proud Brits and love the Royalty, but claim Irish stock. Generally they are decended from people who hated British interference in Ireland and hated the British Royalty. They are often shocked when they find out the disloyalty and UN-Britishness of their ancestors, who more than often never spoke a word of English before landing in England. Then again many DUP folk are decended from United Irishmen who fought for Irish Independence or Border Reivers fighting off the Monarchs of England and Scotland. Versions of identity change over time.
Don't disagree with any of that. But neither do I see how it negates or contradicts any of what I posted earlier, either.
Many Americans are ignorant of their heritage, as are many DUP voters. Bears s h i t in the woods. I am neither American, a DUP voter, nor a bear*.
* - Though tbf, I cannot be cartain that I've never done a s h i t in a wood, at least back in my student days...
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 02:57:27 PMSo maybe the Gaelic identity is more in vogue than the Lowlander one these days, in America at least.
No doubt, but surely History should be concerned with accuracy and fact, rather than fashion or vogueishness?
I have had a shit in a Mango Orchard in the Northern Territory in my backpacking days.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:02:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
Many of those were far from ever being termed Loyalist, part of the reason they were in America in the first place.
Of course - I used the term "Loyalist" in the Irish context, to contrast it with their Nationalist Irish counterparts.
But whilst we're on the subject of the Ulster-Scots role in the American War of Independence, it is not actually known exactly what proportion of the Ulster-Scots in America fought on the side of the Revolutionaries, and what proportion fought on the side of the Crown.
However, it is possible that the proportions were closer to even than is popularly thought. This is because (a) many of the Ulster Scots who emigrated to America did so simply to avoid poverty and famine, rather than persecution and oppression etc i.e. they were not natural revolutionaries; (b) those Ulster-Scots who did get involved on the winning side subsequently integrated and assimilated into the new country much more deeply than later waves of emigrants; (b) many Ulster-Scots who had fought on the losing side and who stayed in the USA understanadably "kept their head down"; and (c) others of those Ulster-Scots on the losing side upped sticks once more and headed north to continue living under the Crown in Canada, this last group being known as United Empire (ahem) Loyalists:
http://www.uelac.org/
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
WASP doesn't necessarily refer to Scotch-Irish. It covers a much wider spectrum.
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
WASP doesn't necessarily refer to Scotch-Irish. It covers a much wider spectrum.
Indeed. And no Ulster-Scot worth the name would thank you for including him in such a category when used in its original meaning and context.
I mean to say: White certainly, Protestant ditto, but "Anglo Saxon"? :o
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
WASP doesn't necessarily refer to Scotch-Irish. It covers a much wider spectrum.
Indeed. And no Ulster-Scot worth the name would thank you for including him in such a category when used in its original meaning and context.
I mean to say: White certainly, Protestant ditto, but "Anglo Saxon"? :o
Most people who consider themselves Ulster-Scots wouldn't be intelligent enough to be branded a WASP.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
WASP doesn't necessarily refer to Scotch-Irish. It covers a much wider spectrum.
Indeed. And no Ulster-Scot worth the name would thank you for including him in such a category when used in its original meaning and context.
I mean to say: White certainly, Protestant ditto, but "Anglo Saxon"? :o
Lowlanders in general were not Gaels, Norse, Norman or Cumbrics (Britons or North Welsh) they were Angles. They are of Germanic stock, Very-North Proto-English. Most certainly not part of the Celtic, Nordic, French/Nordic
Cultures of Scotland.
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
WASP doesn't necessarily refer to Scotch-Irish. It covers a much wider spectrum.
Indeed. And no Ulster-Scot worth the name would thank you for including him in such a category when used in its original meaning and context.
I mean to say: White certainly, Protestant ditto, but "Anglo Saxon"? :o
Most people who consider themselves Ulster-Scots wouldn't be intelligent enough to be branded a WASP.
In the Northern States they would often fall into the WASP category and in the Southern States into the Hilly Billy (or Bills of the Hills) in Appalachia & they the heart and Soul of the progressive ::) Bible Belt.
Now the Green tradition Irish we give you Boston, Chicago and New York 8)
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
WASP doesn't necessarily refer to Scotch-Irish. It covers a much wider spectrum.
Indeed. And no Ulster-Scot worth the name would thank you for including him in such a category when used in its original meaning and context.
I mean to say: White certainly, Protestant ditto, but "Anglo Saxon"? :o
Most people who consider themselves Ulster-Scots wouldn't be intelligent enough to be branded a WASP.
An Ulster-Scot walks into a petshop (in August, btw) and says to the owner:
"Ah'd like fur tae buy a wasp, if ye plaise".
The owner replies: "I'm sorry, Sir, but we don't sell wasps."
To which Oor Wullie replies: "Well ye've got wan in the windae..."
Anyway, with your moniker, how do we know you don't have a bit of wasp in you yourself?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224197/gall-wasp
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:21:05 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.
WASP doesn't necessarily refer to Scotch-Irish. It covers a much wider spectrum.
Indeed. And no Ulster-Scot worth the name would thank you for including him in such a category when used in its original meaning and context.
I mean to say: White certainly, Protestant ditto, but "Anglo Saxon"? :o
Most people who consider themselves Ulster-Scots wouldn't be intelligent enough to be branded a WASP.
An Ulster-Scot walks into a petshop (in August, btw) and says to the owner:
"Ah'd like fur tae buy a wasp, if ye plaise".
The owner replies: "I'm sorry, Sir, but we don't sell wasps."
To which Oor Wullie replies: "Well ye've got wan in the windae..."
Anyway, with your moniker, how do we know you don't have a bit of wasp in you yourself?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224197/gall-wasp
Are you talking to me or Gallsman? I have Gaelic (Connacht & Ulster), Norse-Gaelic (
Outer Hebridies, via Ulster & Norway), Norman (via Wales, maybe England and Normandy) as far as I can tell.
Just a thought that makes me a different type of
Ulster-Scot ;D
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
In the Northern States they would often fall into the WASP category and in the Southern States into the Hilly Billy (or Bills of the Hills) in Appalachia & they the heart and Soul of the progressive ::) Bible Belt.
Now the Green tradition Irish we give you Boston, Chicago and New York 8)
Correction, you
claim Boston, Chicago and New York - all three were founded long before yiz got there... ;)
http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/c/cuckoo/
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:25:40 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
In the Northern States they would often fall into the WASP category and in the Southern States into the Hilly Billy (or Bills of the Hills) in Appalachia & they the heart and Soul of the progressive ::) Bible Belt.
Now the Green tradition Irish we give you Boston, Chicago and New York 8)
Correction, you claim Boston, Chicago and New York - all three were founded long before yiz got there... ;)
We found backwaters we left an Empire ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 07:25:40 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
In the Northern States they would often fall into the WASP category and in the Southern States into the Hilly Billy (or Bills of the Hills) in Appalachia & they the heart and Soul of the progressive ::) Bible Belt.
Now the Green tradition Irish we give you Boston, Chicago and New York 8)
Correction, you claim Boston, Chicago and New York - all three were founded long before yiz got there... ;)
We defo gave you Iona, St.Bernard & Munich.
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 02:50:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2011, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 13, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.
you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at
i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it
furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself
This is great fun!
I ask you a simply question regarding another poster's comment about you and me, even giving you an out as I know how sensitive you are, and you say it shows a 'total lack of intelligence' on my part. You are 'absolutely astounded' with this? Really? Yet you derisively reference my 'sidekick' for doing something, who afaik I've never met. Where does this leave your intellect by your own logic.
As for your Pharaoh point, this really is funny and you are obviously not serious. But it is very entertaining. You would need to consider the Knights' (or whatever they had then) overtime bill if the Pharaoh visited. You would no doubt be against this.
Quotefacts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.
Many people seem to confuse 'facts' with opinion. Fact is, neither museum was there before the President in question visited. Fact is, those museums represent an economic benefit to Ireland from our connection to those US presidents. It is my opinion that the same may happen again.
[/quote]
that is a terrible reply even by your pathetic standard, you are still flogging that one? how would i know what he meant, i never commented on what he said, the key difference between you and abbeyside is that you chose to interpret what he said and comment on it, i never commented on the other person you chose to reference, your failure to see the key fundamental difference, leaves my intellect on this matter totally sound - so yes i am totally astounded
giving me an out? don't you worry about me looking out, why would i want when you are in tatters, you feel free to dive under the rock anytime you want my dear muppet
by the way what's a 'simply question' - i don't do muppet jargon, can you translate?
prove it, give me a breakdown of their running costs, turnover generated, how long the payback was on the original cap ex to build the museum and how the wages of these employees are paid i.e. are they fully self sustaining or are they part funded by the state, i.e. can they stand on their own 2 feet - in fact don't bother i know you can't, you just fire out soundbites about tourism and can't back it up when asked to drill down beneath the surface
In the days before we were a bubble we had two main ways of generating money. Foreign investment (mainly from the US of A) and tourism (of which the most lucrative sector came from yes you guessed it, the US of A).
A visit from the President of the US of A is a big deal. Many Americans have cut back on foreign trips due to the recession and also due to perceived terrorism risks. This also will help on the latter problem. It will be marketed by Tourism Ireland big time, just like the previous serving Presidents were. Any Irish person that lived before the bubble knows this. Tourism Ireland knows this as suggested below. You alone on this island think differently.
You think we should call it off due to the Garda overtime budget. The budget figure you relied on came from the GRA 'twonk' as Hardy called him. Hardy demonstrated the inaccuracy of his figures. Even the 'twonk' wasn't arguing to call off the visit, he merely wanted clarification on funding.
However now you are asking for figures from me that don't exist anywhere. You will then no doubt claim victory as I didn't provide them. You claim I am in tatters and that you are marching gloriously onto cyber victory.
That is the most piece of brilliance I have seen yet on this board. It is a pity your coup de gras wasn't formatted correctly.
The visit is happening. Get over it.
Here is some light reading for you:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Obama-Ireland-visit-prompts-international-tourist-campaign-118422924.html (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Obama-Ireland-visit-prompts-international-tourist-campaign-118422924.html)
http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/news/4tourism-chief-says-obama-queen-visits-will-boost-industry47/ (http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/news/4tourism-chief-says-obama-queen-visits-will-boost-industry47/)
http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/international-tourism-campaigns-to-take-place-ahead-of-state-visits-55222.html (http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/international-tourism-campaigns-to-take-place-ahead-of-state-visits-55222.html)
http://www.worldtourismdirectory.com/news/9429/tourism-ireland-expects-boost-from-obama,-queen-visits.html (http://www.worldtourismdirectory.com/news/9429/tourism-ireland-expects-boost-from-obama,-queen-visits.html)
http://irishfreepress.com/?p=12548 (http://irishfreepress.com/?p=12548)
http://www.pata.org/news/obama-and-queen-elizabeth-to-boost-ireland-tourism (http://www.pata.org/news/obama-and-queen-elizabeth-to-boost-ireland-tourism)
http://www.goireland.com/blog/article/boost-for-irish-tourism-from-us-and-uk-state-visit.html (http://www.goireland.com/blog/article/boost-for-irish-tourism-from-us-and-uk-state-visit.html)
http://www.hospitalityenews.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1394-obama-to-spark-tourism-drive.html (http://www.hospitalityenews.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1394-obama-to-spark-tourism-drive.html)
you see there you go being totally inaccurate and telling absolute lies!!
Where did i ever call for Obama not to visit?? - this is the crux of your latest argument and it's about to get blew apart as well
you were the one that jumped on Obama when the 'low lying fruit' would have been me opposed to Lizzie, you are that restrained in your thought process and wanted to get one over on a 'Sinn Feiner' as you perceive me to me, based on someone else's post, (that ludicrously you have asked me to explain why they would have posted what they did) that you missed the open net!!!
Tell me where i opposed Obama visiting? you and abbeysider creamed yourselves to get replying you didn't even read my original post properly, you were to busy looking down your noses
I never once opposed either of them in my statement - I asked how the budget could be justified, which i stand by based on my original understanding of the context of the source
you are that narrow sighted you didn't see the point and still don't - the natural course of my post would have been who would have paid for these security costs, would the state fund it all, part fund, would either the UK or US contribute etc, but you are that immature you tried to slate my education - and based on the direction this 'debate' has went the only ones education that is in doubt is the one belonging to the stuffed red animal - Muppet indeed
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 03:52:42 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AM
great post by Aoise - I fully agree with all of that, usual round the houses daft reply from evil myles though doesnt detract from its accuracy or personal opinion!
"Round the houses"?
I made a number of specific responses to the points she was trying to make, all backed up with links/sources/evidence. Your attempt to back her up might carry a shred of credibility if you had actually tried to respond in the same vein, rather than repeating your usual tack of "It's good/bad/whatever because I say it is".
Then again, seeing as you're the last poster on here who's still labouring under the delusion that I am also Myles naGopaleen, I'd be pretty surprised if you suddenly started to display judgement, reasoning or deduction etc in your posts.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMThere wont be any reunification while we have economic problems.
Seeing as the GFA has determined that it cannot happen until a majority of voters in NI agrees to it, the last realistic prospect of Irish unity disappeared completely along with the 20th Century.
The Republic's present economic crisis merely adds one more nail to the coffin. I don't know what age you are, but I'd be completely confident that it ain't gonna happen in your lifetime or mine.
In fact, rather than dreaming as you and Aoise do, that the Queen's visit is some sort of precursor to Irish unity etc, one might just as easily characterise it as final realisation and acceptance by the Republic that the Union of GB and NI, with Her Majesty as Head of State, is here to stay.
If so (and I personally wouldn't like to overstate its significance), then it is a welcome move in normalising relations between the two neighbouring countries (imo).
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMI dont actually care whether the queen comes or not
Really?
Despite the visit being some sort of first step towards softening us all up to the prospect of Irish unity etc?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMand I dont think that she can be held accountable for the actions of british soldiers because she is head of the armed forces any more than we can hold her accountable for child abuse at the hands of church of england ministers just because she is head of the COE.
Actually the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head ("Primate") of the CoE. The Queen is "Defender of the Faith", a now largely honorary title first conferred upon her predecessor, Henry VIII, by Pope Leo X.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 16, 1974, 03:18:44 PMBut, I am wary/worried about the cost for security for both her and obama. I dont think that there will be any significant increase in tourism returns to cover the cost of this security.
Lets face it, if you were not Irish, would you come here given the crap weather, expemsive food and drink and also now hearing that there are bombs going off all over the country (this is what foreigners used to think). I wouldnt.
I might have been inclined to agree with you (for once!), until I saw the extent of the attention* and publicity etc which the forthcoming Royal Wedding is bringing to the UK, from all over the world.
* - Don't quite understand it, myself, but if it gains us an extra Bank Holiday etc, then I'm all for it!
Come off it – 'evidence' ....your persistently flawed sources and conjecture plus skewed opinion don't hold.
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
No I don't actually care whether the queen comes or not – a re-unification will happen irrespective of this.
I would be happy if the visits of obama and the queen were going to brng in more money via tourism than is being spent on their security – I actually doubt this.
Not for those massive security costs.
Glad to see you are admitting that there 'WILL' be a reunification, unionists like yourself have had to change the old mantra from 'never' to 'not in my lifetime'
- presumably you must be near pension age then !!
:D
would also doubt obama's visit would draw many more yanks to visit.
Relations of mine on the east coast of yankeeland moan about not being able to visit Ireland as much as they want to because of the cost and the exchange rate being so bad it kills any ideas of a trip home. While not wealthy, these people would be quite comfortable financially.
I see that former American presidents have somehow come up - I'd say the reason why they and other 'Irish-Americans' take the mantle of 'Irish' is because they dont want any other identity.
Quote from: Banana Man on April 14, 2011, 09:03:55 AM
you see there you go being totally inaccurate and telling absolute lies!!
Where did i ever call for Obama not to visit?? - this is the crux of your latest argument and it's about to get blew apart as well
you were the one that jumped on Obama when the 'low lying fruit' would have been me opposed to Lizzie, you are that restrained in your thought process and wanted to get one over on a 'Sinn Feiner' as you perceive me to me, based on someone else's post, (that ludicrously you have asked me to explain why they would have posted what they did) that you missed the open net!!!
Tell me where i opposed Obama visiting? you and abbeysider creamed yourselves to get replying you didn't even read my original post properly, you were to busy looking down your noses
I never once opposed either of them in my statement - I asked how the budget could be justified, which i stand by based on my original understanding of the context of the source
you are that narrow sighted you didn't see the point and still don't - the natural course of my post would have been who would have paid for these security costs, would the state fund it all, part fund, would either the UK or US contribute etc, but you are that immature you tried to slate my education - and based on the direction this 'debate' has went the only ones education that is in doubt is the one belonging to the stuffed red animal - Muppet indeed
Quote from: Banana Man on April 12, 2011, 08:57:17 AM
heard on the 2FM this morning that the entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Here is your initial masterpiece.
How the f*ck....can this be justified? By this you meant
I totally support their visits? Can you see that one might interpret this as opposition to the plans?
This (//http://://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Justice%202010) tells us in 2010 €1,479m is for An Garda Síochána.
The costs of security has been estimated to be
€25m (http://www.herald.ie/national-news/state-visits-of-obama-and-the-queen-to-cost-euro25m-2618009.html). €25m is less than 2% of the 'entire Garda budget'. You exaggerated the cost by a factor of 50 and on this basis the claimed the visits couldn't be justified.
Then you went on to demand that people give a breakdown of the tourism benefits Obama's visit would bring. At this point it was obvious where you were going. Only two posters attempted to answer. It is not possible to give such figures as they don't exist. When any spotlight was put on this you hid behind a barrage of insults, while protesting about being insulted, then tried to declare victory (i.e. the visits are not justified) log off into the sunset a hero in your own box room.
Another poster then attacked me claiming my arguing with you was anti-Sinn Féin. When I asked you what he might have meant, you threw all the toys out of the pram attacking everything including my intellect. Bravo. Another original strategy. I have since pointed out that Sinn Féin support the visit of Obama, the one you asked for tourism figures to justify.
Imho the justification of Obama's visit is a no-brainer. You are the only one here demanding it's justification. I have heard no politician here oppose or even question it.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2011, 12:56:10 PMImho the justification of Obama's visit is a no-brainer. You are the only one here demanding it's justification. I have heard no politician here oppose or even question it.
Joe Higgins had a question about it but he got no answer. :D
From Oireachtas debates, March 11 2011 (http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/03/30/unrevised1.pdf):
Deputy Joe Higgins: How long will the visit last?
The Taoiseach: From that point of view, I was delighted he accepted Ireland's invitation to
come here.
An Ceann Comhairle: That completes Taoiseach's Questions for today.
Deputy Joe Higgins: How long will President Obama's visit last?
An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry Deputy, we are out of time.
Deputy Joe Higgins: Are we really?
An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps I will allow the Deputy in on the Order of Business. I would
appreciate it if he would resume his seat.
Deputy Joe Higgins: Is it true that it will comprise a five hour photo opportunity?
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Deputy Jerry Buttimer: There will be protests.
The Taoiseach: Certainly not
again you don't get it, you are now telling me what i thought when i asked a question - this gets crazier and crazier the more desparate you get!!!
I said how can the full use of the budget be justified, you have even highlighted my quote, (thanks for that), i stand over it, I did not oppose any visit depsite your pathetic attempts to claim otherwise, so don't tell me what i meant to say, the only man on earth that knows for definite what another man's thoughts are are that man himself
this continues to fall on deaf ears with you and you are either that stupid or arrogant you refuse to listen to that rationale.
i asked for the breakdown of these supposed benefits of tourism these visits offered not demanded. The fact is when the pope visited the UK he had to part fund the security costs, that could have been replicated when the 2 dignitaries in question head south but you fail to even recognise, that or you choose not too
Now i can't keep repeating this, either you get it by now or you don't, i think you got it a long time ago but in a thinly veiled attempt to save face you chose to divert and ride around in circles
Again more lies, when you say i am demanding justification for Obama's visit, where did i state that???, you still haven't proven it and contrinue to spout lies, you choose interpretation of your preconceived opinions on me rather than hard facts, i repeat you are a liar
Ah lads.
Quote from: Banana Man on April 14, 2011, 02:21:16 PM
again you don't get it, you are now telling me what i thought when i asked a question - this gets crazier and crazier the more desparate you get!!!
I said how can the full use of the budget be justified, you have even highlighted my quote, (thanks for that), i stand over it, I did not oppose any visit depsite your pathetic attempts to claim otherwise, so don't tell me what i meant to say, the only man on earth that knows for definite what another man's thoughts are are that man himself
this continues to fall on deaf ears with you and you are either that stupid or arrogant you refuse to listen to that rationale.
i asked for the breakdown of these supposed benefits of tourism these visits offered not demanded. The fact is when the pope visited the UK he had to part fund the security costs, that could have been replicated when the 2 dignitaries in question head south but you fail to even recognise, that or you choose not too
Now i can't keep repeating this, either you get it by now or you don't, i think you got it a long time ago but in a thinly veiled attempt to save face you chose to divert and ride around in circles
Again more lies, when you say i am demanding justification for Obama's visit, where did i state that???, you still haven't proven it and contrinue to spout lies, you choose interpretation of your preconceived opinions on me rather than hard facts, i repeat you are a liar
Quotethe entire Garda budget for the year will be used up next month with the state visit of Lizzy and Obama - How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???
Are you seriously now saying that you didn't demand justification for Obama's visit (having multiplied the cost by a factor of 50) having posted the above?
As for hard facts, you haven't posted as single link. I have posted links from people who plan to use the opportunity to use the opportunity to promote Ireland as a tourist destination on the back of the visits. I have posted links to museums and visitors centres in obscure places like Ballypooreen and Duncanstown, you rubbished these by comparing them with an Egyptian Museum in a massive city like London. I have posted a link to the Oireachtais site outlining the Garda budget and a link to an article which references the source of the complaint that you misquoted. I have posted facts, you have posted nothing.
Your only reference is 'I heard on the radio.....'. Deiseach and Hardy tackled this directly, Abbeysider and myself just thought it was ludicrous. You never responded on this to any of them.
Quote from: Hardy on April 14, 2011, 02:50:13 PM
Ah lads.
sorry hardy i realise it's not nice for everyone else, believe me but it's a point of fact, muppet has tried to twist everything i have said and i can't let it go unchallenged
i didn't have an opportunity to respond directly, i was too busy dealing with your lies, which incidentially is taking up a lot of fruitless time as you just won't listen
Admit it - I did not say I opposed Obama as you claim, admit it's lies and we can move on - you still can't show exactly where I said i opposed the visit of ObamaIt's total lies and you can't prove it - you are still trying to deflect and dive into other areas, i'm not allowing myself to be taken down another cul-de-sac of shite you are typoing, admit i did not oppose Obama - you are totally in the wrong
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 12, 2011, 03:52:42 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AM
great post by Aoise - I fully agree with all of that, usual round the houses daft reply from evil myles though doesnt detract from its accuracy or personal opinion!
"Round the houses"?
I made a number of specific responses to the points she was trying to make, all backed up with links/sources/evidence. Your attempt to back her up might carry a shred of credibility if you had actually tried to respond in the same vein, rather than repeating your usual tack of "It's good/bad/whatever because I say it is".
Then again, seeing as you're the last poster on here who's still labouring under the delusion that I am also Myles naGopaleen, I'd be pretty surprised if you suddenly started to display judgement, reasoning or deduction etc in your posts.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMThere wont be any reunification while we have economic problems.
Seeing as the GFA has determined that it cannot happen until a majority of voters in NI agrees to it, the last realistic prospect of Irish unity disappeared completely along with the 20th Century.
The Republic's present economic crisis merely adds one more nail to the coffin. I don't know what age you are, but I'd be completely confident that it ain't gonna happen in your lifetime or mine.
In fact, rather than dreaming as you and Aoise do, that the Queen's visit is some sort of precursor to Irish unity etc, one might just as easily characterise it as final realisation and acceptance by the Republic that the Union of GB and NI, with Her Majesty as Head of State, is here to stay.
If so (and I personally wouldn't like to overstate its significance), then it is a welcome move in normalising relations between the two neighbouring countries (imo).
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 12, 2011, 10:07:25 AMI dont actually care whether the queen comes or not
Really?
Despite the visit being some sort of first step towards softening us all up to the prospect of Irish unity etc?
Come off it – 'evidence' ....your persistently flawed sources and conjecture plus skewed opinion don't hold.
For evidence I quoted the Good Friday Agreement and the official NI Census Website, as well as referring to every election result this Century, plus the considered, expert opinion of Prof. Brendan O'Leary, speaking at a Sinn Fein Conference in New York.
Meanwhile, you and Aoise offered precisely
nothing of that nature in evidence. .
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AMYou wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
If it were only about the economy, then how do you explain this? The ROI economy roared ahead of the the NI economy (or at least
appeared to!) in the 10 years leading up to 2009. Yet over the same period, the Nationalist share of the vote in successive elections in NI quite clearly stalled.
And now that the ROI economy is obviously in reverse, whilst the NI economy is being propped up to some extent by the link with GB, insofar as voters (both Unionist and Nationalist) are influenced over the constitutional question by economics*, if anything, the Nationalist share of the vote might be expected to recede.
* - Btw, I'm not sure they actually are, but if there should be movement, it isn't going to be in favour of Unity.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AMNo I don't actually care whether the queen comes or not – a re-unification will happen irrespective of this.
Yet you and Aoise both contend that the Queen's Visit is designed to
speed up the process towards unity. Don't you want it to happen as soon as possible?
Or does your own personal wellbeing* depend on keeping the border for another while yet? :D
* - Job? Pension? Health Care? Education?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AMGlad to see you are admitting that there 'WILL' be a reunification, unionists like yourself have had to change the old mantra from 'never' to 'not in my lifetime'
"Unionists like yourself"?
You have a childish and unconvincing habit of ascribing the views of others to individuals with whom you are debating.
For the record, I do not accept that there WILL be "reunification" [
sic].
Nor have I ever claimed that a single Irish state will "never" come about.
I leave it to you and your arrogance to make cast-iron predictions regarding future events about which no-one can be certain.
Rather, my position is clear. Namely, since the GFA, I genuinely believe that the constitutional position of NI within the UK is now stronger than it has ever been - i.e. no more Constitutional claim by ROI; no agitation for unity in the USA and elsewhere; no continuing murder campaign by SF/IRA; plus the acceptance of the Union, enshrined in Treaty, by all the main political parties in Westminster.
Consequently the Union may only be broken by a majority vote within NI, with a decade or more of Polls showing no sign whatever of that being realised - and that's
before the ROI economy crumbled!
Further, I see no prospect of anything in the foreseeable future which is liable to change that. On the contrary, now that Catholics/Nationalists have got equal rights etc in NI, if anything, they might be more likely to stick with the status quo, rather than take their chance in a new and unknown settlement, with all the doubts and uncertainty (jobs, health, education etc) which that would bring.
And all of
that is to be reckoned with
before we seek the consent to unity of voters in the Republic... :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
Quote from: Banana Man on April 14, 2011, 03:00:52 PM
i didn't have an opportunity to respond directly, i was too busy dealing with your lies, which incidentially is taking up a lot of fruitless time as you just won't listen
Admit it - I did not say I opposed Obama as you claim, admit it's lies and we can move on - you still can't show exactly where I said i opposed the visit of ObamaIt's total lies and you can't prove it - you are still trying to deflect and dive into other areas, i'm not allowing myself to be taken down another cul-de-sac of shite you are typoing, admit i did not oppose Obama - you are totally in the wrong
In the context of you claim that it will cost €1.4bn:
"How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???"
"How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???"
"How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???"
I have re-read the above and concluded that I must have been completely mistaken. You are clearly a staunch supporter of the visit. How could I have thought otherwise?
Now c'mon and we'll pick up our toys or the other knackers here will nick them.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2011, 07:37:36 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 14, 2011, 03:00:52 PM
i didn't have an opportunity to respond directly, i was too busy dealing with your lies, which incidentially is taking up a lot of fruitless time as you just won't listen
Admit it - I did not say I opposed Obama as you claim, admit it's lies and we can move on - you still can't show exactly where I said i opposed the visit of ObamaIt's total lies and you can't prove it - you are still trying to deflect and dive into other areas, i'm not allowing myself to be taken down another cul-de-sac of shite you are typoing, admit i did not oppose Obama - you are totally in the wrong
In the context of you claim that it will cost €1.4bn:
"How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???"
"How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???"
"How the f**k in times of severe austerity can this be justified???"
I have re-read the above and concluded that I must have been completely mistaken. You are clearly a staunch supporter of the visit. How could I have thought otherwise?
Now c'mon and we'll pick up our toys or the other knackers here will nick them.
I will repeat I DID NOT OPPOSE ANY VISIT BY OBAMA - This is a muppet manufactured statement i.e. lies - I asked how the full use of the Garda budget can be justified, as in why can they not contribute or pay for the whole bill hence the above statement by me, the debate was never allowed to run it's natural course as previously stated
Now i think it's best for everyone it's left at that as we are not going to agree on this
Quote from: Banana Man on April 15, 2011, 10:25:47 AM
Now i think it's best for everyone it's left at that as we are not going to agree on this
Three days, one hour, twenty eight minutes and nine pages, but you got there in the end, fair play to you.
And the winner is Muppet.
Quote from: Hardy on April 15, 2011, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 15, 2011, 10:25:47 AM
Now i think it's best for everyone it's left at that as we are not going to agree on this
Three days, one hour, twenty eight minutes and nine pages, but you got there in the end, fair play to you.
takes the bigger man Hardy and all that, just don't want to sicken everyone elses hole
Quote from: thebigfella on April 15, 2011, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: ludermor on April 15, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
And the winner is Muppet.
+1
i'd expect nothing else of you, you're always sitting trying to ahve pops at me without the balls to fully engage, always sniping from the sideline
pig and grunt
Quote from: Banana Man on April 15, 2011, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on April 15, 2011, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: ludermor on April 15, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
And the winner is Muppet.
+1
i'd expect nothing else of you, you're always sitting trying to ahve pops at me without the balls to fully engage, always sniping from the sideline
pig and grunt
Sounds like the Provos for the last 30-35 years.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 01:55:19 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 15, 2011, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on April 15, 2011, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: ludermor on April 15, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
And the winner is Muppet.
+1
i'd expect nothing else of you, you're always sitting trying to ahve pops at me without the balls to fully engage, always sniping from the sideline
pig and grunt
Sounds like the Provos for the last 30-35 years.
funny that seeing as they have been on permanent ceasefire for the last 13 years
Quote from: Banana Man on April 15, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 01:55:19 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 15, 2011, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on April 15, 2011, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: ludermor on April 15, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
And the winner is Muppet.
+1
i'd expect nothing else of you, you're always sitting trying to ahve pops at me without the balls to fully engage, always sniping from the sideline
pig and grunt
Sounds like the Provos for the last 30-35 years.
funny that seeing as they have been on permanent ceasefire for the last 13 years
Try telling that to the family of Paul Quinn.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 01:55:19 PM
Sounds like the Provos for the last 30-35 years.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint)
According to the Brits it was like the Battle of the Somme:
(http://www.military-art.com/mall/images/dhm9025.jpg)
Good job the touts didn't scupper that one - otherwise that lovely picture might paint a different scene.
Quote from: Ulick on April 15, 2011, 02:51:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 01:55:19 PM
Sounds like the Provos for the last 30-35 years.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint)
According to the Brits it was like the Battle of the Somme:
(http://www.military-art.com/mall/images/dhm9025.jpg)
And it's not as if the Provos ever used "artistic license" to tell their side of the story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8VS7oxMe0s&feature=related
(Btw, after Michael Jackson's "Ben", the above is possibly my second favourite song about rats...)
Quote from: Hardy on April 14, 2011, 02:50:13 PM
Ah lads.
You are dead right, Hardy.
We never had to resort to that. ;D
Seriously, this spat has long gone past the argument stage and it's now an outright quarrel.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 01:55:19 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 15, 2011, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on April 15, 2011, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: ludermor on April 15, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
And the winner is Muppet.
+1
i'd expect nothing else of you, you're always sitting trying to ahve pops at me without the balls to fully engage, always sniping from the sideline
pig and grunt
Sounds like the Provos for the last 30-35 years.
Or FG for the last 14?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Sure it won't take them long before they are in charge, propping up minority FG, SF or Labour Party Governments.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 14, 2011, 06:27:32 PM
For evidence I quoted the Good Friday Agreement and the official NI Census Website, as well as referring to every election result this Century, plus the considered, expert opinion of Prof. Brendan O'Leary, speaking at a Sinn Fein Conference in New York.
Meanwhile, you and Aoise offered precisely nothing of that nature in evidence. .
If it were only about the economy, then how do you explain this? The ROI economy roared ahead of the the NI economy (or at least appeared to!) in the 10 years leading up to 2009. Yet over the same period, the Nationalist share of the vote in successive elections in NI quite clearly stalled.
And now that the ROI economy is obviously in reverse, whilst the NI economy is being propped up to some extent by the link with GB, insofar as voters (both Unionist and Nationalist) are influenced over the constitutional question by economics*, if anything, the Nationalist share of the vote might be expected to recede.
* - Btw, I'm not sure they actually are, but if there should be movement, it isn't going to be in favour of Unity.
Yet you and Aoise both contend that the Queen's Visit is designed to speed up the process towards unity. Don't you want it to happen as soon as possible?
Or does your own personal wellbeing* depend on keeping the border for another while yet? :D
* - Job? Pension? Health Care? Education?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AMGlad to see you are admitting that there 'WILL' be a reunification, unionists like yourself have had to change the old mantra from 'never' to 'not in my lifetime'
"Unionists like yourself"?
You have a childish and unconvincing habit of ascribing the views of others to individuals with whom you are debating.
For the record, I do not accept that there WILL be "reunification" [sic].
Nor have I ever claimed that a single Irish state will "never" come about.
I leave it to you and your arrogance to make cast-iron predictions regarding future events about which no-one can be certain.
Rather, my position is clear. Namely, since the GFA, I genuinely believe that the constitutional position of NI within the UK is now stronger than it has ever been - i.e. no more Constitutional claim by ROI; no agitation for unity in the USA and elsewhere; no continuing murder campaign by SF/IRA; plus the acceptance of the Union, enshrined in Treaty, by all the main political parties in Westminster.
Consequently the Union may only be broken by a majority vote within NI, with a decade or more of Polls showing no sign whatever of that being realised - and that's before the ROI economy crumbled!
Further, I see no prospect of anything in the foreseeable future which is liable to change that. On the contrary, now that Catholics/Nationalists have got equal rights etc in NI, if anything, they might be more likely to stick with the status quo, rather than take their chance in a new and unknown settlement, with all the doubts and uncertainty (jobs, health, education etc) which that would bring.
And all of that is to be reckoned with before we seek the consent to unity of voters in the Republic... :D
long winded clap trap again imo.
Your comments (and attributions) proving what exactly?
I don't say the queen will speed up reunification, funnily enough imo at least the queen is less popular per capita in England (no I don't have proof or stats, only those I know) than in the north of Ireland !!
I think she may cost us more than 'potential' tourism might bring back in.
The 'Economy' roarded but the population swing had not 'swung' at that time. There has to be correct numbers, rerefendum, consensus and of course the economic climate. This is obviously going to happen in time. To try to delude yourself otherwise shows how much you dislike the reality of this coming - where in your lifetime or not !!
deal with it !! :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy" is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?
The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.
Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.
Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy" is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?
The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.
Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.
Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. :D
hence the change from 'never never never ' cross the border to living and working 'down in Dublin'
yep - thats right ! :D
the only person squirming is yerself when you keep whinging about the reunification that will undeniably come !
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
So until the Republic's economy does a complete 180, not many will want to change anything? If that's the case, then change is a long long way off.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy" is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?
The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.
Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.
Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. :D
I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money. As EG said when the Free State ;) economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much. I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.
Quote from: AQMP on April 15, 2011, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy" is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?
The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.
Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.
Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. :D
I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money. As EG said when the Free State ;) economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much. I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.
From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 05:48:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 15, 2011, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy" is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?
The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.
Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.
Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. :D
I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money. As EG said when the Free State ;) economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much. I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.
From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.
What beer is that MGHU...it must be rocket fuel!!
Quote from: Banana Man on April 14, 2011, 03:00:52 PM
i didn't have an opportunity to respond directly, i was too busy dealing with your lies, which incidentially is taking up a lot of fruitless time as you just won't listen
Admit it - I did not say I opposed Obama as you claim, admit it's lies and we can move on - you still can't show exactly where I said i opposed the visit of ObamaIt's total lies and you can't prove it - you are still trying to deflect and dive into other areas, i'm not allowing myself to be taken down another cul-de-sac of shite you are typoing, admit i did not oppose Obama - you are totally in the wrong
Just catching up to this now, don't know how I missed it.
Some things just don't change Muppet..them black crows are still white I see :D
Ever think of becoming a politician?
Quote from: Tyrones own on April 15, 2011, 11:03:17 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 14, 2011, 03:00:52 PM
i didn't have an opportunity to respond directly, i was too busy dealing with your lies, which incidentially is taking up a lot of fruitless time as you just won't listen
Admit it - I did not say I opposed Obama as you claim, admit it's lies and we can move on - you still can't show exactly where I said i opposed the visit of ObamaIt's total lies and you can't prove it - you are still trying to deflect and dive into other areas, i'm not allowing myself to be taken down another cul-de-sac of shite you are typoing, admit i did not oppose Obama - you are totally in the wrong
Just catching up to this now, don't know how I missed it.
Some things just don't change Muppet..them black crows are still white I see :D
Ever think of becoming a politician?
Cool a Tyrone's Own endorsement.
Second only to Brian Lenihan.
Quote from: AQMP on April 15, 2011, 05:53:15 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 05:48:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 15, 2011, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy" is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?
The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.
Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.
Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. :D
I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money. As EG said when the Free State ;) economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much. I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.
From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.
What beer is that MGHU...it must be rocket fuel!!
Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA.
Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA
That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted. ;)
Quote from: AQMP on April 16, 2011, 10:34:50 AM
Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA
That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted. ;)
You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.
For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.
Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.
The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.
And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.
And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.
None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.
Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.
Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.
Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.
Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.
On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?
For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 15, 2011, 05:48:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 15, 2011, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2011, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 15, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 14, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 14, 2011, 09:13:58 AM
You wont ever want to 'get it' - its about the economy – if the economic situation was right, jobs were had for the peoples of the 6 counties outwith the civil service and jobs were abundant again for southern citizens, then only apathy would halt a reunification.
Flipping that over, are you saying that nationalists would be happy to maintain partition if the economics made sense? Or are you saying that the unionist position isn't as principled and is 'easier bought'?
yes - this also kills off evil myles' argument (above) ...once everyone is ok and money in everyones pocket, not many want to change the status quo and risk upsetting the apple cart.
unionists have been proven time and again to change or bend their 'principles' for the lure of money - rem a few short years ago would 'never never never' cross the border...then when there was money to be made hand ovr fist in the Dot com and Celtic Tiger times, they quickly forgot these 'principles' and broke all (our) speed limits to get to Dublin, the jobs and the money !!
Irishmen moving abroad to get a bigger wage, even to the land of "the enemy" is hardly unique to Unionists, is it?
The simple fact is that for over a decade, whilst the ROI economy appeared to be powering ahead, and the NI economy was relatively static, opposition to a United Ireland amongst NI Unionists remained as strong as ever.
Simultaneously, support for a United Ireland amongst (NI) Nationalists plateaued.
Them's the facts, no matter how much you blether and squirm. :D
I'm joining this bit of the debate a bit late in the day but I've always thought that support or otherwise for a United Ireland has little to do with money. As EG said when the Free State ;) economy was on the up and NI's was the basket case it's always been and always will be support and opposition to an UI didn't change much. I don't see that changing much now that the South is in terminal decline and the UK is only a couple of laps behind.
From my experience of friends from the North, middle class and third level educated Northern Unionists seem almost open minded to the concept of a United Ireland especially after a few beers. Middle class and third level educated Northern Nationalists appear to be willing to accept the status quo.
Reunification when it happens will be a slow inexorable process and the last stage will be political reunification. There are many stages yet to go through and it will take at least another generation. But in the mean time look on the bright side we have two international soccer teams, one for them and one for us.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 16, 2011, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.
No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.
The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.
The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.
1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.
2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.
The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.
Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.
(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 16, 2011, 07:37:12 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 16, 2011, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.
No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.
The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.
The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.
1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.
2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.
The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.
Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.
(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)
Thanks for clearing it all up. You must have a Doctorate in History to understand it all!!!
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 16, 2011, 09:59:12 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 16, 2011, 07:37:12 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 16, 2011, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 13, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.
However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).
I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.
In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.
Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they invaded. Thats why the language, traditions and music are so similar. Ulster Scotts is an invention by Loyalists to avoid classifying themselves as Irish...but we are really one big extended family.
No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.
The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.
The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.
1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.
2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.
The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.
Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.
(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)
Thanks for clearing it all up. You must have a Doctorate in History to understand it all!!!
O I am sure I left loads out. I'm also sure most of you knew most of that. But there are a few who seem happy to ignore large chunks of it. I do apologise if I came across arrogant there, its just an unfortunate result of me being a complete arse tbh. The grammar and spelling alone must be shocking.
QuoteBut there are a few who seem happy to ignore large chunks of it
People with gaelic names, who are probably descended from picts, for instance?
QuoteThe grammar and spelling alone must be shocking.
Don't be slagging off Ulster Scots.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 16, 2011, 11:21:27 PM
QuoteBut there are a few who seem happy to ignore large chunks of it
People with gaelic names, who are probably descended from picts, for instance?
QuoteThe grammar and spelling alone must be shocking.
Don't be slagging off Ulster Scots.
Yes exactly, that could be the case in Scotland, in Scotland you could have Britons/Cumbrics or Norse going around with Gaelic names. In Ireland you might have English, Welsh, Cornish, Frisians (not the cows), French, Normans going around with Gaelic names.
You have Gaels going around with Germanic names.
William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time. It is also likely he could speak Gaelic as the Gaels had a history in his area too.
It is also believe St.Patrick while a Welshman was from modern day Scotland (because he was actuall a North Welshman/Cumbric, not from modern Wales).
Many Norse-Gaels from the Hebridies, Isle of Man and Irish Viking colonies carry Gaelic names.
Gaels from Leinster controlled the South Coast of Wales for a period, so there is a chance that there are Gaels with Welsh names or English names (English heavily infiltrated the same coast later on).
Of course plenty of Gaels with Icelandic names in Iceland.
Sorry again, for the long boring explanation, just interests me.
So basically we're all one big happy family then?? ;)
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 17, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
You saying Roscommon can't play football, acceptance is the first step.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 17, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
There ya are! I fixed it for ya. ;D
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 17, 2011, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 17, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
There ya are! I fixed it for ya. ;D
i think norman came to keady about 1986 he hadnt great english at the time so you had to point to the menu, the sons there now and hes picked up a lurgan accent.. the indians have arrived and are forcing normans to cut their prices, as far as i know neither crowd have intermarried with the locals yet.. ;)
Quote from: lawnseed on April 17, 2011, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 17, 2011, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 17, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
There ya are! I fixed it for ya. ;D
i think norman came to keady about 1986 he hadnt great english at the time so you had to point to the menu, the sons there now and hes picked up a lurgan accent.. the indians have arrived and are forcing normans to cut their prices, as far as i know neither crowd have intermarried with the locals yet.. ;)
The Norman who arrived in 1986, was that the lad from Rouen or the bloke from Le Harve? That Kingdom of Meath lad, Setanta, has he settled in yet?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 17, 2011, 11:14:59 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on April 17, 2011, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 17, 2011, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 17, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
There ya are! I fixed it for ya. ;D
i think norman came to keady about 1986 he hadnt great english at the time so you had to point to the menu, the sons there now and hes picked up a lurgan accent.. the indians have arrived and are forcing normans to cut their prices, as far as i know neither crowd have intermarried with the locals yet.. ;)
The Norman who arrived in 1986, was that the lad from Rouen or the bloke from Le Harve? That Kingdom of Meath lad, Setanta, has he settled in yet?
norman came from canton province in china, some folk in transits have arrived from the midlands and they have thus far fitted right in to keady living. they seemed to be nocturnal preferring to go out hunting at night this sets them apart from the keadonians who are mostly in the monday club since the bakery closed.. as yet i dont think any of the keadonians have mated with the transit van people but they are notorious breeders and history will record that they were both very loyal to the dept of health and social services
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 16, 2011, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 16, 2011, 10:34:50 AM
Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA
That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted. ;)
You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.
For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.
Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.
The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.
And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.
And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.
None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.
Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.
Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.
Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.
Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.
On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?
For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.
Before you went off on one, I think you missed this bit in my post EG... ;). Though judging by your post I'd say you'd know bilge when you saw it alright
Quote from: AQMP on April 18, 2011, 09:20:22 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 16, 2011, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 16, 2011, 10:34:50 AM
Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA
That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted. ;)
You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.
For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.
Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.
The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.
And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.
And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.
None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.
Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.
Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.
Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.
Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.
On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?
For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.
Before you went off on one, I think you missed this bit in my post EG... ;). Though judging by your post I'd say you'd know bilge when you saw it alright
:D
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 17, 2011, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 17, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
There ya are! I fixed it for ya. ;D
Have a bit of respect for the real capital of Ireland ( Cruachán/Rathcroghan) before all those unwashed interlopers took over our land.
Quote from: AQMP on April 18, 2011, 09:20:22 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 16, 2011, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 16, 2011, 10:34:50 AM
Well you see when you dont try and ram a United Ireland down their throats and come across non-threatening, yet produdly nationalist and republican you can be surprised how people react. Doing my best to undo the damage done by the PIRA
That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968...you'd be surprised how people reacted. ;)
You really need to study History before coming up with bilge like that.
For the settlement of 1921 was originally only designed to be temporary, prior to an (assumed) United Ireland at some future stage.
Plus the War of Independence spilled over into NI in the following years.
The IRA were active both in NI and GB during WWII, in their alliance with the Nazis.
And there was a further Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962.
And all the while this was going on, the Free State/Eire/Republic was claiming jurisdiction over NI, whilst their friends in eg Irish-America and the British Labour Party etc were agitating for a United Ireland.
None of which may excuse discrimination etc against Nationalists in NI, but it does go some way towards explaining it.
Anyhow, MayoGodHelpUs has hit upon a very pertinent point, which is that if people (all sides) do not feel coerced, they will generally be open to reason.
Which is actually at the very root of the conundrum facing Irish Republicanism i.e. the more they attempt to pressurise Unionists towards a UI, whether by political or (esp) paramilitary means, the more Unionists are liable to resist.
Indeed, if a United Ireland is the logical and natural outcome for the island, leading towards peace and prosperity for all, then the best thing Republicans could do would be just to keepm quiet and let Unionists figure it out for themselves.
Of course, the flaw in that particular argument will be if a United Ireland isn't, in fact, the best outcome for all - for Unionists, at least.
On which point, I would be interested to hear from the Republicans on this Board just exactly what it is they think there is about a UI which should appeal to Unionists?
For as a Unionist who is not totally averse to the idea in principle, neither can I see anything especially positive in it for me.
Before you went off on one, I think you missed this bit in my post EG... ;). Though judging by your post I'd say you'd know bilge when you saw it alright
"Missed this bit in [your] post"?
Actually I was responding directly to it.
That is, MGHU was making the (imo valid) point that if Irish Republicanism were to take a reasonable, non-threatening approach in their dealings with Unionists, they might expect to receive a similarly reasonable and non-threatening response in return.
I then took your comment (
"That was the strategy between 1921 and 1968") to be a (sarcastic) claim that the Irish Republican strategy in those years
was reasonable and non-threatening etc.
Either I misunderstood your comment, or it was bilge.
P.S. This discussion reminds me once more of the old chestnut where a Republican asks a Loyalist: "When are you going to drop your siege mentality?"
"When you raise the siege", came the reply...
And of course the absolute prejudiced keep the Taigs in their place bigotry and hatred displayed towards most Catholics in the 6 Cos between 1921 to 1968 and beyond had nothing to do with anything >:( >:(
Take off the blinkers EG ( although you're not the worst of them).
6 Co Catholic to 6 Co Prod .. " When are you going to trat me like a human being"
Prod " When you become like us"
(Plagurised from Capt Terence o'Neill)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 18, 2011, 03:47:55 PMAnd of course the absolute prejudiced keep the Taigs in their place bigotry and hatred displayed towards most Catholics in the 6 Cos between 1921 to 1968 and beyond had nothing to do with anything >:( >:(
I never claimed that (or anything like it).
MGHU originally made the point that if you treat people reasonably and in a non-threatening manner, they will usually reciprocate.
AQMP then implied that this had been the (sole) approach of Nationalism/Republicanism in NI between 1921 and 1968.
This caused me to point out, with references, that Nats/Reps/Various Others had actually been "threatening" NI (both politically and militarily) for virtually all of that period.
The only reference I made to discrimination against Nats/Reps etc was in post #386, where I agreed that it (discrimination) was not justified by agitation by Nats/Reps against the existence of NI.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 18, 2011, 03:47:55 PMTake off the blinkers EG
You might be advised to take off your "blinkers" when reading my posts - that way, you might avoid getting the wrong end of the stick from what it is I actually write.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 18, 2011, 03:47:55 PM( although you're not the worst of them).
Gee Thanks.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 18, 2011, 03:47:55 PM6 Co Catholic to 6 Co Prod .. " When are you going to trat me like a human being"
Prod " When you become like us"
(Plagurised from Capt Terence o'Neill)
If seeking an unreconstructed bigot amongst the ranks of Ulster Unionism, O'Neill would hardly be my first choice:
"After an eighty-year record of remarkable unity in the face of threats from Irish Nationalism, Ulster Unionism suddenly fragmented in the late 1960s. This has been explained by reference both to the fissile nature of the Unionist pan-class alliance and to fundamental divisions over identity. Though important, these were not new factors and were compatible with a high degree of organizational unity. What ruptured the movement was Terence O'Neill's ambition to draw Catholics into the Unionist alliance, even at the expense of alienating some Protestant traditionalists. Increasingly, assimilatory Unionism, dominant in the Civil Service and civil society, confronted segregatory Unionism ensconced in the structures of the Unionist Party. This strategic dichotomy reached a climax with vicious Unionist in-fighting during the 1969 Crossroads election. O'Neill's assimilation-ism ultimately collapsed both because it was unconvincing to the ranks of Ulster Unionism, and because it failed in its primary aim of making inroads into Catholic support. O'Neill underestlimated the tenacity of both traditional Unionism and traditional Nationalism." http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/3/284.abstract
Lizzie is the Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWz1zfrsY50
Quote from: Rossfan on April 18, 2011, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 17, 2011, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 17, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County ;)
There ya are! I fixed it for ya. ;D
Have a bit of respect for the real capital of Ireland ( Cruachán/Rathcroghan) before all those unwashed interlopers took over our land.
Yes it was the Real Capital of the Gaelic Kingdom of Ireland (mostly in culture rather than actual consolidation), but Castlebar was the Capital of the first Irish Republic ;) Down with the Kings, up the Republic ;)
joe higgins in the dail today wants to charge the queen of england for b+b :D
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 16, 2011, 07:37:12 PM
Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they
No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.
The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.
The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.
1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.
2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.
The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.
Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.
(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)
I like your use of "Anglish" – I've thought myself before that this term would be a neat way to deal with the fact that "Angle" and "English" were at the time synonymous but the latter soon came to encompass all the Germanic groups in what's now England ("the Saxons" and "the English" being separate groups now sounds odd, as does referring to the Angles of what's now southern Scotland as "English"). But I'd never seen it used before.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 16, 2011, 11:30:52 PM
William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.
Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish ;) group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.
Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.
On the other hand I disagree strongly with this. There are plenty of references to the "Scotch-Irish" recorded throughout the 18th century and even back into the late 17th century.
Quote from: MW on April 20, 2011, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.
On the other hand I disagree strongly with this. There are plenty of references to the "Scotch-Irish" recorded throughout the 18th century and even back into the late 17th century.
Maybe I was rash in suggesting all of them, but I would say a majority had no issue with the Irish tag until the influx of Catholics. Not alone having no issue but proud to carry the label.
On a seperate point. The Irish population of Canada experienced a huge drop in numbers after the Fenian Invasion. This was not a result of ethnic cleansing, famine, drop in birthrates, outward migration etc. but believed to be a result of the Irish rebranding themselves British or French Canadians (probably depending on their religion or location in Canada), many norman ancestory Irish re-Francocised (!!!) their names, with Burkes becoming DeBurgos once again, or people with names like Lavelle becoming La Velle. This was meant to be a mixture of embarrassement and in many Catholics cases fear of persecution by British-Canadian authorities aftern the Fenian Invasion.
Quote from: MW on April 20, 2011, 11:36:20 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 16, 2011, 11:30:52 PM
William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.
Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish ;) group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.
Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).
If I remember rightly Kent is a Jutish Kingdom and from my visits there it feels quite different even from other parts/counties in the south of England. I think there was another Jutish Kingdom in around the Isle of White, but ethnic cleansing by the Saxons may have been the cause of its extinction. From my understanding of the peoples in Britain around that time, the Saxons seemed a far nastier bunch than the Angles, Gaels, Jutes, Picts or Britons. Then againt they may just have got worse press.
We must also remember while the Gaels had a military defeat at the hand of the Northumbrians later Gaelic monks/scholars were to gain significant political power in that Kingdom for several hundred years. If I remember rightly it was at the Synod of Whitby which could be pointed to the start of the downfall of the Gael.
I don't know much about the Kingdom of Strathclyde had that any links to Dal Riada or Northumbria?
I always wonder what would have happened if Connacht had been the ones to call in some Norman help (ironicaly it was its percieved strength that made it seem unecessary, as well as its strong allies), I think they would have had more authority to create a centralised Gaelic Kingdom with Norman settlers and Norse and Norse-Gael allegiance before England could strike in an organised manner. Then alliances with Gaelic Scotland, the Norse and France might have left England at the mercy of its neighbours. I know thats a very what if scenario.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2011, 05:45:44 PM
) for virtually all of that period.
The only reference I made to discrimination against Nats/Reps etc was in post #386, where I agreed that it (discrimination) was not justified by agitation by Nats/Reps against the existence of NI.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 18, 2011, 03:47:55 PMTake off the blinkers EG
You might be advised to take off your "blinkers" when reading my posts - that way, you might avoid getting the wrong end of the stick from what it is I actually write.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 18, 2011, 03:47:55 PM( although you're not the worst of them).
Gee Thanks.
you're welcome ;D
Catholic to 6 Co Prod .. " When are you going to treat me like a human being"
Prod " When you become like us"
(Plagurised from Capt Terence o'Neill)
If seeking an unreconstructed bigot amongst the ranks of Ulster Unionism, O'Neill would hardly be my first choice:
[/quote]
I was thinking of a patronising comment attributed to him along the lines of " If you give a Catholic a job and a good house he will be like a Protestant"
Talk about insulting someone with kindness !!!
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 21, 2011, 01:29:52 AM
Quote from: MW on April 20, 2011, 11:36:20 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 16, 2011, 11:30:52 PM
William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.
Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish ;) group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.
Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).
If I remember rightly Kent is a Jutish Kingdom and from my visits there it feels quite different even from other parts/counties in the south of England. I think there was another Jutish Kingdom in around the Isle of White, but ethnic cleansing by the Saxons may have been the cause of its extinction. From my understanding of the peoples in Britain around that time, the Saxons seemed a far nastier bunch than the Angles, Gaels, Jutes, Picts or Britons. Then againt they may just have got worse press.
We must also remember while the Gaels had a military defeat at the hand of the Northumbrians later Gaelic monks/scholars were to gain significant political power in that Kingdom for several hundred years. If I remember rightly it was at the Synod of Whitby which could be pointed to the start of the downfall of the Gael.
I don't know much about the Kingdom of Strathclyde had that any links to Dal Riada or Northumbria?
I always wonder what would have happened if Connacht had been the ones to call in some Norman help (ironicaly it was its percieved strength that made it seem unecessary, as well as its strong allies), I think they would have had more authority to create a centralised Gaelic Kingdom with Norman settlers and Norse and Norse-Gael allegiance before England could strike in an organised manner. Then alliances with Gaelic Scotland, the Norse and France might have left England at the mercy of its neighbours. I know thats a very what if scenario.
Yes Kent and the Isle of Wight were settled/conquered by Jutes, eventually subsumed into Saxon kingdoms. The odd thing about the development of "England" and "the English people" was the very name – why did Angles, Saxons and Jutes (and probably others) come together under the label of the Angles/English, when actually it was the (West) Saxons (via Wessex, the West Saxon kingdom) who in fact eventually formed the dominant kingdom and unified "England"? Actually there are even old sources referring to the land as "Saxonia" (Saxony). One theory I remember is that it was Bede, a Northumbrian (and therefore "Anglish") who wrote "The Eccesiastical History of the English People" who gave the concept of a unified people which brought in the Saxons and Jutes under the label "English" (which was previously synonymous with "Angle", of course).
Bede writes admiringly of the Irish/Scottish (depending on the translation – the Irish being one of the four peoples of Britain Bede lists along with the English, the British and the Picts) monks and churchmen who spread their Christian mission from the north down to the "English" lands. Though if I remember correctly he was somewhat conflicted as the Irish church had taken the" wrong" side in the Easter dating controversy while he favoured the orthodox, Roman view.
The Kingdom of Strathclyde would have been contemporary to Dal Riada and Northumbria, so I would think would have had relations with them. I actually had thought it was conquered by Northumbrian Angles, but in fact it was conquered by Gaelic Scots. British kingdoms that would fit the former bill, and covered territory that is now is Scotland, would include Rheged and Gododdin. Actually Northumbria itself was born out the merger of Bernicia and Deira, Anglish kingdoms which had a British history.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 21, 2011, 01:16:20 AM
Quote from: MW on April 20, 2011, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 13, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.
On the other hand I disagree strongly with this. There are plenty of references to the "Scotch-Irish" recorded throughout the 18th century and even back into the late 17th century.
Maybe I was rash in suggesting all of them, but I would say a majority had no issue with the Irish tag until the influx of Catholics. Not alone having no issue but proud to carry the label.
Perhaps so, but I think they maintained a pretty strong view of their "Scotch" identity also. Language and religion were huge markers of identity which would have helped to maintain this.
Quote
On a seperate point. The Irish population of Canada experienced a huge drop in numbers after the Fenian Invasion. This was not a result of ethnic cleansing, famine, drop in birthrates, outward migration etc. but believed to be a result of the Irish rebranding themselves British or French Canadians (probably depending on their religion or location in Canada), many norman ancestory Irish re-Francocised (!!!) their names, with Burkes becoming DeBurgos once again, or people with names like Lavelle becoming La Velle. This was meant to be a mixture of embarrassement and in many Catholics cases fear of persecution by British-Canadian authorities aftern the Fenian Invasion.
Fascinating - must try to read up on this!
Quote from: MW on May 01, 2011, 11:27:36 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 21, 2011, 01:29:52 AM
Quote from: MW on April 20, 2011, 11:36:20 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 16, 2011, 11:30:52 PM
William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.
Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish ;) group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.
Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).
If I remember rightly Kent is a Jutish Kingdom and from my visits there it feels quite different even from other parts/counties in the south of England. I think there was another Jutish Kingdom in around the Isle of White, but ethnic cleansing by the Saxons may have been the cause of its extinction. From my understanding of the peoples in Britain around that time, the Saxons seemed a far nastier bunch than the Angles, Gaels, Jutes, Picts or Britons. Then againt they may just have got worse press.
We must also remember while the Gaels had a military defeat at the hand of the Northumbrians later Gaelic monks/scholars were to gain significant political power in that Kingdom for several hundred years. If I remember rightly it was at the Synod of Whitby which could be pointed to the start of the downfall of the Gael.
I don't know much about the Kingdom of Strathclyde had that any links to Dal Riada or Northumbria?
I always wonder what would have happened if Connacht had been the ones to call in some Norman help (ironicaly it was its percieved strength that made it seem unecessary, as well as its strong allies), I think they would have had more authority to create a centralised Gaelic Kingdom with Norman settlers and Norse and Norse-Gael allegiance before England could strike in an organised manner. Then alliances with Gaelic Scotland, the Norse and France might have left England at the mercy of its neighbours. I know thats a very what if scenario.
Yes Kent and the Isle of Wight were settled/conquered by Jutes, eventually subsumed into Saxon kingdoms. The odd thing about the development of "England" and "the English people" was the very name – why did Angles, Saxons and Jutes (and probably others) come together under the label of the Angles/English, when actually it was the (West) Saxons (via Wessex, the West Saxon kingdom) who in fact eventually formed the dominant kingdom and unified "England"? Actually there are even old sources referring to the land as "Saxonia" (Saxony). One theory I remember is that it was Bede, a Northumbrian (and therefore "Anglish") who wrote "The Eccesiastical History of the English People" who gave the concept of a unified people which brought in the Saxons and Jutes under the label "English" (which was previously synonymous with "Angle", of course).
Bede writes admiringly of the Irish/Scottish (depending on the translation – the Irish being one of the four peoples of Britain Bede lists along with the English, the British and the Picts) monks and churchmen who spread their Christian mission from the north down to the "English" lands. Though if I remember correctly he was somewhat conflicted as the Irish church had taken the" wrong" side in the Easter dating controversy while he favoured the orthodox, Roman view.
The Kingdom of Strathclyde would have been contemporary to Dal Riada and Northumbria, so I would think would have had relations with them. I actually had thought it was conquered by Northumbrian Angles, but in fact it was conquered by Gaelic Scots. British kingdoms that would fit the former bill, and covered territory that is now is Scotland, would include Rheged and Gododdin. Actually Northumbria itself was born out the merger of Bernicia and Deira, Anglish kingdoms which had a British history.
Did the word
eejit derive from
Hey Jute or something similar?
Anthem for the visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wny_0pi4hR4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wny_0pi4hR4)
I note according to the BBC this morning, the Guards have rounded up the usual suspects and armed Metropolitan Police officers will be on the streets of the Free State during the Nellie Dean's visit.
Quote from: AQMP on May 14, 2011, 09:11:38 AM
I note according to the BBC this morning, the Guards have rounded up the usual suspects and armed Metropolitan Police officers will be on the streets of the Free State during the Nellie Dean's visit.
They must be fuckn timetravellers, fck sake you 6 county heads are pure headwreckers. IT IS
IRELAND, GET FUCKN USED TO IT.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 11:06:55 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 14, 2011, 09:11:38 AM
I note according to the BBC this morning, the Guards have rounded up the usual suspects and armed Metropolitan Police officers will be on the streets of the Free State during the Nellie Dean's visit.
They must be fuckn timetravellers, fck sake you 6 county heads are pure headwreckers. IT IS IRELAND, GET FUCKN USED TO IT.
If we are 6 county heads then surely you must be 26 county heads? Any way if you must be pedantic it is The Republic of Ireland.
Of course it is IRELAND. Not even the most nordish nordie thinks that the Freestate is not part of Ireland.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2011, 02:17:28 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 11:06:55 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 14, 2011, 09:11:38 AM
I note according to the BBC this morning, the Guards have rounded up the usual suspects and armed Metropolitan Police officers will be on the streets of the Free State during the Nellie Dean's visit.
They must be fuckn timetravellers, fck sake you 6 county heads are pure headwreckers. IT IS IRELAND, GET FUCKN USED TO IT.
If we are 6 county heads then surely you must be 26 county heads? Any way if you must be pedantic it is The Republic of Ireland.
To be Pedantic it is NOT, it is Ireland or Éire. The Republic of Ireland is an Association Football International (Soccer) Team, not a country, FACT. No such country as the Republic of Ireland.
The UDA's five brigadiers and 30 others from their community are attending the Queen's wreath laying for war dead during her Dublin visit. - @EamonnMallie
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 02:27:47 PM
Of course it is IRELAND. Not even the most nordish nordie thinks that the Freestate is not part of Ireland.
The Free State is a redundant term. The Irish Free State has long been replaced by the Republic known as Ireland or Éire, acceptably referred to as the Irish Republic. Ireland is also the name of an Island off the Continent of Europe/Eurasia.
Your choice of words, not mine.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2011, 03:03:01 PM
The UDA's five gang leaders and 30 others from their community are attending the BRITISH Queen's wreath laying for BRITISH war dead during her Dublin visit. - @EamonnMallie
Fixed that for you and Eamonn ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2011, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2011, 03:03:01 PM
The UDA's five gang leaders and 30 others from their community are attending the BRITISH Queen's wreath laying for BRITISH war dead during her Dublin visit. - @EamonnMallie
Fixed that for you and Eamonn ;)
Fixed that for you Rossfan ;)
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 02:27:47 PM
Of course it is IRELAND. Not even the most nordish nordie thinks that the Freestate is not part of Ireland.
The Free State is a redundant term. The Irish Free State has long been replaced by the Republic known as Ireland or Éire, acceptably referred to as the Irish Republic. Ireland is also the name of an Island off the Continent of Europe/Eurasia.
Your choice of words, not mine.
I don't know whats up your a** but I do find your constant referrals to Nordies, Nordish and six county heads some what insulting. We are Irishmen just like you, unfortunately we currently find ourselves living in a part of Ireland which is still under British Jurisdiction, the undertone from your posts consisentlly infers that if you are from the North then you are some how a lesser brand of Irishman.
... and your consistent references to the non-existent "Free State" are meant to convey what, precisely? It has been said so often now that many here find the term offensive that its continued use could reasonably be construed as intended to offend.
And just to clarify matters further: the term 'Ireland' (Éire) was drafted when Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution were in place, giving legitimacy to the all Ireland 32 county claim.
Since those articles have now been rescinded, it could be argued that any terms predicated on the basis of those same articles are now themselves obsolete, and refer to a non-existent claim. Notwithstanding that obsolescence, however, any reference to 'Ireland' actually refers to the 32 counties, not the 26, as per the original framing of that reference.
Or is that muddying the waters further? ;)
Quoteand your consistent references to the non-existent "Free State" are meant to convey what, precisely? It has been said so often now that many here find the term offensive that its continued use could reasonably be construed as intended to offend.
Hardy, there is no symmetry between these things. Names are used for places, Freestate shorter to write than than 26 counties. I used the term Nordie in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek. But mayogodhelpus has a distasteful exclusionist agenda that he is Irish and 6 county contributors are not. It is entirely unacceptable to imply that others are less than you in this way.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 05:34:48 PM
Quoteand your consistent references to the non-existent "Free State" are meant to convey what, precisely? It has been said so often now that many here find the term offensive that its continued use could reasonably be construed as intended to offend.
Hardy, there is no symmetry between these things. Names are used for places, Freestate shorter to write than than 26 counties. I used the term Nordie in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek. But mayogodhelpus has a distasteful exclusionist agenda that he is Irish and 6 county contributors are not. It is entirely unacceptable to imply that others are less than you in this way.
Armaghniac, you may be right that mghu has an exclusionist agenda (I don't have the time to read all his posts) so fire away and debate that with him. My point was an independent one - simply responding to the complaint about the use of insulting terms by pointing out that offensiveness works both ways and many here find the "Free State" term offensive.
I should point out that I don't really give a toss. People are too precious these days about what offends them and I believe in the majority of cases the appropriate response to "I'm offended by that" is "so what?". I was just making a debating point with Applesisapples.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 05:34:48 PM
Quoteand your consistent references to the non-existent "Free State" are meant to convey what, precisely? It has been said so often now that many here find the term offensive that its continued use could reasonably be construed as intended to offend.
Hardy, there is no symmetry between these things. Names are used for places, Freestate shorter to write than than 26 counties. I used the term Nordie in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek. But mayogodhelpus has a distasteful exclusionist agenda that he is Irish and 6 county contributors are not. It is entirely unacceptable to imply that others are less than you in this way.
NO, Free State is inaccurate and offensive, it has been said on here regularly and agreed upon by most 26 county posters. Don't tell us how we should fuckn feel about the word.
I challange you to find posts were I use the term Nordie or Nordish (except posts like this to make this point). I do not deny you are Irish. You can be Irish because you live on the Island or Ireland, You can be Irish because you have Irish ancestory, you can be Irish by holding an Irish passport, You can be Irish based on the Good Friday Agreement. I don't have an anti-6 county agenda, I am reactionary to insults towards the 26 counties, our institutions or using offensive terminology such as Free State. Thank You very much.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2011, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 14, 2011, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 02:27:47 PM
Of course it is IRELAND. Not even the most nordish nordie thinks that the Freestate is not part of Ireland.
The Free State is a redundant term. The Irish Free State has long been replaced by the Republic known as Ireland or Éire, acceptably referred to as the Irish Republic. Ireland is also the name of an Island off the Continent of Europe/Eurasia.
Your choice of words, not mine.
I don't know whats up your a** but I do find your constant referrals to Nordies, Nordish[/color] and six county heads some what insulting. We are Irishmen just like you, unfortunately we currently find ourselves living in a part of Ireland which is still under British Jurisdiction, the undertone from your posts consisentlly infers that if you are from the North then you are some how a lesser brand of Irishman.
FIND THEM, SO BIG LAD.
ONCETalk out of your hole much ???
I find your use of the term Free State in reference to the Irish State of 2011 deeply offensive, hence my retort.
'Free State' for some of us northern brethren is a description of reality as we see it, and must not be confused with the rather derogatory term 'Free Stater', i.e, the 26 county state is free from British rule, unlike the 6 county statelet, which has nothing to do with the pro-British Free Stater disposition of the Irish Civil War.
The term 'Ireland' cannot be invoked other than in a 32 county context, and the Irish Constitution will corroborate that, as it's currently constituted.
So, (some) 26 county lads, lose the preciousness about the 'free state' moniker, and (some) 6 county lads, lose the preciousness about their preciousness ;)
I hear the UDA brigadiers will be in attendance, is this more evidence of our "maturing" as a country?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 14, 2011, 09:36:47 PM
'Free State' for some of us northern brethren is a description of reality as we see it, and must not be confused with the rather derogatory term 'Free Stater', i.e, the 26 county state is free from British rule, unlike the 6 county statelet, which has nothing to do with the pro-British Free Stater disposition of the Irish Civil War.
The term 'Ireland' cannot be invoked other than in a 32 county context, and the Irish Constitution will corroborate that, as it's currently constituted.
So, (some) 26 county lads, lose the preciousness about the 'free state' moniker, and (some) 6 county lads, lose the preciousness about their preciousness ;)
The Pro-Treaty side were not pro-British, they were pragmatist Irish nationalist republicans. Be they right or wrong, they were not pro-British.
UDA Brigadiers
Eamonn Mallie | May 14, 2011 | View Comments
The question on everybody's lips in coming days will be "are the top brass of the UDA going to get a chance to shake hands with the Queen on her trip to the Republic of Ireland?" The UDA's five brigadiers and 4/5 representatives of their respective districts have been extended invitations to a wreath laying ceremony by Queen Elizabeth at Islandbridge in honour of the war dead. President Mary McAleese's husband Martin has been involved with UDA leaders in community work for several years. South Belfast brigadier Jackie McDonald regularly visits Aras an Uachtarain. Confirming the invitations on Wednesday to the Islandbridge leg of the Queen's visit Mr McDonald said "this represents progress and is a reward for work being done. Others could learn from this.". The brigadiers have not been told they will actually meet the Queen given the heightened security situation surrounding the royal visitor. It would be surprising however if Jackie McDonald and his colleagues are not embraced by President McAleese who always appears comfortable in their presence.
Quote from: 4father on May 15, 2011, 09:25:47 AM
UDA Brigadiers
Eamonn Mallie | May 14, 2011 | View Comments
The question on everybody's lips in coming days will be "are the top brass of the UDA going to get a chance to shake hands with the Queen on her trip to the Republic of Ireland?" The UDA's five brigadiers and 4/5 representatives of their respective districts have been extended invitations to a wreath laying ceremony by Queen Elizabeth at Islandbridge in honour of the war dead. President Mary McAleese's husband Martin has been involved with UDA leaders in community work for several years. South Belfast brigadier Jackie McDonald regularly visits Aras an Uachtarain. Confirming the invitations on Wednesday to the Islandbridge leg of the Queen's visit Mr McDonald said "this represents progress and is a reward for work being done. Others could learn from this.". The brigadiers have not been told they will actually meet the Queen given the heightened security situation surrounding the royal visitor. It would be surprising however if Jackie McDonald and his colleagues are not embraced by President McAleese who always appears comfortable in their presence.
Why?
There is maybe an application for some "conflict resolution" money that needs submitted in the near future, this would look well on it.
Jackie McDonald must have something on Martin McAleese.
€30m on security for this one visit. It's a good job the country is rolling on money. Also so nice to see that armed british security forces will be returning to the streets.
seen enda kenny on the andrew marr show on bbc1 this morning, never heard anything more cringworthy in my life. he talked about "start of new era, queen receiving a warm welcome" blah blah. he also talked about 'ordinary' irish people being able to meet the queen. who are these people? handpicked by who?
Quote from: SHEEDY on May 15, 2011, 11:18:53 AM
seen enda kenny on the andrew marr show on bbc1 this morning, never heard anything more cringworthy in my life. he talked about "start of new era, queen receiving a warm welcome" blah blah. he also talked about 'ordinary' irish people being able to meet the queen. who are these people? handpicked by who?
Cork people.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 14, 2011, 09:36:47 PM
The term 'Ireland' cannot be invoked other than in a 32 county context, and the Irish Constitution will corroborate that, as it's currently constituted.
So what would you call the country whom Jedward were representing on the Eurovision last night?
I see Kevin Myers is outraged that he has not been invited (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/antiira-figures-not-on-royal-list-2647528.html) to kiss Lizzie's ring:
Anti-IRA figures not on royal list
Peace activists overlooked for Queen's visit in favour of TV personalities and celebrities
By LIAM COLLINS
Sunday May 15 2011
The British and Irish governments have snubbed prominent anti-terrorist figures who fearlessly campaigned against the Provisional IRA.
The guest list includes such celebrity personalities as Amanda Brunker and Lorraine Keane, as well as television presenter Terry Wogan, chef Rachel Allen, Nama developer Harry Crosbie and model Erin O'Connor.
In marked contrast, leading peace campaigners such as Chris Hudson MBE and Barbara Fitzgerald CBE, and media figures such as Kevin Myers, Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards, have not been invited to any official events relative to the visit this week of Queen Elizabeth.
The British Embassy in Dublin, which is hosting the centrepiece event at the National Conference Centre on Dublin Quays, has defended the guest list. This will be a concert featuring the Chieftains and Mary Byrne, amongst others, and hosted by Gay Byrne.
"We wanted to reflect the range of sporting, cultural and business links between Britain and Ireland," said Richard Cushnie of the British Embassy.
Guest lists for most other events are organised by the individual hosts, which include Trinity College and the GAA.
The State dinner for the Queen will be held in Dublin Castle and hosted by the President. The Department of the Taoiseach is involved in arrangements for this and some of the other events.
The arrangements are such that every government minister will get to attend at least one function at which the Queen will be present.
But many high-profile figures have been overlooked for the historic event, the first official visit of a British monarch since King George V in 1912.
Leading peace campaigner Chris Hudson last night expressed "amazement" that many of those directly involved in the peace process had not been invited to any of the official functions surrounding the Queen's visit, which begins on Tuesday.
"I remember [the late Progressive Unionist Party leader] David Ervine saying to me 'remember, when this is over other people will be collecting Nobel prizes and we'll just have to go for a pint'," said the Peace Train founder yesterday.
"What seems to have happened is that the politicians take charge of things -- they delivered the political process . . . but they didn't deliver the peace process," said the former Communications Works Union official, who is now Rev Chris Hudson of the All Souls Unitarian Church near Queen's University in Belfast.
"Official Ireland has never given us any recognition for anything we've done -- and it doesn't look as if it wants to start now."
Rev Hudson, who comes from Blackrock, Co Dublin, put himself in danger by his work with hard-line Loyalists in the North. He succeeded in bringing David Ervine on board the peace process, an event which transformed Loyalist attitudes to Dublin.
But despite being awarded an MBE by Prince Charles and on behalf of the Queen, he and many other who were directly involved in bringing warring communities together have not been invited to any of the high-profile events at the conference centre, Dublin Castle and Memorial Gardens.
"I didn't want it for myself, but an invitation to some of these historic events might have been some modest recognition for the people who created the space for the peace process to happen," Rev Hudson said.
Author and journalist Ruth Dudley Edwards said she was disappointed that Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris had not been invited to the event.
"Both have shown immense courage over the years -- especially in relation to fearless denunciation of paramilitarism," she said.
Mr Myers was a particularly surprising omission given his almost-singlehanded role in making it acceptable to honour the thousands of young Irishmen who died in the World War One.
A source close to Mr Myers said yesterday: "He is not so much disappointed as angry. It stinks to high heaven that those who took the heat when it was far hotter than it is now in relation to the paramilitaries have been snubbed. As a country we cannot even get these small things right."
Members of the public will also be kept away from the Queen during the royal visit. Security arrangements yesterday included a plan to keep all members of the public away from any area in which the Queen will be present, which will be heavily cordoned off.
(http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt46/theroncon/cry_me_a_river.jpg)
Maybe we can make it up to Myers by shipping him over to London where he'll have the chance to see her more regularly?
Great to see those that licked Brit arses for years being ignored ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D by their Supreme being :D
Quote
The British Embassy in Dublin, which is hosting the centrepiece event at the National Conference Centre on Dublin Quays, has defended the guest list. This will be a concert featuring the Chieftains and Mary Byrne, amongst others, and hosted by Gay Byrne.
Jesus, they should be grateful they're not invited.
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 14, 2011, 09:36:47 PM
The term 'Ireland' cannot be invoked other than in a 32 county context, and the Irish Constitution will corroborate that, as it's currently constituted.
So what would you call the country whom Jedward were representing on the Eurovision last night?
I don't have the time or inclination to check the rules but I suspect they were representing RTE.
Quote from: AQMP on May 14, 2011, 09:11:38 AM
I note according to the BBC this morning, the Guards have rounded up the usual suspects and armed Metropolitan Police officers will be on the streets of the Free State during the Nellie Dean's visit.
I note I may have caused offence and I withdraw the rhyming slang term "Nellie Dean" to refer to the Queen. :P
This thread is pure troll fodder so I regret wading into it but I just find so many aspects of this funny. The ability on all sides to politicise the visit of an octogenarian and twist it whatever way they wanted is unprecedented in the history of the state. God forbid that Mary McAleese should ever invoke so many arguments and counter-arguments when she visits a neighbouring country.
Those now in favour of the visit, Myers, Kenny, The Mail, are no better than a crowd of snivelling, hovel-ling West Brit gobshites. Joe Brolly must be getting paid the twenty silver pieces to write for such a shit-whack of a publication. These people are so fond of talking about the nation "maturing" and how we "matured as a nation" playing the Saxons in Croker. Is this the same "mature" nation that was buying bog-holes development sites for 200,000 euro a pop? Were youse as mature when the EU/IMF whipped your ass and threw yis in the playpen? bolix's , da lot.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 15, 2011, 02:01:38 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 14, 2011, 09:36:47 PM
'Free State' for some of us northern brethren is a description of reality as we see it, and must not be confused with the rather derogatory term 'Free Stater', i.e, the 26 county state is free from British rule, unlike the 6 county statelet, which has nothing to do with the pro-British Free Stater disposition of the Irish Civil War.
The term 'Ireland' cannot be invoked other than in a 32 county context, and the Irish Constitution will corroborate that, as it's currently constituted.
So, (some) 26 county lads, lose the preciousness about the 'free state' moniker, and (some) 6 county lads, lose the preciousness about their preciousness ;)
The Pro-Treaty side were not pro-British, they were pragmatist Irish nationalist republicans. Be they right or wrong, they were not pro-British.
So they received the 18 pounder field guns from the British to bombard the Four Courts during the Civil War because they were
anti-British? Yeah, right! :P
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 15, 2011, 03:16:48 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 15, 2011, 02:01:38 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 14, 2011, 09:36:47 PM
'Free State' for some of us northern brethren is a description of reality as we see it, and must not be confused with the rather derogatory term 'Free Stater', i.e, the 26 county state is free from British rule, unlike the 6 county statelet, which has nothing to do with the pro-British Free Stater disposition of the Irish Civil War.
The term 'Ireland' cannot be invoked other than in a 32 county context, and the Irish Constitution will corroborate that, as it's currently constituted.
So, (some) 26 county lads, lose the preciousness about the 'free state' moniker, and (some) 6 county lads, lose the preciousness about their preciousness ;)
The Pro-Treaty side were not pro-British, they were pragmatist Irish nationalist republicans. Be they right or wrong, they were not pro-British.
So they received the 18 pounder field guns from the British to bombard the Four Courts during the Civil War because they were anti-British? Yeah, right! :P
Were the irregulars not anti-democratic considering they ignored the Dáil's ratification of the Treaty? (also ratified by the people in the 1922 election)
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on May 15, 2011, 03:24:15 PM
Were the irregulars not anti-democratic considering they ignored the Dáil's ratification of the Treaty? (also ratified by the people in the 1922 election)
That's a totally different issue, though the Republicans in the Civil War might say that they took their mandate from the 1918 election and the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic declared thereon, and would have attached no validity to the Treaty that annulled that Government.
Let me get this straight then.
Someone who supported the Treaty was pro-British (your words). What does that make the anti-Treaty side? Pro-Irish?
The provisional government, Dáil Éireann, was established on the back of the 1918 election. Dáil Éireann ratified the Treaty. If the anti-Treaty side were truly republican then surely they should have accepted Dáil Éireann's ratification of the Treaty?
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on May 15, 2011, 03:42:05 PM
Someone who supported the Treaty was pro-British (your words). What does that make the anti-Treaty side? Pro-Irish?
When 'Free Stater' is invoked in a derogatory sense, then yes, that would imply pro-Britishness, or at least a predisposition to accept Britain's perspective on Ireland. Why should the opposite of being 'pro-British' be 'pro' anything?
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on May 15, 2011, 03:42:05 PM
The provisional government, Dáil Éireann, was established on the back of the 1918 election. Dáil Éireann ratified the Treaty. If the anti-Treaty side were truly republican then surely they should have accepted Dáil Éireann's ratification of the Treaty?
Not as clearly defined as that in that the legitimacy of the Dáil's remit to pass the Treaty was called into question -- De Valera claimed, for example, that Dáil members who voted for the Treaty were betraying their oath to the Republic.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 15, 2011, 03:59:54 PM
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on May 15, 2011, 03:42:05 PM
Someone who supported the Treaty was pro-British (your words). What does that make the anti-Treaty side? Pro-Irish?
When 'Free Stater' is invoked in a derogatory sense, then yes, that would imply pro-Britishness, or at least a predisposition to accept Britain's perspective on Ireland. Why should the opposite of being 'pro-British' be 'pro' anything?
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on May 15, 2011, 03:42:05 PM
The provisional government, Dáil Éireann, was established on the back of the 1918 election. Dáil Éireann ratified the Treaty. If the anti-Treaty side were truly republican then surely they should have accepted Dáil Éireann's ratification of the Treaty?
Not as clearly defined as that in that the legitimacy of the Dáil's remit to pass the Treaty was called into question -- De Valera claimed, for example, that Dáil members who voted for the Treaty were betraying their oath to the Republic.
I don't believe for a moment that the men who fought the British and went on to form Cumman na Gael or other pro-treaty persons were pro-British, maybe a few ex-Unionists. They took a pragmatic appraoch to the situation at the time of the treaty. I believe that had Collins lived that Ireland would have built a big and fairly well armed army. Many things could of happened, such as a Free State (yes it was then) invasion in the North resulting in a United Ireland under the Tricolour or if we lost the Union Jack. Had we waited until the late 1930's or 1940's we may have fought alongside the Axis to gain control of the North or with the Allies as a bargained exchange of Northern Ireland to the Republic.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 15, 2011, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on May 15, 2011, 03:24:15 PM
Were the irregulars not anti-democratic considering they ignored the Dáil's ratification of the Treaty? (also ratified by the people in the 1922 election)
That's a totally different issue, though the Republicans in the Civil War might say that they took their mandate from the 1918 election and the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic declared thereon, and would have attached no validity to the Treaty that annulled that Government.
Yes but the treaty was singed on behalf of the 1918 government.
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2011, 11:59:20 AM
I see Kevin Myers is outraged that he has not been invited (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/antiira-figures-not-on-royal-list-2647528.html) to kiss Lizzie's ring:
Anti-IRA figures not on royal list
Peace activists overlooked for Queen's visit in favour of TV personalities and celebrities
By LIAM COLLINS
Sunday May 15 2011
The British and Irish governments have snubbed prominent anti-terrorist figures who fearlessly campaigned against the Provisional IRA.
The guest list includes such celebrity personalities as Amanda Brunker and Lorraine Keane, as well as television presenter Terry Wogan, chef Rachel Allen, Nama developer Harry Crosbie and model Erin O'Connor.
In marked contrast, leading peace campaigners such as Chris Hudson MBE and Barbara Fitzgerald CBE, and media figures such as Kevin Myers, Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards, have not been invited to any official events relative to the visit this week of Queen Elizabeth.
The British Embassy in Dublin, which is hosting the centrepiece event at the National Conference Centre on Dublin Quays, has defended the guest list. This will be a concert featuring the Chieftains and Mary Byrne, amongst others, and hosted by Gay Byrne.
"We wanted to reflect the range of sporting, cultural and business links between Britain and Ireland," said Richard Cushnie of the British Embassy.
Guest lists for most other events are organised by the individual hosts, which include Trinity College and the GAA.
The State dinner for the Queen will be held in Dublin Castle and hosted by the President. The Department of the Taoiseach is involved in arrangements for this and some of the other events.
The arrangements are such that every government minister will get to attend at least one function at which the Queen will be present.
But many high-profile figures have been overlooked for the historic event, the first official visit of a British monarch since King George V in 1912.
Leading peace campaigner Chris Hudson last night expressed "amazement" that many of those directly involved in the peace process had not been invited to any of the official functions surrounding the Queen's visit, which begins on Tuesday.
"I remember [the late Progressive Unionist Party leader] David Ervine saying to me 'remember, when this is over other people will be collecting Nobel prizes and we'll just have to go for a pint'," said the Peace Train founder yesterday.
"What seems to have happened is that the politicians take charge of things -- they delivered the political process . . . but they didn't deliver the peace process," said the former Communications Works Union official, who is now Rev Chris Hudson of the All Souls Unitarian Church near Queen's University in Belfast.
"Official Ireland has never given us any recognition for anything we've done -- and it doesn't look as if it wants to start now."
Rev Hudson, who comes from Blackrock, Co Dublin, put himself in danger by his work with hard-line Loyalists in the North. He succeeded in bringing David Ervine on board the peace process, an event which transformed Loyalist attitudes to Dublin.
But despite being awarded an MBE by Prince Charles and on behalf of the Queen, he and many other who were directly involved in bringing warring communities together have not been invited to any of the high-profile events at the conference centre, Dublin Castle and Memorial Gardens.
"I didn't want it for myself, but an invitation to some of these historic events might have been some modest recognition for the people who created the space for the peace process to happen," Rev Hudson said.
Author and journalist Ruth Dudley Edwards said she was disappointed that Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris had not been invited to the event.
"Both have shown immense courage over the years -- especially in relation to fearless denunciation of paramilitarism," she said.
Mr Myers was a particularly surprising omission given his almost-singlehanded role in making it acceptable to honour the thousands of young Irishmen who died in the World War One.
A source close to Mr Myers said yesterday: "He is not so much disappointed as angry. It stinks to high heaven that those who took the heat when it was far hotter than it is now in relation to the paramilitaries have been snubbed. As a country we cannot even get these small things right."
Members of the public will also be kept away from the Queen during the royal visit. Security arrangements yesterday included a plan to keep all members of the public away from any area in which the Queen will be present, which will be heavily cordoned off.
(http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt46/theroncon/cry_me_a_river.jpg)
Yes the Sunday Indo shit rag is in terrible turmoil today with the news that the great Myers, Dudley Edward and Eoghan Harris are not on the invite list. Your article above is one of two. The other was penned by that shit comic, terrible interviewer and part time anti republican journalist Brendan O Connor. The reason these people are not invited is simple. If the general public were to know that Myers, Dudley Edwards and Harris were in the same place at the same time there would surely be an attempt to bomb the place. It is in the interest of her majesty that these people are kept well away from her.
'A source close to Mr Myers said yesterday: "He is not so much disappointed as angry. It stinks to high heaven that those who took the heat when it was far hotter than it is now in relation to the paramilitaries have been snubbed. As a country we cannot even get these small things right.'
Aw, diddums ... made my week that has. For 'a source close to' read the great man himself. What an arrogant cnut to state 'I took the heat when it was far hotter than it is now in relation to paramilitaries and I have been snubbed'.
Lizzie dodged a bullet there all right, it would have been like an orgy watching him, Harris and Ugly Edwards trying to shove their tongues up her jacksee ... there'll be enough other west Brits doing that without those three adding to the shame
Quote from: red hander on May 15, 2011, 07:52:49 PM
Aw, diddums ... made my week that has. For 'a source close to' read the great man himself. What an arrogant cnut to state 'I took the heat when it was far hotter than it is now in relation to paramilitaries and I have been snubbed'.
Cheered me up as well. Obnoxious git, what heat did he take? As for Harris what has he ever done apart from help get Bertie reelected?
I have no problem with the Queen coming but if she was in the back garden I wouldn't open the curtains. It is a bit pathetic seeing these dipsticks livid that they weren't invited to the royal family arse lick.
Isn't Ryan Tubridy supposed to be showing the Queen around? Didn't his aunt/mother show JFK around? Little changes amongst the elite in Ireland.
I see the Irish Mail on Sunday had a column by Éamon Ó'Cuív, emphasising his family ties to De Valera as some sort of justification of his views, outlining to us all why this visit is so welcome. Funny how there was no column inches given to Honor Ó Brolchain, (grand-niece of Joe Plunkett), who said she was initially indifferent to the royal visit but now finds the idea ill-judged, or to James Connolly-Heron (great grandson of James Connolly) who has stated (in the indo believe it or not) that:
"The places that she is visiting, the Garden of Remembrance and Croke Park, it's very inappropriate and insensitive. The Garden of Remembrance honours all those who fought and died for Irish freedom and that's where the Queen will be laying a wreath. But that dream has not been realised...There's a contradiction there. Given that the Queen of England still occupies part of this island is it not strange that she is honouring those who fought and died? I don't think we are at the stage for that sort of recognition......The itinerary is very strange. We have a strange image of the Queen laying a wreath in honour of those patriots. Is the Queen in favour of Irish unity? Croke Park is even more bizarre. The first people who should be honoured should be the people who died on the field.....Again it throws up a contradiction of the expenditure, the national monument (16 Moore St) lies in a state of dereliction while at the same time we invite the Queen to honour patriots.....It's a bit unnerving that the Queen will come and lay a wreath. On what basis is she doing it? It can't be the same as another head of state."
No harm to the Mail on Sunday but it's an awful rag. Even after he assembly elections, it devoted one page to the election results......on page 18. Hard to beat good All-Ireland coverage ::)
Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II,
Buckingham Palace,
London SW1A 1AA, United Kingdom
10th May 2011
Your Majesty,
As your majesty will be visiting our community shortly, and being aware of your family's expressed interest in promoting good community relations, may we ask a small favour of you?
In particular when visiting our community you will be calling at Croke Park, headquarters of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA). Historically the GAA has been a strongly Irish Nationalist sporting association set up some years after the 'great famine' in Ireland with the goal of energising local communities and helping in the fight against landlordism at a time when evictions were commonplace.
Indeed as an association, and up until recently, the GAA would have been unlikely to have extended to a member of the British Royal family a warm welcome on visiting their headquarters in Croke Park. However in these changing times in the relationship between our peoples we now believe that your majesty is regarded with deep affection by many in GAA Headquarters, unlike their attitude to our local community, and it is in this regard that we hope your majesty may be able to be of some great assistance.
Despite our community enduring great inconvenience and hardship during the many major events hosted in Croke Park, that has helped Croke Park to report income of over €58 million in successive years, Croke Park officials have now sent an eviction notice to our Community & Handball Centre members, copy enclosed. This Centre is a vital asset to our local community that has invested almost €4 million in its development and maintenance over the last 40 years. There is huge opposition to this attempted eviction by Croke Park, and Croke Park's proposed alternative development has been opposed by all 17 local politicians and 10 residents committees representatives at a recent national planning authority oral hearing. I include a copy of our Newsletter that shows how vital an asset this Centre is to our community.
Your Majesty we would be very grateful if you could let the Croke Park GAA officials, that you may happen to meet, know that you are aware of our plight and that it would be only right that we be treated with the same respect and decency that such as Arsenal's stadium officials treat their local community.
While Croke Park officials have instructed other GAA communities not to comment on your visit this does not affect us and we trust your majesty will not mind our asking for your assistance in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Eamon O'Brien.
Chairman, Croke Park Streets Committees.
For f**k's sake. If he really sent that letter to Buck House he needs a kick in the arse. If it's a pisstake then it's a good one.
Quote from: Ulick on May 16, 2011, 03:35:03 PM
Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II,
Buckingham Palace,
London SW1A 1AA, United Kingdom
10th May 2011
Your Majesty,
As your majesty will be visiting our community shortly, and being aware of your family's expressed interest in promoting good community relations, may we ask a small favour of you?
In particular when visiting our community you will be calling at Croke Park, headquarters of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA). Historically the GAA has been a strongly Irish Nationalist sporting association set up some years after the 'great famine' in Ireland with the goal of energising local communities and helping in the fight against landlordism at a time when evictions were commonplace.
Indeed as an association, and up until recently, the GAA would have been unlikely to have extended to a member of the British Royal family a warm welcome on visiting their headquarters in Croke Park. However in these changing times in the relationship between our peoples we now believe that your majesty is regarded with deep affection by many in GAA Headquarters, unlike their attitude to our local community, and it is in this regard that we hope your majesty may be able to be of some great assistance.
Despite our community enduring great inconvenience and hardship during the many major events hosted in Croke Park, that has helped Croke Park to report income of over €58 million in successive years, Croke Park officials have now sent an eviction notice to our Community & Handball Centre members, copy enclosed. This Centre is a vital asset to our local community that has invested almost €4 million in its development and maintenance over the last 40 years. There is huge opposition to this attempted eviction by Croke Park, and Croke Park's proposed alternative development has been opposed by all 17 local politicians and 10 residents committees representatives at a recent national planning authority oral hearing. I include a copy of our Newsletter that shows how vital an asset this Centre is to our community.
Your Majesty we would be very grateful if you could let the Croke Park GAA officials, that you may happen to meet, know that you are aware of our plight and that it would be only right that we be treated with the same respect and decency that such as Arsenal's stadium officials treat their local community.
While Croke Park officials have instructed other GAA communities not to comment on your visit this does not affect us and we trust your majesty will not mind our asking for your assistance in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Eamon O'Brien.
Chairman, Croke Park Streets Committees.
This is from The Onion, right?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 16, 2011, 03:37:54 PM
For f**k's sake. If he really sent that letter to Buck House he needs a kick in the arse. If it's a pisstake then it's a good one.
Does the flute still think Mrs Windsor is absolute monarch of Ireland ??
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 16, 2011, 03:37:54 PM
For f**k's sake. If he really sent that letter to Buck House he needs a kick in the arse. If it's a pisstake then it's a good one.
I think it's safe to say that Her Majesty will not be raising the matter during her visit.
And I assume that the writer of the letter knows that.
In which case, for the price of a stamp, it's an excellent way of getting publicity for their campaign (imo).
And as the grandson of a champion handball player who might conceivably even have played in the original alley, I wish them well.
will jackie mcdonald and the mexican mcfarland and co be laying wreaths with her?
Clean underwear (check)
Nice little union jack on stick (check)
Words of UK Nat Ant re-learned (check). But who nowadays "sends her victorious" Is this a good seat on Ryanair?
Blackrock in Site Cinty Dublin awaits an unscheduled visit.
Shamrock Shore will not let GAAbaord down.
QuoteAuthor and journalist Ruth Dudley Edwards said she was disappointed that Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris had not been invited to the event.
A source close to Mr Myers said yesterday: "He is not so much disappointed as angry.
In your face Myers. I can imagine him crying into his William and Kate memorial Handkerchief. :D
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 16, 2011, 05:20:55 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2011, 11:59:20 AMA source close to Mr Myers said yesterday: "He is not so much disappointed as angry...
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a14/liskey/viral/Sheep_eating2.gif)
That's a slow burner, that one :D
Quote from: Hardy on May 14, 2011, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2011, 05:34:48 PM
Quoteand your consistent references to the non-existent "Free State" are meant to convey what, precisely? It has been said so often now that many here find the term offensive that its continued use could reasonably be construed as intended to offend.
Hardy, there is no symmetry between these things. Names are used for places, Freestate shorter to write than than 26 counties. I used the term Nordie in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek. But mayogodhelpus has a distasteful exclusionist agenda that he is Irish and 6 county contributors are not. It is entirely unacceptable to imply that others are less than you in this way.
Armaghniac, you may be right that mghu has an exclusionist agenda (I don't have the time to read all his posts) so fire away and debate that with him. My point was an independent one - simply responding to the complaint about the use of insulting terms by pointing out that offensiveness works both ways and many here find the "Free State" term offensive.
I should point out that I don't really give a toss. People are too precious these days about what offends them and I believe in the majority of cases the appropriate response to "I'm offended by that" is "so what?". I was just making a debating point with Applesisapples.
I try to avoid using the term Free State because some people find it offensive. I was only taking issue with MGHU because of his consistently offensive and demeaning posts which clearly indicate that he feels we Northerners are not really Irish. I was asking a Dublin friend on Saturday how he felt about the term Free State and he told me that he often uses it him self. I have posted elswhere that generally I don't find Nordy offensive depending on the tone and context MGHU excels in using it in an offensive manner.
God Bless you M'am :'(
I've a tear trickling down my face.
It be the perfect time to rob a bank right now.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 17, 2011, 12:13:29 PM
I've a tear trickling down my face.
She'll be in Coppers later Zig.
Is the first time these boys have dressed up since the last visit?
Quote from: laoislad on May 17, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
It be the perfect time to rob a bank right now.
I'd say you're a few years too late:
(http://www.johnlund.com/images/Bank-Manager-Empty-Vault.jpg)
"Sorry about that, lads, but you're welcome to come in and take a look around, maybe take a few photos for your Facebook page..."
The comments page on RTE.ie is embarrassing.
"Finally we will be seen as a civilised respectable nation" ::)
It alternates between venomous Republicanism to pathetic grovelling with very little room for rational thought, especially noted since my comment seems to have been censored.
I haven't read any of this thread intentionally! However I was just pondering there - if you really wanted to assasinate Elizabeth would it be that difficult?
Quote from: thejuice on May 17, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
The comments page on RTE.ie is embarrassing.
"Finally we will be seen as a civilised respectable nation" ::)
It alternates between venomous Republicanism to pathetic grovelling with very little room for rational thought, especially noted since my comment seems to have been censored.
There's some f*****g arseholes in this world
Quoteespecially noted since my comment seems to have been censored.
What did you say Juice, perhaps you suggested that she should be introduced to Dominic Strauss-Kahn?
is it just me or are Irishmen and Irish women pre programmed to have an inferiority complex.
We are near as sad as the Brits with their 'special relationship' status with the yanks, we are like a poor man version of that, always looking for approval from our master like a good wee puppy
we (as a nation) need a good boot up the hole - that's if any of our hole still exists after the constant rodgering from the Brits and the IMF
I really think this plays into the hands of the dissidents in gaining support from young republicans/nationalists, its sad to say.
I was actually acceptive at the start but after watching it, it makes me sick seeing gstq been playing in the Garden of Remembrance. Shambles.
Not long ago the old bag honoured this guy with an old medal or two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXzX82Bg4ao
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
Quote from: Banana Man on May 17, 2011, 03:20:43 PM
is it just me or are Irishmen and Irish women pre programmed to have an inferiority complex.
We are near as sad as the Brits with their 'special relationship' status with the yanks, we are like a poor man version of that, always looking for approval from our master like a good wee puppy
we (as a nation) need a good boot up the hole - that's if any of our hole still exists after the constant rodgering from the Brits and the IMF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=050otqg_5cU
eamon dunphy thinks she is the real deal
I would love somebody to do the Ronan
(http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/politics/files/2009/05/queen.jpg)
Quote from: 118cmal on May 17, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
To be honest I think it's good for the country to have the Queen over. Lets bury the hatchet and move to the future. Although the past under British rule wasn't ideal, we did gain a lot from the UK, particularly in the North where we were thrown money for years.
Can't believe people are protesting about it. The mind boggles.
The north gained a lot from the UK?? Would you be referring to the British occupation of it in general? Or more specific things, like their widespread state murder of Irish citizens in it?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
Not to mention your favourite Political Party taking the Queen's Shilling for running the North. ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on May 17, 2011, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
Not to mention your favourite Political Party taking the Queen's Shilling for running the North. ;)
Während Sie Deutsch Schillinge natürlich
Still don't know what all the fuss is about...she has been visiting Ireland for years. Coleraine, Belfast etc., are all Irish towns and cities. Indeed Belfast is the second biggest.
But that was as Monarch of "her territory" as she would have it and visiting her "subjects".
She is now visiting the more southern parts of our Country as no more than a Head of State ( similar to such luminaries as the Presidents of Italy/Germany/Poland etc all of whom are totally unknowns).
Still can't see how it makes us "mature" or why we have to have hours of RTE ( and no doubt Reillyrag) arselickin'.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 17, 2011, 04:39:31 PM
But that was as Monarch of "her territory" as she would have it and visiting her "subjects".
Did you know anyone from RoI who goes to the UK automatically becomes her "subject" too. I heard that last week somewhere. If I can find the source again, I'll post it.
http://www.hotpress.com/politics/frontlines/7901992.html
Worth a read ;)
Anyone see the kicking bishop brennan up the arse/ queen planting the tree with McAleese picture yet?? Only saw it on facebook, don't know how to insert here!
Quote from: DoireGael on May 17, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
http://www.hotpress.com/politics/frontlines/7901992.html
Worth a read ;)
Pure dung, once he played the hunger strikers card I wanted to punch him in the face.
Quote from: thejuice on May 17, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
The comments page on RTE.ie is embarrassing.
"Finally we will be seen as a civilised respectable nation" ::)
I know.
Yiz have a loooooooooooooog way to go before reaching that stage... ;)
(http://mediaelites.com/files/2010/03/Drunk_Leprechaun-300x208.jpg)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 17, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
Quote from: thejuice on May 17, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
The comments page on RTE.ie is embarrassing.
"Finally we will be seen as a civilised respectable nation" ::)
I know.
Yiz have a loooooooooooooog way to go before reaching that stage... ;)
(http://mediaelites.com/files/2010/03/Drunk_Leprechaun-300x208.jpg)
(http://rainbowonbay.com/shop/images/funnyButBitchy.jpeg)
Quote from: DoireGael on May 17, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
http://www.hotpress.com/politics/frontlines/7901992.html
Worth a read ;)
Read that alright. Fair play to him.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
So no following the lead of eg Mustafa Kermal Ataturk, President of Turkey, who composed this memorial to the dead Anzac and UK* soldiers who fell at Gallipoli, whilst trying to invade his country:
(http://www.visiblesoul.org/judah/images/NZ/Ataturk_Memorial.jpg)
"Those heroes that shed their blood And lost their lives...
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore, rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
And the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side,
Here in this country of ours.
You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries...
Wipe away your tears.
Your sons are now lying in our bosom And are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land, they have
Become our sons as well"(Btw, Ataturk wrote those words in 1934 i.e less than 20 years after the conflict)
* - Including very many Irishmen, btw:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8584514.stm
Bertie grovelling and bowing to large property owner, plus ça change,
(http://photos4.media.pix.ie/4F/60/4F608B8BF44B4DABA95F0FF28D5BEA66-0000333355-0002323253-00759L-6D77F24B79CA4DF3AB4984386B50370E.png)
Quote from: Aerlik on May 17, 2011, 04:16:48 PM
Still don't know what all the fuss is about...she has been visiting Ireland for years. Coleraine, Belfast etc., are all Irish towns and cities. Indeed Belfast is the second biggest.
Aye, but as an Australian, you must be used to people greeting her with grace and courtesy etc:
(http://www.silver-investor-gold-investor.com/image-files/australian-gold-kangaroo-obverse.jpg)
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 17, 2011, 04:39:31 PMBut that was as Monarch of "her territory" [NI]
No need for the quotation marks, thanks very much.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 17, 2011, 04:39:31 PM... as she would have it
I think you'll find the rest of the world has NI down as being part of the UK:
www.un.org
Quote from: Rossfan on May 17, 2011, 04:39:31 PM... visiting her "subjects".
Your information, like your views, are years out of date.
My Passport has me down as a "British Citizen", just like nearly 60 million other Brits:
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6660/23037931149251113018.jpg)
(Not mine btw)
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
The plaque up there says: "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom".....the 32 County Republic is one view of that.
Of course one has to point out that a British monarch laying a wreath their is acknowledging the validity of their cause, no doubt a big thing in itself.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 17, 2011, 05:40:34 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
The plaque up there says: "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom".....the 32 County Republic is one view of that.
Of course one has to point out that a British monarch laying a wreath their is acknowledging the validity of their cause, no doubt a big thing in itself.
/Jim.
Aye, but you must know by now, Jim, some people only ever see one* side of the story...
* - Their own, naturally ::)
Saw a good photo on the BBC, one of the anti-British protesters being pushed back was wearing a Man U jersey! ;D
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 17, 2011, 05:40:34 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
The plaque up there says: "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom".....the 32 County Republic is one view of that.
Of course one has to point out that a British monarch laying a wreath their is acknowledging the validity of their cause, no doubt a big thing in itself.
/Jim.
So we can expect her to acknowledge the validity of the IRA of the past 30 years too? Or was only some of those who took up arms for freedom allowed to be termed "valid"? And are you telling me that those who died for "Irish Freedom" (to quote the plaque) were fighting with a view to some sort of Irish Freedom which wasn't All-Ireland Independence?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2011, 05:58:15 PM
Saw a good photo on the BBC, one of the anti-British protesters being pushed back was wearing a Man U jersey! ;D
Far be it from me to speak on that person's behalf, but did the protester state he was "anti-British"? I imagine not everyone who is opposed to this visit is anti British.
I, like plenty other I know, am opposed to this visit, but am in no way anti-British what-so-ever. I am simply anti British occupation of Ireland.
Spare a thought, for this distraught... lickspittle (Irish Times letters) :D
Madam, – Getting Queen Elizabeth to pay a visit to Croke Park and to lay a wreath at the Garden of Remembrance is a disgrace. It's obvious that both events are designed to humiliate her. Would President McAleese lay a wreath at the graves of the British soldiers who were killed during the 1916 Rising? Will there be any mention of the several British soldiers murdered in their homes in front of their families the night before the 1920 Croke Park incident?
Her Majesty should cancel her visit until proper respect is shown for her dignity and position as head of State of a friendly country. – Yours, etc,
FRANK O CONNOR,
Inniscarra,
Blarney,
Co Cork.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 06:04:03 PM
Far be it from me to speak on that person's behalf, but did the protester state he was "anti-British"?
He was in the middle of the Eirigi crowd, so it's a good bet that he is.
What the bell does anti British mean exactly? That you hate everything about Britain - the people, the food, the weather? It's a stupid term and is being abused by the media. I imagine the protesters want an end to British occupation and not an end to Britain.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 17, 2011, 06:34:24 PM
What the bell does anti British mean exactly? That you hate everything about Britain - the people, the food, the weather? It's a stupid term and is being abused by the media. I imagine the protesters want an end to British occupation and not an end to Britain.
These aren't protestors with any ideology, these are simply thrill seeking thugs.
(http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/images/2011/0517/274160_1.jpg?ts=1305653679?ts=1305653679)
Maybe they are "thrill seeking thugs" but that doesn't make them anti British by default. Anti social perhaps?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 17, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
Maybe they are "thrill seeking thugs" but that doesn't make them anti British by default. Anti social perhaps?
Definately anti-social, I'd say some of them are anti-anything.
Quote from: muppet on May 17, 2011, 06:52:18 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 17, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
Maybe they are "thrill seeking thugs" but that doesn't make them anti British by default. Anti social perhaps?
Definately anti-social, I'd say some of them are anti-anything.
Just pure f**king anti-christs the lot of them :P
Quote from: muppet on May 17, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 17, 2011, 06:34:24 PM
What the bell does anti British mean exactly? That you hate everything about Britain - the people, the food, the weather? It's a stupid term and is being abused by the media. I imagine the protesters want an end to British occupation and not an end to Britain.
These aren't protestors with any ideology, these are simply thrill seeking thugs.
(http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/images/2011/0517/274160_1.jpg?ts=1305653679?ts=1305653679)
Is that a vulcan in the white hoodie behind that child in the blue hoodie on the right?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 17, 2011, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2011, 05:58:15 PM
Saw a good photo on the BBC, one of the anti-British protesters being pushed back was wearing a Man U jersey! ;D
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52796000/jpg/_52796965_hi012000615.jpg)
Lad out to get his Denny ham getting caught up...poor lad, hope he made it home for tea.
Quote from: ballinaman on May 17, 2011, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 17, 2011, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2011, 05:58:15 PM
Saw a good photo on the BBC, one of the anti-British protesters being pushed back was wearing a Man U jersey! ;D
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52796000/jpg/_52796965_hi012000615.jpg)
Lad out to get his Denny ham getting caught up...poor lad, hope he made it home for tea.
:D
Just like the Love Ulster riots five years ago, the images the world will see of Irish Republicanism will show a group of retards, a majority of whom I imagine rarely, if ever, encounter the slightest semblance of "British oppression". Hope the Gardaí batter every last one of them.
Quote from: ballinaman on May 17, 2011, 07:18:37 PM
Lad out to get his Denny ham getting caught up...poor lad, hope he made it home for tea.
That's a novel one.
Usually when some scrote get's picked up in the middle of a riot etc, his mother springs up to tell us that "Sure he had only nipped out for a wee pint of milk, when a Peeler arrested him for nahin. Nahin, I tell ye..." :D
Man Utd jersey above sums 99% of these guys up.
Quote from: DoireGael on May 17, 2011, 07:55:29 PM
Man Utd jersey above sums 99% of these guys up.
I'd say he had Gibson on the back too....
Quote from: ballinaman on May 17, 2011, 07:59:04 PM
Quote from: DoireGael on May 17, 2011, 07:55:29 PM
Man Utd jersey above sums 99% of these guys up.
I'd say he had Gibson on the back too....
Probably more odds of Neville, with that tattoo saying 'Manchester 4 life'.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0517/queen_tracker.html
...Queen Elizabeth has arrived at the Garden of Remembrance - an army officer welcomes 'Banríon Éilís a dó'
(http://photos4.media.pix.ie/A0/0E/A00EA7C44491422382F13B5A0BE73C00-0000316428-0002323582-00500L-C3163C5B6F7E48BDA6F799C678BD702D.jpg)
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on May 17, 2011, 08:13:17 PM
(http://photos4.media.pix.ie/A0/0E/A00EA7C44491422382F13B5A0BE73C00-0000316428-0002323582-00500L-C3163C5B6F7E48BDA6F799C678BD702D.jpg)
That nose has seen a bit of coke.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
It's absolutely disgusting to be honest why don't they jsut rejoin the commonwealth and be done with it? Why do so many Irish people have such a slavish mentality? I'm convinced you would never find this slavish mentality in any other country.
Quote from: Go home ref on May 17, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
It's absolutely disgusting to be honest why don't they jsut rejoin the commonwealth and be done with it? Why do so many Irish people have such a slavish mentality? I'm convinced you would never find this slavish mentality in any other country.
I wonder has she ever visited any other country?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 17, 2011, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on May 17, 2011, 07:18:37 PM
Lad out to get his Denny ham getting caught up...poor lad, hope he made it home for tea.
That's a novel one.
Usually when some scrote get's picked up in the middle of a riot etc, his mother springs up to tell us that "Sure he had only nipped out for a wee pint of milk, when a Peeler arrested him for nahin. Nahin, I tell ye..." :D
Grammar Gardai...bad one for you EG
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 04:15:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 17, 2011, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
Not to mention your favourite Political Party taking the Queen's Shilling for running the North. ;)
Während Sie Deutsch Schillinge natürlich
No verb there , Nallystand. Das geht nicht, du Schweinhund.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
Even as a joke, what utter tripe to suggest.
Quote from: gallsman on May 17, 2011, 08:53:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
Even as a joke, what utter tripe to suggest.
Good man gallsman, you keep me right
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:54:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 17, 2011, 08:53:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
Even as a joke, what utter tripe to suggest.
Good man gallsman, you keep me right
I do love your pseudo-republicanism.
Quote from: gallsman on May 17, 2011, 08:53:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
Even as a joke, what utter tripe to suggest.
Ireland's next potential President would like to see us join the Commonwealth.
Quote from: gallsman on May 17, 2011, 08:55:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:54:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 17, 2011, 08:53:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
Even as a joke, what utter tripe to suggest.
Good man gallsman, you keep me right
I do love your pseudo-republicanism.
And I love you too :-*
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
Does Tipperary count as two because of the North/South Tipperary thing?
Quote from: ziggysego on May 17, 2011, 09:03:47 PM
Ireland's next potential President would like to see us join the Commonwealth.
Hope there'll be a vote then
Quote from: Go home ref on May 17, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
It's absolutely disgusting to be honest why don't they jsut rejoin the commonwealth and be done with it? Why do so many Irish people have such a slavish mentality? I'm convinced you would never find this slavish mentality in any other country.
I think it's quite clear to most of us just who is displaying the slavish mentality.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 17, 2011, 09:03:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 17, 2011, 08:53:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
Even as a joke, what utter tripe to suggest.
Ireland's next potential President would like to see us join the Commonwealth.
How
common is this
wealth exactly?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 17, 2011, 09:24:46 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 17, 2011, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2011, 05:58:15 PM
Saw a good photo on the BBC, one of the anti-British protesters being pushed back was wearing a Man U jersey! ;D
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52796000/jpg/_52796965_hi012000615.jpg)
Just noticed in the top right of the photo - is it me or is that Neil Lennon having put on some weight in the grey hoodie?
Yer man came prepared for the hang sangwiches.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 17, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 17, 2011, 09:24:46 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 17, 2011, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2011, 05:58:15 PM
Saw a good photo on the BBC, one of the anti-British protesters being pushed back was wearing a Man U jersey! ;D
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52796000/jpg/_52796965_hi012000615.jpg)
Just noticed in the top right of the photo - is it me or is that Neil Lennon having put on some weight in the grey hoodie?
Yer man came prepared for the hang sangwiches.
1. Ham sangweeches? - Perhaps he was on his way to Croke Park for a game with a half-time snack and was caught up in the melee?
2. The guy in the Man Utd top - perhaps he was showing how oppressed Irish people are by all things English? Subtle I'd say.
3. All a bit toothless - seems to be more journos than 'protesters' ...
4. Are we sure that this was not an audition for extras in Commitments II?
5. All we need is a GINGER girl to ride a long-haired pony through this on bareback....
The Six one news was very interesting. The official meme was a bit on the blunt side.
But at least they had claire with the sports news.
Quote from: Minder on May 17, 2011, 08:28:29 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on May 17, 2011, 08:13:17 PM
(http://photos4.media.pix.ie/A0/0E/A00EA7C44491422382F13B5A0BE73C00-0000316428-0002323582-00500L-C3163C5B6F7E48BDA6F799C678BD702D.jpg)
That nose has seen a bit of coke.
Is he trying to tell us that he is from the Ivory Coast?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 17, 2011, 11:05:49 PM
http://www.twitvid.com/U1P8F
couldn't watch all of that. Born in Ireland but spiritually and culturally foreign.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tommy-mckearney-this-comes-too-soon-for-the-disenchanted-2285576.html
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The Garden of Remembrance supposedly commemorates all those who fought for a 32 County Independent Republic. That has yet to be achieved. Hence having the British Head of State laying a wreath an having the British National Anthem played there is simply hypocritical.
It started off as a 26 county republic and then they added Fingal and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown so on current trends it should be at 32 by 2040.
By which time, due to popular demand, yis will all be in the commonwealth
No we don't and won't Nally Stand, stop projecting.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 04:15:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 17, 2011, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
Not to mention your favourite Political Party taking the Queen's Shilling for running the North. ;)
Während Sie Deutsch Schillinge natürlich
A loan to support your U.K. banks perhaps ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 17, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
Quote from: thejuice on May 17, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
The comments page on RTE.ie is embarrassing.
"Finally we will be seen as a civilised respectable nation" ::)
I know.
Yiz have a loooooooooooooog way to go before reaching that stage... ;)
(http://mediaelites.com/files/2010/03/Drunk_Leprechaun-300x208.jpg)
I would have thought a proud Irishman like yourself would not resort to that type of depiction. That isn't even a misrepresentaion of the Republic, Nationalism or Republicanism but all Irish people including yourself.
Maybe I'm being a little sensitive, but did anyone notice the British anthem being played at the garden? Could that be taken as an insult to the men there remembered? Why did the Irish government allow it?
Quote from: carnaross on May 18, 2011, 07:43:04 AM
Maybe I'm being a little sensitive, but did anyone notice the British anthem being played at the garden? Could that be taken as an insult to the men there remembered? Why did the Irish government allow it?
Maybe.
Two things Nordies have learned from the Royal visit
1. Seamus McKee is a dose
2. Paul "Columbo" Clarke is a complete oddball
In fairness, she seems to be a lovely accomodating lady.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/5/17/1305649941175/Queen-Elizabeth-II-State--007.jpg)
Letter in today's Times: :D
Two conversations overheard in Dublin today (Tuesday). On the Luas, Spanish visitor remarking on the huge number of gardaí in O'Connell Street: "Police, police?" Dubliner helpfully says: "It's de Queen here today". "No understand," says the Spaniard, "no speak English". "It's de Queeno here today," explains the Dubliner in his best Spanish.
On the Dart, lady complaining about the traffic restrictions: "I have lost two hours' work today because of the Queen". Dubliner quick as a flash says: "Why don't you send the Queen an invoice?" Typical Dublin. – Yours etc.
Quote from: AQMP on May 18, 2011, 09:11:23 AM
Two things Nordies have learned from the Royal visit
1. Seamus McKee is a dose
2. Paul "Columbo" Clarke is a complete oddball
That was obvious long time ago.
For a man nearing 90 that Prince Philip is looking well. Oh and I am aware that he hasn't worked a day in his life.
She was fairly close to making a spectacle of herself getting out of the Range Rover at the Aras yesterday, I wonder did she have any nervous second thoughts as the military inspection was being lined up...
Quote from: carnaross on May 18, 2011, 07:43:04 AM
Maybe I'm being a little sensitive, but did anyone notice the British anthem being played at the garden? Could that be taken as an insult to the men there remembered? Why did the Irish government allow it?
As mentioned earlier, the men and women for whom that garden was built to remember, died for a 32 county republic. To quote James Connolly-Heron, that dream has not yet been realised. So to have her in there laying a wreath with the british national anthem playing is, in my eyes, hypocritical and an insult to our patriots.
I actually took it another way. Those men died for a 32 county republic, and a 32 county republic will be achieved someday, as soon as the majority of people in both jurisdictions on this island want it.
I think that in itself is a huge step forward compared to what those men fought against.
For now, I believe that the british monarch visiting, and being respectful, at a monument to those who fought so hard and so desperately against her predecessors' forces on this island, is a hugely significant gesture, and shows to the world that britain acknowledges the legitimacy of the nation of Ireland to have fought for it's freedom, and indeed to be free.
When both parts of the island are ready to reunite, I don't think Britain will stand in it's way, and I think the gesture yesterday affirms that which is basically agreed in the GFA.
Well as I say, I regard it as an insult and know a number of family members of people who died fighting for Irish Freedom who feel totally alienated by what happened. What sickens me most is thos bullshit line that it is the final piece of the jigsaw. The jigsaw is not complete.
This visit is one of series of things where someone had the courage to go ahead even though there is unfinished business. The entire Stormont project at present is one such example, why should nationalists assist in their own occupation? They do so because, on balance, it is advanced unity in this country. I think, on balance, this visit advances unity in this country.
And taking a GAA perspective, if Queen Liz can visit Casement aerodrome, why can anyone in NI from the unionist tradition not visit Casement stadium?
Get over it Nally .
If some oul woman wants to lay a wreath at the memorial to our patriot dead I for one have no problem with it.
It was more respectful than what those arseholes who were protesting were at.
One way or t'other I have no intention of losing any sleep over it.
If you take all the media bullshite out of it, and the mature nation stuff, and the end of the line stuff, what have you left.
You have the titular head of a nation, which has caused huge amounts of pain and suffering in this country, visiting the free part of the island as an invited guest, an equal. And you have her, in a hugely significant moment, paying tribute to those who resisted british rule in ALL of Ireland.
I think those of a republican viewpoint should be encouraged by this as it simply reinforces the notion that 'some day' it will happen, and Britain will not necessarily be averse to it. Of course I could be reading way too much into it, but I think this visit is far more significant and worthy of attention than the rameis that went on about the Royal wedding.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 18, 2011, 10:27:39 AM
I actually took it another way. Those men died for a 32 county republic, and a 32 county republic will be achieved someday, as soon as the majority of people in both jurisdictions on this island want it.
I think that in itself is a huge step forward compared to what those men fought against.
For now, I believe that the british monarch visiting, and being respectful, at a monument to those who fought so hard and so desperately against her predecessors' forces on this island, is a hugely significant gesture, and shows to the world that britain acknowledges the legitimacy of the nation of Ireland to have fought for it's freedom, and indeed to be free.
When both parts of the island are ready to reunite, I don't think Britain will stand in it's way, and I think the gesture yesterday affirms that which is basically agreed in the GFA.
I agree fully with you. AZ and I'm being in no way disrespectful towards the memory of those whom the garden commemorates. It is obvious that the Queen has come on bridge building mission.
Her arrival on the anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings along with her visits to the Garden and to Croke Park is an indication of this. This being so, I think we should wait to hear her out before making any judgements.
Now, there is another matter to consider; when we speak of a united Ireland, it is well to keep in mind that not all the people of the island wish see this come about.
All of them are not from the Unionist side of the fence either.
I would safely say that, for everyone living Irish person who wants to see a United Ireland, there is at least one other who doesn't give a damn or who would actively oppose it.
That is the stark reality; I have no hang ups at all about the Garden or what stands for but there are many who have.
We will never have any form of a United Ireland until all parties concerned come to a mutual understanding will respect all traditions.
I think the Queen started the process yesterday.
Not sure were to post this but it made me laugh - from RTE tracker on visit of the Queen:
1054 One of the top stallions at the National Stud in Kildare was killed in an accident yesterday, just two days before the visit there by Queen Elizabeth.
17-year-old Verglas, who was with the stud since 2005, was one of the top ten Irish-based sires of 2010.
The Chief Executive of the National Stud, John Osborne said the horse died following a tragic accident during the normal course of business yesterday afternoon.
Kinky sex games gone wrong in the stud world?
Quote from: Bingo on May 18, 2011, 11:17:04 AM
Not sure were to post this but it made me laugh - from RTE tracker on visit of the Queen:
1054 One of the top stallions at the National Stud in Kildare was killed in an accident yesterday, just two days before the visit there by Queen Elizabeth.
17-year-old Verglas, who was with the stud since 2005, was one of the top ten Irish-based sires of 2010.
The Chief Executive of the National Stud, John Osborne said the horse died following a tragic accident during the normal course of business yesterday afternoon.
Kinky sex games gone wrong in the stud world?
Sad...but what a way to go!
Quote from: AQMP on May 18, 2011, 11:28:48 AM
Quote from: Bingo on May 18, 2011, 11:17:04 AM
Not sure were to post this but it made me laugh - from RTE tracker on visit of the Queen:
1054 One of the top stallions at the National Stud in Kildare was killed in an accident yesterday, just two days before the visit there by Queen Elizabeth.
17-year-old Verglas, who was with the stud since 2005, was one of the top ten Irish-based sires of 2010.
The Chief Executive of the National Stud, John Osborne said the horse died following a tragic accident during the normal course of business yesterday afternoon.
Kinky sex games gone wrong in the stud world?
Sad...but what a way to go!
To borrow a Richard Pryor joke - He came and went at the same time!!
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 18, 2011, 10:27:39 AM
I actually took it another way. Those men died for a 32 county republic, and a 32 county republic will be achieved someday, as soon as the majority of people in both jurisdictions on this island want it.
I think that in itself is a huge step forward compared to what those men fought against.
For now, I believe that the british monarch visiting, and being respectful, at a monument to those who fought so hard and so desperately against her predecessors' forces on this island, is a hugely significant gesture, and shows to the world that britain acknowledges the legitimacy of the nation of Ireland to have fought for it's freedom, and indeed to be free.
When both parts of the island are ready to reunite, I don't think Britain will stand in it's way, and I think the gesture yesterday affirms that which is basically agreed in the GFA.
Well said AZ and I agree entirely. When I read about GSTQ being played at the Garden yesterday and before I was uneasy about it. When I saw it last night on TV and the way the whole ceremony was conducted I came away with the same viewpoint as yourself. Nothing in these events happens spontaneously and I thought the very deliberate, respectful and humble bow by the Queen of England to our dead patriots was actually quite moving. There was no insult, quite the opposite in my view.
Spot on lads. Bad news only for those who will search obsessively for the negative in every situation. I can't think of a more powerful symbol than the previously unimaginable image of the British queen bowing her head in tribute to Pearse, Connolly, MacSwiney etc.
If it makes "republicans" feel better, I suggest they look at it as a capitulation - the leader of the defeated side being paraded in the capital of the victors in the Roman tradition. There's something in it for everybody.
I think the whole thing is a distraction from the real work the recently elected government should be doing. There is a huge expense involved security wise. There is considerable cost to businesses with closed streets and diversions etc. As a self employed person holding on financially by my fingernails i resent this. I dont for a moment believe we will get the return in tourist revenue that's been randomnly thrown out by the media.
I think the whole concept of royalty is a joke. The coverage of the royal wedding and the ensuing love in from over hee was an insult to the intelligence of our nation. Not to mention to the people in Ireland and England who are losing or will nevr own their own homes due a global economic recession. People have their priorities up their holes.
Of course this visit and the sensitive handling of it from both sides is most welcome and does help the healing. The queen herself seems to have been doing her bit in this regard. The scum that were on the street throwing stones and lighting wheelie bins are just that... scum. But I dont think this trip was needed right now. It will make little difference in the greater scheme of things re NI etc and it certainly wont help in any way to tackle the most important problems facing this country.
The same goes for Obama. I like him and respect him more because he is a democratically elected leader of his country and all that etc... but we will have most of our cops on stand by again... most of the country on shut down... politicians jumping in front of cameras trying to be pictured beside him when he sups a pint of guinness. Once again no real work done. Once again will it really mean american tourists watching whatever coverage it gets on US tv will be infleunced in to deciding to come here on holidays? Would the yanks that come here in the next year not be coming here anyway?
Then next week there will be this smug self satisfied coverage in our media about how much the world loves us (aka Jedward "capturing the hearts of europe last week"). But the world wont give a shit and wont even be looking. But we'll still have the bail out loans... NAMA.... bad banks... high unemployment/emigration.
when i heard that the Queen was coming to visit i had mixed emotions on the issue and in many ways i was thinking what AZ was saying but at the same time asking myself is this too soon for such a visit. I sort of came round to the idea that it was being done to improve relations between the two nations and although not ideal i was willing to bite my lip. However watching the visit yesterday i must say i was appalled that ' God save the queen' was played at the garden of remembrance. I have no doubt this was a political move instigated by the Irish government to provoke a reaction from Sinn Fein and to try and quell their increasing support. To date SF have remained tight lipped on the matter. I have now changed my opinion of the visit and think the whole thing is being used for political gains and the greater political process in the North has taken a back seat. I see it as a kick in the teeth to SF who IMO are under the most pressure over this visit, they are literally caught between a rock and a hard place.
On the issue of the protesters, i acknowledge that there are elements that would'nt;t know their ass from their elbow and are intent on violence. But there are sections there protesting that have legitimate reasons for doing so. These issue are clearly close tho their hearts and the divisiveness of this visit has reopened old wounds. If my grandfather or family members would have been lying in the garden of remembrance i wouldn't have wanted the national anthem of the nation playing over them that was responsible for their death. This was an insult and should not have happened. The laying of the wreath as a mark of respect was acceptable this should have been followed by a few poems, and the Irish anthem.
On another note the cost of the security was a complete joke in a nation that is clearly in the worst financial disaster it has ever been. has they can justify this to voters in beyond me. PS what was the crowds like actually supporting the visit? From what i could see they weren't too high.
QuotePeople have their priorities up their holes
+10000
Quote from: winsamsoon on May 18, 2011, 11:57:52 AMHowever watching the visit yesterday i must say i was appalled that ' God save the queen' was played at the garden of remembrance. I have no doubt this was a political move instigated by the Irish government to provoke a reaction from Sinn Fein and to try and quell their increasing support. To date SF have remained tight lipped on the matter. I have now changed my opinion of the visit and think the whole thing is being used for political gains and the greater political process in the North has taken a back seat. I see it as a kick in the teeth to SF who IMO are under the most pressure over this visit, they are literally caught between a rock and a hard place.
Yes - it's all about SF
Obama took out OBL just to stick it to SF. Ireland hammered England in the cricket as a homage to SF. The British queen is here just to piss off SF.
::)
There's a dacent hoult on Mrs Kenny!
Quote from: winsamsoon on May 18, 2011, 11:57:52 AM
when i heard that the Queen was coming to visit i had mixed emotions on the issue and in many ways i was thinking what AZ was saying but at the same time asking myself is this too soon for such a visit. I sort of came round to the idea that it was being done to improve relations between the two nations and although not ideal i was willing to bite my lip. However watching the visit yesterday i must say i was appalled that ' God save the queen' was played at the garden of remembrance. I have no doubt this was a political move instigated by the Irish government to provoke a reaction from Sinn Fein and to try and quell their increasing support. To date SF have remained tight lipped on the matter. I have now changed my opinion of the visit and think the whole thing is being used for political gains and the greater political process in the North has taken a back seat. I see it as a kick in the teeth to SF who IMO are under the most pressure over this visit, they are literally caught between a rock and a hard place.
On the issue of the protesters, i acknowledge that there are elements that would'nt;t know their ass from their elbow and are intent on violence. But there are sections there protesting that have legitimate reasons for doing so. These issue are clearly close tho their hearts and the divisiveness of this visit has reopened old wounds. If my grandfather or family members would have been lying in the garden of remembrance i wouldn't have wanted the national anthem of the nation playing over them that was responsible for their death. This was an insult and should not have happened. The laying of the wreath as a mark of respect was acceptable this should have been followed by a few poems, and the Irish anthem.
On another note the cost of the security was a complete joke in a nation that is clearly in the worst financial disaster it has ever been. has they can justify this to voters in beyond me. PS what was the crowds like actually supporting the visit? From what i could see they weren't too high.
::) ::) You think the FG/Lab govt arranged the playing of GSTQ to have a dig at SF??
Delusions of importance there I'm afraid. I'm sure they had enough to be concerned about with this visit, without trying to score points against the 4th most popular party in the state.
I have to say I don't think this visit is about SF. Sure SF were put in a difficult position by the visit but I think they'd played it pretty well so far. Personally I'm largely indifferent to the visit. I do think the media have blown the importance of the visit out of proportion a bit. Paul Clarke of UTV will not make the weekend before spontaneously combusting in a ball of deference and fawning. Not often that I agree with Kevin Myers and Malachi O'Doherty but their analysis on Radio Ulster yesterday was spot on. Since the late 80s Britain and Ireland have had a fairly cordial relationship at a governmental level. Both governments played a central role in the negotiation of the GFA. Sure, I found GSTQ yesterday a little uncomfortable...but only for a minute and taken in the round with the recitation of An Aisling and the playing of the National Anthem it was moving. What will be the hardest part of the visit to stomach for me, will not even be the visit to Croke Pk, but having had relatives involved in both world wars (one of whom, a Nationalist, died) it will be the presence of UDA terrorists at Island Bridge. But once I've shouted at the telly a few times tonight over a glass of red I'll get over that too.
Actually I get the feeling from speaking to some Northern Unionists that they don't know quite how to react to the visit either (once again what we have in common is greater than what divides us? :P) One woman I spoke to this morning said she found the Garden of Remembrance uncomfortable because she had been brought up to believe that Pearse et al were terrorists.
Quote from: AQMP on May 18, 2011, 12:35:31 PM
I have to say I don't think this visit is about SF. Sure SF were put in a difficult position by the visit but I think they'd played it pretty well so far. Personally I'm largely indifferent to the visit. I do think the media have blown the importance of the visit out of proportion a bit. Paul Clarke of UTV will not make the weekend before spontaneously combusting in a ball of deference and fawning. Not often that I agree with Kevin Myers and Malachi O'Doherty but their analysis on Radio Ulster yesterday was spot on. Since the late 80s Britain and Ireland have had a fairly cordial relationship at a governmental level. Both governments played a central role in the negotiation of the GFA. Sure, I found GSTQ yesterday a little uncomfortable...but only for a minute and taken in the round with the recitation of An Aisling and the playing of the National Anthem it was moving. What will be the hardest part of the visit to stomach for me, will not even be the visit to Croke Pk, but having had relatives involved in both world wars (one of whom, a Nationalist, died) it will be the presence of UDA terrorists at Island Bridge. But once I've shouted at the telly a few times tonight over a glass of red I'll get over that too.
Actually I get the feeling from speaking to some Northern Unionists that they don't know quite how to react to the visit either (once again what we have in common is greater than what divides us? :P) One woman I spoke to this morning said she found the Garden of Remembrance uncomfortable because she had been brought up to believe that Pearse et al were terrorists.
I can imagine that must be very confusing alright. Suddenly the monarch of the UK is paying homage to these people, in the same way she would have paid homage to George Washington et al.
I hope she's looking forward to the highlight of the week this afternoon when she gets to meet Joe Sheridan.
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 12:55:49 PM
I hope she's looking forward to the highlight of the week this afternoon when she gets to meet Joe Sheridan.
Queen: "So Joe, I believe one is allowed to throw the ball into the net, is that right?"
"Only us Royals, Mrs."
I have felt ill at ease about the visit, and particularly the tour of CP, for many reasons. One of the main reasons is I am anti Royalist and anti-Privilege at heart and I don't agree with the whole concept. I feel that given the money they have at their disposal they should have contributed handsomely to the cost of it. Maybe they did but that is not my main issue with it.
As Nally Stand said above this is being viewed as the Final Piece of the Jigsaw, that it is the end of the Peace Process as such. It was said a number of times on UTV live by Ken Reid and a few others. The thing is I see it simply as the first piece of the jigsaw. I believe we are in end game times and that we are moving towards the final withdrawal of the British Government from the North. We are in a very important decade in terms of anniversaries and also in terms of what is going to happen to the North. I know the usual arguments will be run out that there will only be withdrawal with full consent and that is a fair point to make under the current situation. The thing is though that sometimes things change. There are an awful lot of Republicans who agree with Peace but don't agree with the Peace Process. They are men and woman who fought and did time, and some of them did a lot of time, to re-unifiy this island. I have spoken to a few and been at talks by one or two and they feel "lost" for want of a better word. They ask the question what have we been doing for the last 30 years of our life if we are no further on. They have every right to feel like that as some look at the leadership of main stream Republicanism who haven't had a fraction of the disruption to their lives now wining and dining with the best while they struggle to get by in life. There are the same types of characters in the loyalist side of things too. These people do not necessarily want to lift a gun(some have done obviously) but they are asking the questions which no one seems to answer.
I have set this narrative up to put in in the context of the Queen's visit. There has to be movement to satisfy people that their battles were not in vain. I believe that the visit of the Queen and her bowing her head to acknowledge the graves of the "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" whatever your viewpoint is a major concession by the British Government. She may be an old dear in a funny hat but she is still the Titular head of the Government and the single unifying factor that British people have. Governments come and go but the Royal family will always be there for the British and the majority do have great grá for them as the recent Wedding showed. By British too I specifically refer to Ulster British who probably love them more than there English, Scottish, Welsh or Jackeen counterparts( :P). By having her in Dublin and visiting two of the most striking symbols of Irish republicanism and Irish culture, and being accepted there by the vast majority, then the Unionists can see the country as a whole has moved on. This will pave the way, in my view, for more cross border co-operation in terms of economies, schooling and Health care and before you know it there will be a de facto re-unification without any votes or referendums. Consensus by working together. This will appease the more hardline Republicans in the long term but the short term reality may not be seen.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 18, 2011, 10:27:39 AM
I actually took it another way. Those men died for a 32 county republic, and a 32 county republic will be achieved someday, as soon as the majority of people in both jurisdictions on this island want it.
I think that in itself is a huge step forward compared to what those men fought against.
For now, I believe that the british monarch visiting, and being respectful, at a monument to those who fought so hard and so desperately against her predecessors' forces on this island, is a hugely significant gesture, and shows to the world that britain acknowledges the legitimacy of the nation of Ireland to have fought for it's freedom, and indeed to be free.
When both parts of the island are ready to reunite, I don't think Britain will stand in it's way, and I think the gesture yesterday affirms that which is basically agreed in the GFA.
But this is the thing, those who fought for freedom were not just fighting against her predecessors forces, but against her forces too. And you state that britain acknowledges Ireland's right to have fought for its freedom but somehow I doubt if that includes people who fought for that same ideal in the most recent century of occupation. I am all for improving relations with britain, but not at the cost of a visit which will alienate the families of so many of our patriot dead and not using methods which will be so divisive amd insulting to a large portion of the people. There is a time and a place for improving relations and having the british anthem played in a memorial garden for those who died fighting for something yet to be achieved is wrong. Once Ireland is united, I'd gladly go to the garden with her but not one minute before hand. And I am pro GFA, however that does not mean I regard Irish independence as a done deal. The GFA to me is simply a stepping stone towards the day when, in a united independent Ireland, the british monarchs can come and go as they please, unimpeded.
P.s. I appreciate your discussing it in a reasonable manner AZ, rather than have the attitude of rossfan, who in place of debate, resorts to arrogant, condescending put-downs ::)
Quote from: Tubberman on May 18, 2011, 12:12:10 PM
Quote from: winsamsoon on May 18, 2011, 11:57:52 AM
when i heard that the Queen was coming to visit i had mixed emotions on the issue and in many ways i was thinking what AZ was saying but at the same time asking myself is this too soon for such a visit. I sort of came round to the idea that it was being done to improve relations between the two nations and although not ideal i was willing to bite my lip. However watching the visit yesterday i must say i was appalled that ' God save the queen' was played at the garden of remembrance. I have no doubt this was a political move instigated by the Irish government to provoke a reaction from Sinn Fein and to try and quell their increasing support. To date SF have remained tight lipped on the matter. I have now changed my opinion of the visit and think the whole thing is being used for political gains and the greater political process in the North has taken a back seat. I see it as a kick in the teeth to SF who IMO are under the most pressure over this visit, they are literally caught between a rock and a hard place.
On the issue of the protesters, i acknowledge that there are elements that would'nt;t know their ass from their elbow and are intent on violence. But there are sections there protesting that have legitimate reasons for doing so. These issue are clearly close tho their hearts and the divisiveness of this visit has reopened old wounds. If my grandfather or family members would have been lying in the garden of remembrance i wouldn't have wanted the national anthem of the nation playing over them that was responsible for their death. This was an insult and should not have happened. The laying of the wreath as a mark of respect was acceptable this should have been followed by a few poems, and the Irish anthem.
On another note the cost of the security was a complete joke in a nation that is clearly in the worst financial disaster it has ever been. has they can justify this to voters in beyond me. PS what was the crowds like actually supporting the visit? From what i could see they weren't too high.
::) ::) You think the FG/Lab govt arranged the playing of GSTQ to have a dig at SF??
Delusions of importance there I'm afraid. I'm sure they had enough to be concerned about with this visit, without trying to score points against the 4th most popular party in the state.
Damn those FF'rs sure it was those lads who invited her ;D
Well I just saw the shameless Bertie Ahern being interviewed on Sky News at lunchtime about the visit to Croke Park. Nearly fucked my cup of coffee at the TV - plenty of bemused looks when I let a roar at TV in the foyer of the building >:( >:(
Quote from: Declan on May 18, 2011, 01:39:09 PM
Well I just saw the shameless Bertie Ahern being interviewed on Sky News at lunchtime about the visit to Croke Park. Nearly fucked my cup of coffee at the TV - plenty of bemused looks when I let a roar at TV in the foyer of the building >:( >:(
Watched that the Queen and us, have a real dislike of Royalty, but looked at it in the same way I read what Páidi Ó Sé has to say. Two things that annoyed me most was that Irish restauranter living in London a Brit/Queen loving sycophant and that Bertie traitor Ahern. Thought the people on it tended to be too much Brit-loving lick arses or Brit-hating arseholes, I would of thought most Irish fitted somewhere in between. The London GAA team lads seemed to have the right balance and maybe the Priest in Windsor.
This whole thing is a bit uncomfortable and can easily be seen as premature. However in a row it sometimes isn't wise to hold out for complete vindication, even if you have the moral high ground.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 01:18:06 PM
a visit which will alienate the families of so many of our patriot dead and not using methods which will be so divisive amd insulting to a large portion of the people. ::)
A large portion of the people were alienated and insulted by the methods used by those who were fighting British forces , plus Gardai plus Irish forces plus Irish civilians between 1970 and 1994.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 01:18:06 PM
a visit which will alienate the families of so many of our patriot dead and not using methods which will be so divisive amd insulting to a large portion of the people. ::)
A large portion of the people were alienated and insulted by the methods used by those who were fighting British forces , plus Gardai plus Irish forces plus Irish civilians between 1970 and 1994.
But that was not the case pre-1970 then no? ::)
IRA fighting your your county's freedom = goodies
&
IRA fighting for my county's freedom = baddies
Gotcha
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 01:18:06 PMAnd I am pro GFA, however that does not mean I regard Irish independence as a done deal. The GFA to me is simply a stepping stone towards the day when, in a united independent Ireland, the british monarchs can come and go as they please, unimpeded.
I think this is the very core of the whole debate on the current status of relations, North-South and East-West.
I take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it. In my view, that normalises relations between all interests here and in Britain. I can't think of a more suitable arrangement and the huge majority of us in the 32 counties agree. Therefore, I don't understand the basis on which people propose a ban on normal contacts between the two states as they pertain between any other two states.
My questions to those who see it otherwise are:
1. Are you proposing alternative terms?
2. If so, what are they?
3. In the meantime, are the 84.8% of us who voted for the present terms to be subjected to a veto on all details of our relations with the UK by those who disagree?
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 02:23:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 01:18:06 PMAnd I am pro GFA, however that does not mean I regard Irish independence as a done deal. The GFA to me is simply a stepping stone towards the day when, in a united independent Ireland, the british monarchs can come and go as they please, unimpeded.
I think this is the very core of the whole debate on the current status of relations, North-South and East-West.
I take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it. In my view, that normalises relations between all interests here and in Britain. I can't think of a more suitable arrangement and the huge majority of us in the 32 counties agree. Therefore, I don't understand the basis on which people propose a ban on normal contacts between the two states as they pertain between any other two states.
My questions to those who see it otherwise are:
1. Are you proposing alternative terms?
2. If so, what are they?
3. In the meantime, are the 84.8% of us who voted for the present terms to be subjected to a veto on all details of our relations with the UK by those who disagree?
No Hardy, Irish Independence is NOT a done deal and it is wholly insulting to say that it is and I would be hugely surprised if you held that view had you grown up in Tyrone. I say that as a whole-hearted supporter of the GFA. The GFA structures
which are a stepping stone to Irish Independence are a done deal.
That's great, NS, but it's just a statement with no supporting argument. I'm not interested in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Can you elaborate and, if you like, answer the questions?
And please stop with the ould shite about insults. If such a mildly expressed argument insults you, I don't care.
And, further, can you stop trying to claim an advantage of logic based on your address, now or when you were a child?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 02:22:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 01:18:06 PM
a visit which will alienate the families of so many of our patriot dead and not using methods which will be so divisive amd insulting to a large portion of the people. ::)
A large portion of the people were alienated and insulted by the methods used by those who were fighting British forces , plus Gardai plus Irish forces plus Irish civilians between 1970 and 1994.
But that was not the case pre-1970 then no? ::)
It was ... apart from the 1918 to 1921 period.
The IRA of the 1940s alienated and disgusted just about everyone in Ireland.
The Irish people through the GFA are now in control of their own destiny in accordance with the terms of that agreement ( the bit where the 6 Cos/ 26 Cos get to decide separately if they want an All Ireland political entity) that we voted overwhelmingly for.
Going by your earlier logic if we agree in future to have some sort of All Ireland Federation with some links between the 6 Cos and GB , you still wouldnt want the British monarch visiting the 26 Counties as we wouldnt have a 32 county Republic of the type you say Connolly , Pearse etc wanted.
We'll never have the type of one those lads wanted because we won't be allowed to set up an early 20th Century Socialist State and none of ye hoors will speak Irirsh to give us the ideal Ireland Mac Piarais wanted.
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 02:34:22 PM
That's great, NS, but it's just a statement with no supporting argument. I'm not interested in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Can you elaborate and, if you like, answer the questions?
And please stop with the ould shite about insults. If such a mildly expressed argument insults you, I don't care.
No supporting argument? To back up my claim that Irish Independence has not been achieved yet? Does it really need one? Look at a map, and you will see six north eastern counties which are divided from the rest of the Island.
Your own quote contradicts yourself:
QuoteI take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it
If Irish Independence is already a reality, then what is the
"it" you refer to twice as being
available when...??
We have
the ability to vote for Irish Unity, but that ability is not Irish Independence Hardy. Rather, it is a hard earned method of achieving Independence. It's like saying that Ireland was Independent in 1916 because we had
the ability to take up arms for Independence. As I say, if you were a republican who grew up and lived in Tyrone, you would probably not take too kindly to being told by a Meath man that Irish Independence has been achieved.
As for your questions:
1&2: I don't look at it in a partitionist way. The British Queen has been to Ireland many times in her lifetime, and I'm well used to that. If that improves relations, then fine and well, but laying a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance and playing the British National Anthem there? Too divisive and in my view, and in the views of certain patriot dead family members whom I've both spoken to and read comments from, an unnecessary insult. British and Irish relations have room for improvement, but rather than divisive and hypocritical actions like yesterdays, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? Maybe then I would be more inclined to buy into the idea that visits like this will normalise relations.
3: I support the GFA. It doesn't state that to improve Irish-British relations, that the British Queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance and that no other methods shall be considered.
At this stage Eilis II coming over is about business innit.
She's a long way from Eilis I. Matriarch of a sad dysfunctional family as well.
There was one thing I really noticed about Dublin yesterday. The poverty around the north inner city is as bad under Irish republicanism as it ever was.
QuoteThe poverty around the north inner city is as bad under Irish republicanism as it ever was.
It sure is but sure they don't count as they are all junkies and spongers - Well according to official Ireland anyway
Fergal Keane on BBC News 24 telling everyone the GAA emerged from 19th Century faction fighting. Twat
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 02:34:22 PM
That's great, NS, but it's just a statement with no supporting argument. I'm not interested in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Can you elaborate and, if you like, answer the questions?
And please stop with the ould shite about insults. If such a mildly expressed argument insults you, I don't care.
No supporting argument? To back up my claim that Irish Independence has not been achieved yet? Does it really need one? Look at a map, and you will see six north eastern counties which are divided from the rest of the Island.
Your own quote contradicts yourself:
QuoteI take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it
If Irish Independence is already a reality, then what is the "it" you refer to twice as being available when...??
We have the ability to vote for Irish Unity, but that ability is not Irish Independence Hardy. Rather, it is a hard earned method of achieving Independence. It's like saying that Ireland was Independent in 1916 because we had the ability to take up arms for Independence. As I say, if you were a republican who grew up and lived in Tyrone, you would probably not take too kindly to being told by a Meath man that Irish Independence has been achieved.
As for your questions:
1&2: I don't look at it in a partitionist way. The British Queen has been to Ireland many times in her lifetime, and I'm well used to that. If that improves relations, then fine and well, but laying a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance and playing the British National Anthem there? Too divisive and in my view, and in the views of certain patriot dead family members whom I've both spoken to and read comments from, an unnecessary insult. British and Irish relations have room for improvement, but rather than divisive and hypocritical actions like yesterdays, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? Maybe then I would be more inclined to buy into the idea that visits like this will normalise relations.
3: I support the GFA. It doesn't state that to improve Irish-British relations, that the British Queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance and that no other methods shall be considered.
Excellent, NS, but I'm none the wiser as to your alternative to the GFA as a model of how we should proceed in our relations with the UK. If you don't accept that the GFA delivers Irish unity on acceptable terms, you can't really get away with dodging the issue of what your alternative terms are. Are you really suggesting that we cannot pursue normal diplomatic relations with the UK UNTIL a United Ireland (which version?) is actually set up. Even if that doesn't happen for another 50 years? 100? 2000? That seems to me to be the logic of your position.
What, exactly, is to be gained by a Paisleyite "never, never, never" stance? Even Paisley eventually relented. For him, the trigger was the opportunity to get his spawgs under the table of power. What would be your trigger?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
It was ... apart from the 1918 to 1921 period.
So the only times the IRA weren't gangsters were when they won your freedom?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
The Irish people through the GFA are now in control of their own destiny in accordance with the terms of that agreement ( the bit where the 6 Cos/ 26 Cos get to decide separately if they want an All Ireland political entity) that we voted overwhelmingly for.
See my response to Hardy re. Independence
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
Going by your earlier logic if we agree in future to have some sort of All Ireland Federation with some links between the 6 Cos and GB , you still wouldnt want the British monarch visiting the 26 Counties as we wouldnt have a 32 county Republic of the type you say Connolly , Pearse etc wanted. We'll never have the type of one those lads wanted because we won't be allowed to set up an early 20th Century Socialist State and none of ye hoors will speak Irirsh to give us the ideal Ireland Mac Piarais wanted.
Where to start. Firstly, I am opposed to any form of partition of Ireland, based on federation or any other such nonsense. (Ironically, you push this idea despite it not being mentioned in the GFA which you also lecture about). Would, in this federations idea, you allow the 26 counties to surrender some of it's power to the UK so that it would have equal ties to the UK as you would picture the six counties to have? If not, then is that not telling me that your right to full Independence from Britain supersedes mine? Secondly, as stated in an earlier post, I'd rather not look at this visit in your partitionist terms - the British Queen has visited Ireland many times, so I'm well used to it. My chief problem lies with yesterdays pathetic showcase event. Finally, you mention "a 32 county Republic of the type
you say Connolly , Pearse etc wanted." Where did I say this?
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 02:34:22 PM
That's great, NS, but it's just a statement with no supporting argument. I'm not interested in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Can you elaborate and, if you like, answer the questions?
And please stop with the ould shite about insults. If such a mildly expressed argument insults you, I don't care.
No supporting argument? To back up my claim that Irish Independence has not been achieved yet? Does it really need one? Look at a map, and you will see six north eastern counties which are divided from the rest of the Island.
Your own quote contradicts yourself:
QuoteI take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it
If Irish Independence is already a reality, then what is the "it" you refer to twice as being available when...??
We have the ability to vote for Irish Unity, but that ability is not Irish Independence Hardy. Rather, it is a hard earned method of achieving Independence. It's like saying that Ireland was Independent in 1916 because we had the ability to take up arms for Independence. As I say, if you were a republican who grew up and lived in Tyrone, you would probably not take too kindly to being told by a Meath man that Irish Independence has been achieved.
As for your questions:
1&2: I don't look at it in a partitionist way. The British Queen has been to Ireland many times in her lifetime, and I'm well used to that. If that improves relations, then fine and well, but laying a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance and playing the British National Anthem there? Too divisive and in my view, and in the views of certain patriot dead family members whom I've both spoken to and read comments from, an unnecessary insult. British and Irish relations have room for improvement, but rather than divisive and hypocritical actions like yesterdays, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? Maybe then I would be more inclined to buy into the idea that visits like this will normalise relations.
3: I support the GFA. It doesn't state that to improve Irish-British relations, that the British Queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance and that no other methods shall be considered.
Excellent, NS, but I'm none the wiser as to your alternative to the GFA as a model of how we should proceed in our relations with the UK. If you don't accept that the GFA delivers Irish unity on acceptable terms, you can't really get away with dodging the issue of what your alternative terms are. Are you really suggesting that we cannot pursue normal diplomatic relations with the UK UNTIL a United Ireland (which version?) is actually set up. Even if that doesn't happen for another 50 years? 100? 2000? That seems to me to be the logic of your position.
What, exactly, is to be gained by a Paisleyite "never, never, never" stance? Even Paisley eventually relented. For him, the trigger was the opportunity to get his spawgs under the table of power. What would be your trigger?
Again, I am pro-agreement so why you continue to talk to me as though I'm not is beyond me. I don't want an alternative to the GFA. That is more or less part and parcel of being pro GFA, wouldn't you think? As mentioned repeatedly by me, at no stage in the GFA does it state that the British queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance in order to improve relations. And again, as I already asked you, and as it seems I also have to repeat, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? If that happened, would the symbolism of her visiting here not be MUCH more powerful? Would that not help
on the road to normalization of the relationship? (A relationship which, in my mind will never be fully normal until partition is in the rubbish bin of history)
Quote from: Declan on May 18, 2011, 03:30:17 PM
QuoteThe poverty around the north inner city is as bad under Irish republicanism as it ever was.
It sure is but sure they don't count as they are all junkies and spongers - Well according to official Ireland anyway
i think that's a bigger failure of the republican project than having GSTQ played, TBH.
Christy's speech at Croker.
Uachtarán na hÉireann, Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Dr. McAleese, Airí Rialtais, Ard-Stiúrthóir, Iar-Uachtaráin agus a cáirde go léir.
Tá fáilte romhaibh go léir go Páirc an Chrócaigh.
Your Majesty, on behalf of the members of the Gaeli...c Athletic Association throughout Ireland and across the world, I am delighted to welcome you to our headquarters at Croke Park.
On 1st November 1884 a small group of visionary Irishmen, profoundly imbued with a spirit of national regeneration, formed our Association. The Gaelic Athletic Association was soon to become the largest organisation in Ireland, sporting or otherwise, and one moreover that, as its founding fathers envisaged, has consistently embodied the mood of the nation, culturally, socially and politically.
The Gaelic Athletic Association is deeply rooted in communities in every corner of Ireland, North and South, and throughout the world – above all in Britain – wherever Irish people have made their homes.
Our ethos is proudly voluntary and amateur, but at the pinnacle our teams and players thrill huge crowds with their skill, courage and commitment. The Gaelic Athletic Association offers unrivalled social and sporting opportunities to boys and girls at all levels of talent. We are proud of this vast modern stadium, built mainly through the efforts of our members, and our newly upgraded Museum conveys an exciting sense of our history but also of our present.
One of those present at the foundation of the Gaelic Athletic Association in 1884 was a man named J.K. Bracken whose son, Brendan went on to be a significant presence in the life of the United Kingdom – as founder of the Financial Times newspaper, one of Winston Churchill's closest friends, and as Minister for Information during the Second World War. This is just one example of the interlinked personal relationships between these islands which have individually and collectively enriched us all in both directions over so many years, and continue to do so today.
We also know that in our shared history there have been many tragic events which have inflicted hurt on us all. While acknowledging the significance of the past and honouring all those that have lost their lives, including those that died in this place, the Gaelic Athletic Association has consistently supported and helped advance the peace process in Northern Ireland.
In particular, we have encouraged the reconciliation and mutual understanding which have so successfully flowed from the Good Friday Agreement and its endorsement in referenda by the people of Ireland, North and South.
Your Majesty's State Visit, at the invitation of President McAleese, will result in a further important underpinning and advancement of this process, which I firmly believe is now irreversible.
I was of course deeply saddened to attend last month, on behalf of the Gaelic Athletic Association, the tragic funeral of our murdered young member from County Tyrone, PSNI Constable Ronan Kerr.
I was also very heartened by the utter and united determination of people and political leaders across the island, and across the whole community, to stand together against violence and hatred.
The Gaelic Athletic Association for its part will continue to try and build new relationships and to reach out in particular to members of the Unionist community.
Today above all, it is in a positive spirit that we welcome your Majesty and Your Royal Highness to Croke Park. Your presence does honour to our Association, to its special place in Irish life, and to its hundreds of thousands of members. Today will go down in the history of the Gaelic Athletic Association.
Míle buíochas – my great appreciation to all.
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 02:34:22 PM
That's great, NS, but it's just a statement with no supporting argument. I'm not interested in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Can you elaborate and, if you like, answer the questions?
And please stop with the ould shite about insults. If such a mildly expressed argument insults you, I don't care.
No supporting argument? To back up my claim that Irish Independence has not been achieved yet? Does it really need one? Look at a map, and you will see six north eastern counties which are divided from the rest of the Island.
Your own quote contradicts yourself:
QuoteI take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it
If Irish Independence is already a reality, then what is the "it" you refer to twice as being available when...??
We have the ability to vote for Irish Unity, but that ability is not Irish Independence Hardy. Rather, it is a hard earned method of achieving Independence. It's like saying that Ireland was Independent in 1916 because we had the ability to take up arms for Independence. As I say, if you were a republican who grew up and lived in Tyrone, you would probably not take too kindly to being told by a Meath man that Irish Independence has been achieved.
As for your questions:
1&2: I don't look at it in a partitionist way. The British Queen has been to Ireland many times in her lifetime, and I'm well used to that. If that improves relations, then fine and well, but laying a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance and playing the British National Anthem there? Too divisive and in my view, and in the views of certain patriot dead family members whom I've both spoken to and read comments from, an unnecessary insult. British and Irish relations have room for improvement, but rather than divisive and hypocritical actions like yesterdays, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? Maybe then I would be more inclined to buy into the idea that visits like this will normalise relations.
3: I support the GFA. It doesn't state that to improve Irish-British relations, that the British Queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance and that no other methods shall be considered.
Excellent, NS, but I'm none the wiser as to your alternative to the GFA as a model of how we should proceed in our relations with the UK. If you don't accept that the GFA delivers Irish unity on acceptable terms, you can't really get away with dodging the issue of what your alternative terms are. Are you really suggesting that we cannot pursue normal diplomatic relations with the UK UNTIL a United Ireland (which version?) is actually set up. Even if that doesn't happen for another 50 years? 100? 2000? That seems to me to be the logic of your position.
What, exactly, is to be gained by a Paisleyite "never, never, never" stance? Even Paisley eventually relented. For him, the trigger was the opportunity to get his spawgs under the table of power. What would be your trigger?
The same.
QuoteExcellent, NS, but I'm none the wiser as to your alternative to the GFA as a model of how we should proceed in our relations with the UK.
The GFA is all very fine, but all it says is that the British will leave quietly. In this day and age of EU, UN etc they could not really do anything else. What is objectionable about British policy is that they are working to keep Ireland divided, and that is not acceptable.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 04:01:30 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 02:34:22 PM
That's great, NS, but it's just a statement with no supporting argument. I'm not interested in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Can you elaborate and, if you like, answer the questions?
And please stop with the ould shite about insults. If such a mildly expressed argument insults you, I don't care.
No supporting argument? To back up my claim that Irish Independence has not been achieved yet? Does it really need one? Look at a map, and you will see six north eastern counties which are divided from the rest of the Island.
Your own quote contradicts yourself:
QuoteI take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it
If Irish Independence is already a reality, then what is the "it" you refer to twice as being available when...??
We have the ability to vote for Irish Unity, but that ability is not Irish Independence Hardy. Rather, it is a hard earned method of achieving Independence. It's like saying that Ireland was Independent in 1916 because we had the ability to take up arms for Independence. As I say, if you were a republican who grew up and lived in Tyrone, you would probably not take too kindly to being told by a Meath man that Irish Independence has been achieved.
As for your questions:
1&2: I don't look at it in a partitionist way. The British Queen has been to Ireland many times in her lifetime, and I'm well used to that. If that improves relations, then fine and well, but laying a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance and playing the British National Anthem there? Too divisive and in my view, and in the views of certain patriot dead family members whom I've both spoken to and read comments from, an unnecessary insult. British and Irish relations have room for improvement, but rather than divisive and hypocritical actions like yesterdays, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? Maybe then I would be more inclined to buy into the idea that visits like this will normalise relations.
3: I support the GFA. It doesn't state that to improve Irish-British relations, that the British Queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance and that no other methods shall be considered.
Excellent, NS, but I'm none the wiser as to your alternative to the GFA as a model of how we should proceed in our relations with the UK. If you don't accept that the GFA delivers Irish unity on acceptable terms, you can't really get away with dodging the issue of what your alternative terms are. Are you really suggesting that we cannot pursue normal diplomatic relations with the UK UNTIL a United Ireland (which version?) is actually set up. Even if that doesn't happen for another 50 years? 100? 2000? That seems to me to be the logic of your position.
What, exactly, is to be gained by a Paisleyite "never, never, never" stance? Even Paisley eventually relented. For him, the trigger was the opportunity to get his spawgs under the table of power. What would be your trigger?
Again, I am pro-agreement so why you continue to talk to me as though I'm not is beyond me. I don't want an alternative to the GFA. That is more or less part and parcel of being pro GFA, wouldn't you think? As mentioned repeatedly by me, at no stage in the GFA does it state that the British queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance in order to improve relations. And again, as I already asked you, and as it seems I also have to repeat, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? If that happened, would the symbolism of her visiting here not be MUCH more powerful? Would that not help on the road to normalization of the relationship? (A relationship which, in my mind will never be fully normal until partition is in the rubbish bin of history)
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. You're pro-GFA, but you don't accept that it normalises British-Irish relations. Therefore, I conclude the GFA is not enough for you. What additional agreements/arrangements/treaties do you want before you stop setting down the conditions for how we should conduct our relations with the UK and specifying which events/locations the British head of state should/shouldn't attend and prescribing the format of any particular ceremonial involving the British head of state?
Is that question clear enough to elicit a clear answer?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 03:53:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
It was ... apart from the 1918 to 1921 period.
So the only times the IRA weren't gangsters were when they won your freedom?
I'm telling you that that was the only time a lot of Irish people didnt look on them as using methods which revolted and alienated the majority of the Irish people both Nationalist and Unionist
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
The Irish people through the GFA are now in control of their own destiny in accordance with the terms of that agreement ( the bit where the 6 Cos/ 26 Cos get to decide separately if they want an All Ireland political entity) that we voted overwhelmingly for.
See my response to Hardy re. Independence
Independence is the right of people to make decisions on their Country's future ... unlike before the GFA when the British govt had a veto over the north's futureQuote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
Going by your earlier logic if we agree in future to have some sort of All Ireland Federation with some links between the 6 Cos and GB , you still wouldnt want the British monarch visiting the 26 Counties as we wouldnt have a 32 county Republic of the type you say Connolly , Pearse etc wanted. We'll never have the type of one those lads wanted because we won't be allowed to set up an early 20th Century Socialist State and none of ye hoors will speak Irirsh to give us the ideal Ireland Mac Piarais wanted.
Where to start. Firstly, I am opposed to any form of partition of Ireland, based on federation or any other such nonsense. (Ironically, you push this idea despite it not being mentioned in the GFA which you also lecture about). Would, in this federations idea, you allow the 26 counties to surrender some of it's power to the UK so that it would have equal ties to the UK as you would picture the six counties to have? If not, then is that not telling me that your right to full Independence from Britain supersedes mine? Secondly, as stated in an earlier post, I'd rather not look at this visit in your partitionist terms - the British Queen has visited Ireland many times, so I'm well used to it. My chief problem lies with yesterdays pathetic showcase event. Finally, you mention "a 32 county Republic of the type you say Connolly , Pearse etc wanted." Where did I say this?
I'm looking at a Federation/confederation as a practical way of having an All Ireland entity with local autonomy for the constituent parts e.g like the US/Germany/Switzerland etc none of ehich consider themselves partitioned.
you said that until the Rebublic which Connolly etc died for was established you didnt want Mrs Windsor in the Garden. ;)
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2011, 04:12:38 PM
QuoteExcellent, NS, but I'm none the wiser as to your alternative to the GFA as a model of how we should proceed in our relations with the UK.
The GFA is all very fine, but all it says is that the British will leave quietly.
It says a hell of a lot more than that, Armaghniac. It does no less than lay down the (agreed) conditions for political unity in Ireland.
QuoteIn this day and age of EU, UN etc they could not really do anything else. What is objectionable about British policy is that they are working to keep Ireland divided, and that is not acceptable.
I'm not aware of this - what do you mean? The ultimate arbiters are the Irish people, so I'm not sure what work the Brits do against the interests of a united Ireland would be effective.
QuoteI'm not aware of this - what do you mean?
I mean that the British should be promoting partition of Ireland. Simple as.
Neither should they promote it in practical matters of government nor should they issue statements supporting it.
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 04:12:59 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 04:01:30 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 02:34:22 PM
That's great, NS, but it's just a statement with no supporting argument. I'm not interested in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Can you elaborate and, if you like, answer the questions?
And please stop with the ould shite about insults. If such a mildly expressed argument insults you, I don't care.
No supporting argument? To back up my claim that Irish Independence has not been achieved yet? Does it really need one? Look at a map, and you will see six north eastern counties which are divided from the rest of the Island.
Your own quote contradicts yourself:
QuoteI take the view that, per the terms of the GFA, Irish independence IS a done deal. The terms are clear. It's available as soon as the majority want it
If Irish Independence is already a reality, then what is the "it" you refer to twice as being available when...??
We have the ability to vote for Irish Unity, but that ability is not Irish Independence Hardy. Rather, it is a hard earned method of achieving Independence. It's like saying that Ireland was Independent in 1916 because we had the ability to take up arms for Independence. As I say, if you were a republican who grew up and lived in Tyrone, you would probably not take too kindly to being told by a Meath man that Irish Independence has been achieved.
As for your questions:
1&2: I don't look at it in a partitionist way. The British Queen has been to Ireland many times in her lifetime, and I'm well used to that. If that improves relations, then fine and well, but laying a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance and playing the British National Anthem there? Too divisive and in my view, and in the views of certain patriot dead family members whom I've both spoken to and read comments from, an unnecessary insult. British and Irish relations have room for improvement, but rather than divisive and hypocritical actions like yesterdays, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? Maybe then I would be more inclined to buy into the idea that visits like this will normalise relations.
3: I support the GFA. It doesn't state that to improve Irish-British relations, that the British Queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance and that no other methods shall be considered.
Excellent, NS, but I'm none the wiser as to your alternative to the GFA as a model of how we should proceed in our relations with the UK. If you don't accept that the GFA delivers Irish unity on acceptable terms, you can't really get away with dodging the issue of what your alternative terms are. Are you really suggesting that we cannot pursue normal diplomatic relations with the UK UNTIL a United Ireland (which version?) is actually set up. Even if that doesn't happen for another 50 years? 100? 2000? That seems to me to be the logic of your position.
What, exactly, is to be gained by a Paisleyite "never, never, never" stance? Even Paisley eventually relented. For him, the trigger was the opportunity to get his spawgs under the table of power. What would be your trigger?
Again, I am pro-agreement so why you continue to talk to me as though I'm not is beyond me. I don't want an alternative to the GFA. That is more or less part and parcel of being pro GFA, wouldn't you think? As mentioned repeatedly by me, at no stage in the GFA does it state that the British queen must visit the Garden of Remembrance in order to improve relations. And again, as I already asked you, and as it seems I also have to repeat, would some form of practical co-operation not be much better? Would it also not be better if the British were perhaps to admit that they were an even an active protagonist in the conflict of the past 40 years here, rather than some sort of peace-keeping referee which at worst, maybe had one or two bad apples? If that happened, would the symbolism of her visiting here not be MUCH more powerful? Would that not help on the road to normalization of the relationship? (A relationship which, in my mind will never be fully normal until partition is in the rubbish bin of history)
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. You're pro-GFA, but you don't accept that it normalises British-Irish relations. Therefore, I conclude the GFA is not enough for you. What additional agreements/arrangements/treaties do you want before you stop setting down the conditions for how we should conduct our relations with the UK and specifying which events/locations the British head of state should/shouldn't attend and prescribing the format of any particular ceremonial involving the British head of state?
Is that question clear enough to elicit a clear answer?
Seriously hardy there is absolutely nothing in that which I haven't already answered here.
Indulge me - I didn't understand your previous answers. Undoubtedly that's my fault. I've tried to put my question as succinctly as possible so that I get a succinct answer I might understand. The distilled version of the question - what agreements or treaties do you need in addition to the GFA in order to allow for normal intercourse between Ireland and Britain?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2011, 04:22:26 PM
QuoteI'm not aware of this - what do you mean?
I mean that the British should be promoting partition of Ireland. Simple as.
Neither should they promote it in practical matters of government nor should they issue statements supporting it.
Do you mean they're promoting it by continuing to implement the institutions of government and/or that they should unilaterally withdraw from the North? In that case, what were the four years of GFA negotiations and the twelve years it took to implement all about?
That was a lovely óráid from Criostóir. The Ronan Kerr funeral was very sad but the cross community unity was something else to see.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 18, 2011, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: Canalman on May 18, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
For a man nearing 90 that Prince Philip is looking well. Oh and I am aware that he hasn't worked a day in his life.
I'm pretty sure he won't die until he has insulted every race and country on this planet.
He is a really bad man. Us good Irish folk don't slag off anyone from a different ethnic background, race or colour.
Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2011, 04:35:30 PM
That was a lovely óráid from Criostóir. The Ronan Kerr funeral was very sad but the cross community unity was something else to see.
I'd say the Brits were wondering, though, where deer hunting came into hurling when Christy was talking about "does that died".
Quote from: Hardy on May 18, 2011, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2011, 04:35:30 PM
That was a lovely óráid from Criostóir. The Ronan Kerr funeral was very sad but the cross community unity was something else to see.
I'd say the Brits were wondering, though, where deer hunting came into hurling when Christy was taking about "does that died".
:D
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 18, 2011, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: Canalman on May 18, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
For a man nearing 90 that Prince Philip is looking well. Oh and I am aware that he hasn't worked a day in his life.
I'm pretty sure he won't die until he has insulted every race and country on this planet.
It's a wonder he hasn't said anything yet.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 18, 2011, 04:51:38 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 18, 2011, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: Canalman on May 18, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
For a man nearing 90 that Prince Philip is looking well. Oh and I am aware that he hasn't worked a day in his life.
I'm pretty sure he won't die until he has insulted every race and country on this planet.
It's a wonder he hasn't said anything yet.
By all accounts he asked Joe Sheridan why he wasn't playing for Leinster at the weekend in Cardiff.
Seen a little bit of the coverage there. She got a right bit of manhandling there they were close to tripping over themselves to meet her. Also did I hear correct that christy cooney was telling her that gumshields would be compulsory from next year.
I also heard Christy saying that the sliotar moved at 150 mph. That seems very fast. Lar and Benny Maher looked a bit sheepish when he said that :D
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 18, 2011, 05:00:43 PM
I also heard Christy saying that the sliotar moved at 150 mph. That seems very fast. Lar and Benny Maher looked a bit sheepish when he said that :D
Think he meant if it was in the back seat of D.J's Bugatti on the way home from training.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 04:23:20 PM
Seriously hardy there is absolutely nothing in that which I haven't already answered here.
I think that you are arguing over the same thing really.
I suspect that NS wants a more outlined plan of future events with dates etc on them.
I would agree that there reunification is a done deal. Removing our articles 2 & 3 of the constitution allowed this to be finally put in place.
Once there is a voting majority, referendum, vote for reunification - then it will all start to happen.
Thats the political side of it.
The practical and financial side of things requires lots of work.
it will be fairly obv before then that this reunification will look likely to happen.
I expect that the british gov will help things along as they want to get rid of the north, and have agreed this with the Irish - otherwise these terms as per GFA would not have been accepted !
they will do their bit to try and encourage people to not want to remain within the union (Rem British dirty tricks!!).Jobs will head east back to England.
the Irish gov will have some tweaking to do with health services, benefits and above all - creation of jobs and investment along the border areas and run down parts of the six counties (which is more or less everywhere).
We can ship belfast over to scotland in exchange.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 04:15:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 03:53:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
It was ... apart from the 1918 to 1921 period.
So the only times the IRA weren't gangsters were when they won your freedom?
I'm telling you that that was the only time a lot of Irish people didnt look on them as using methods which revolted and alienated the majority of the Irish people both Nationalist and Unionist
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
The Irish people through the GFA are now in control of their own destiny in accordance with the terms of that agreement ( the bit where the 6 Cos/ 26 Cos get to decide separately if they want an All Ireland political entity) that we voted overwhelmingly for.
See my response to Hardy re. Independence
Independence is the right of people to make decisions on their Country's future ... unlike before the GFA when the British govt had a veto over the north's futureQuote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
Going by your earlier logic if we agree in future to have some sort of All Ireland Federation with some links between the 6 Cos and GB , you still wouldnt want the British monarch visiting the 26 Counties as we wouldnt have a 32 county Republic of the type you say Connolly , Pearse etc wanted. We'll never have the type of one those lads wanted because we won't be allowed to set up an early 20th Century Socialist State and none of ye hoors will speak Irirsh to give us the ideal Ireland Mac Piarais wanted.
Where to start. Firstly, I am opposed to any form of partition of Ireland, based on federation or any other such nonsense. (Ironically, you push this idea despite it not being mentioned in the GFA which you also lecture about). Would, in this federations idea, you allow the 26 counties to surrender some of it's power to the UK so that it would have equal ties to the UK as you would picture the six counties to have? If not, then is that not telling me that your right to full Independence from Britain supersedes mine? Secondly, as stated in an earlier post, I'd rather not look at this visit in your partitionist terms - the British Queen has visited Ireland many times, so I'm well used to it. My chief problem lies with yesterdays pathetic showcase event. Finally, you mention "a 32 county Republic of the type you say Connolly , Pearse etc wanted." Where did I say this?
I'm looking at a Federation/confederation as a practical way of having an All Ireland entity with local autonomy for the constituent parts e.g like the US/Germany/Switzerland etc none of ehich consider themselves partitioned.
you said that until the Rebublic which Connolly etc died for was established you didnt want Mrs Windsor in the Garden. ;)
You are looking at a federation while lecturing me about what the GFA states. The GFA says nothing about a federation.
And you haven't answered my question:
In this federations idea, would you allow the 26 counties to surrender some of it's power to the UK so that it would have equal ties to the UK as you would picture the six counties to have? If not, then is that not telling me that your right to full Independence from Britain supersedes mine?
And in your initial post you stated that I mentioned "the type" of Republic which Connolly et al died for. Where did I talk about the type of Republic they died for?
" ;) "
Quote from: Go home ref on May 17, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 17, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
Irishmen & Woman standing with/kissing the ass of the British Queen, with the British National Anthem playing, in a garden of Remembrance for those who died in the unfinished struggle for Independence. HOW MATURE ARE WE!!!? ::) Can't help but think of the Patriots who must be turning in their graves.
"Take it down from the mast Irish traitors" eh?
It's absolutely disgusting to be honest why don't they jsut rejoin the commonwealth and be done with it? Why do so many Irish people have such a slavish mentality? I'm convinced you would never find this slavish mentality in any other country.
Recognise this woman?
(http://www.colombopage.com/imgs_07/mr_112307_02.jpg)
Yep, it's Her Majesty again. And she's addressing the 53 independent nations of the Commonwealth, of which she is Head. As you might guess, many of those Nations fought long and bloody wars for liberation from Britain, all of them rather more recently than the Irish Republics.
Are you saying that they're all "slavish" in their mentality?
P.S. When the Queen visits their countries, she very often lays a Wreath at their National Monuments to Liberation etc. Indeed in the earlier days of her reign, this was very often alongside the very leaders of the liberation movements themselves. Still, I imagine the likes of Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nekruma had no self-respect, lick-spittles that they were... ::)
When is she due to make her statement?
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Aside from the pros and cons of the visit, the sight of the Queen sitting in an empty sports stadium was a bit odd.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 18, 2011, 03:08:03 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 17, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
Quote from: thejuice on May 17, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
The comments page on RTE.ie is embarrassing.
"Finally we will be seen as a civilised respectable nation" ::)
I know.
Yiz have a loooooooooooooog way to go before reaching that stage... ;)
(http://mediaelites.com/files/2010/03/Drunk_Leprechaun-300x208.jpg)
I would have thought a proud Irishman like yourself would not resort to that type of depiction. That isn't even a misrepresentaion of the Republic, Nationalism or Republicanism but all Irish people including yourself.
I took the "we" in the quotation ("civilised, respectable nation") to refer to the Irish Republic. And having been eg in Temple Bar on a Saturday evening, I'd say that depiction is accurate enough!
But if you tell me that it actually refers to Ireland (island), then even if I may have found myself in such a position on occasion, it won't have been in that garb*.
* - I don't wear a hat ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 05:31:39 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 18, 2011, 03:08:03 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 17, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
Quote from: thejuice on May 17, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
The comments page on RTE.ie is embarrassing.
"Finally we will be seen as a civilised respectable nation" ::)
I know.
Yiz have a loooooooooooooog way to go before reaching that stage... ;)
(http://mediaelites.com/files/2010/03/Drunk_Leprechaun-300x208.jpg)
I would have thought a proud Irishman like yourself would not resort to that type of depiction. That isn't even a misrepresentaion of the Republic, Nationalism or Republicanism but all Irish people including yourself.
I took the "we" in the quotation ("civilised, respectable nation") to refer to the Irish Republic. And having been eg in Temple Bar on a Saturday evening, I'd say that depiction is accurate enough!
But if you tell me that it actually refers to Ireland (island), then even if I may have found myself in such a position on occasion, it won't have been in that garb*.
* - I don't wear a hat ;)
Especially a hat with a four leaf clover. Shamrock for dummies.
QuoteI also heard Christy saying that the sliotar moved at 150 mph. That seems very fast. Lar and Benny Maher looked a bit sheepish when he said that
Probably ashamed at the lick arse using imperial measure.
Quote from: carnaross on May 18, 2011, 07:43:04 AM
Maybe I'm being a little sensitive, but did anyone notice the British anthem being played at the garden? Could that be taken as an insult to the men there remembered? Why did the Irish government allow it?
As I understand it, all visiting Heads of State are invited to lay a wreath in the Garden. I assume their respective National Anthem is played along with the Soldiers Song, therefore it would be an snub to the Queen (and the UK) if GSTQ were
not played.
Or to put it another way, if it was a concession by the Republic to play GSTQ, it was an equal concession by the Queen to honour those Irish people who had died fighting against her Crown.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
When is she due to make her statement?
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Exactly.
Interesting on the Hogan Stand website:
"Representative of every county board in Ireland were present when the Queen was welcomed to GAA Headquarters today, but it has been revealed that representatives of the Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone county boards snubbed the invitation to be present at Jones Road..... It was known that there was a degree of unhappiness at the decision by the GAA to invite Queen Elizabeth to Croke Park, but there was no public comment by GAA officials on the subject
after Christy Cooney instructed all county boards to remain silent on the issue."
That would sicken one's happiness. No debate allowed thank you very much says Christy.
Quote from: Canalman on May 18, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
For a man nearing 90 that Prince Philip is looking well. Oh and I am aware that he hasn't worked a day in his life.
And may I ask what it is
you do for a living? ;)
After leaving Gordonstoun in 1939, Prince Philip joined the Royal Navy, graduating the next year from the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, as the top cadet in his course. He was commissioned as a midshipman in January 1940. Philip spent four months on the battleship HMS Ramillies, protecting convoys of the Australian Expeditionary Force in the Indian Ocean, followed by shorter postings on HM Ships Kent, Shropshire and in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). After the invasion of Greece by Italy in October 1940, he was transferred from the Indian Ocean to the battleship HMS Valiant in the Mediterranean Fleet. Amongst other engagements, he was involved in the Battle of Crete, was mentioned in despatches for his service during the Battle of Cape Matapan where he saved his ship from a night bomber attack. He devised a plan to launch a raft with smoke floats that successfully distracted the bombers allowing the ship to slip away unnoticed.
Philip was also awarded the Greek War Cross of Valour. Duties of lesser glory included stoking the boilers of the troop transport ship RMS Empress of Russia.
Prince Philip was promoted to sub-lieutenant after a series of courses at Portsmouth in which he gained the top grade in four out of five sections. In June 1942, he was appointed to the V and W class destroyer and flotilla leader, HMS Wallace, which was involved in convoy escort tasks on the east coast of Britain, as well as the allied invasion of Sicily. Promotion to lieutenant followed on 16 July 1942. In October of the same year, at just 21 years of age, he became first lieutenant of HMS Wallace and one of the youngest first lieutenants in the Royal Navy. In 1944, he moved on to the new destroyer, HMS Whelp, where he saw service with the British Pacific Fleet in the 27th Destroyer Flotilla. He was present in Tokyo Bay when the instrument of Japanese surrender was signed. In January 1946, Philip returned to the United Kingdom on the Whelp, and was posted as an instructor at HMS Royal Arthur, the Petty Officers' School in Corsham, Wiltshire.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2011, 10:55:16 AM
This visit is one of series of things where someone had the courage to go ahead even though there is unfinished business. The entire Stormont project at present is one such example, why should nationalists assist in their own occupation?
Because they believe the line that SF spins?
Of course that prompts the question as to why SF is spinning that line, to which my answer would be that they were left with nowhere else to go, just like eg Paisley, when he realised the price of a seat in Government was that it be alongside his sworn enemy, McGuinness.
The Ministerial cars etc are no hindrance, either... ::)
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2011, 10:55:16 AMThey do so because, on balance, it is advanced unity in this country. I think, on balance, this visit advances unity in this country.
As a Unionist, I beg to disagree. For it is clear that under the GFA, the only way we will have unity is if/when a majority of people in NI vote for it.
And as every election since the GFA has demonstrated, there is absolutley no movement on that score. And when you consider that the demographics (Prod v RC birthrate etc) has continued in the Catholics' favour since then, it suggests that the younger generation of RC's may no longer voting for Nationalist parties in the way previous generations did.
As for the future, it is my hope that a better and more fairly governed NI, especially with Republicans "inside the tent", may actually lead some of the next generation from the Nationalist community eventually to throw their lot in with Unionism (at least whilst the ROI economy is tanked, whilst the UK/NI economy holds up).
But we'll see.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2011, 10:55:16 AMAnd taking a GAA perspective, if Queen Liz can visit Casement aerodrome, why can anyone in NI from the unionist tradition not visit Casement stadium?
Her Majesty had no choice but to land at Casement Aerodrome.
That's where the runway is... :D
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 18, 2011, 11:03:56 AM
If you take all the media bullshite out of it, and the mature nation stuff, and the end of the line stuff, what have you left.
You have the titular head of a nation, which has caused huge amounts of pain and suffering in this country, visiting the free part of the island as an invited guest, an equal. And you have her, in a hugely significant moment, paying tribute to those who resisted british rule in ALL of Ireland.
I think those of a republican viewpoint should be encouraged by this as it simply reinforces the notion that 'some day' it will happen, and Britain will not necessarily be averse to it. Of course I could be reading way too much into it, but I think this visit is far more significant and worthy of attention than the rameis that went on about the Royal wedding.
To take your second point
bold first, the UK Government has already made it crystal clear (in the GFA) that if a majority of people in NI want a UI, then it (Government) will not stand in the way.
As for your first point (that Republicans should be encouraged etc), as a Unionist I see it differently. That is, the Irish Republic (Government and people) is now comfortable with its nearest neighbouring state and genuinely aspires to warm and respectful relations etc.
And implicit in that aspiration is the acceptance that their neighbouring state's territory includes Northern Ireland.
Or, to put it another way, you have finally got your "Nation Once Again"; the only problem is, it is a 26 county nation, with the hope of acquiring the other six Irish counties receding with every year of peace etc enjoyed by Northern Ireland.
Still, that is only my reading of events; if I'm wrong and Republicans are correct, then I am at least reassured by two aspects of the current visit. Namely, the low numbers of unwashed rabble protesting in Dublin yesterday prove that the great majority of people in the ROI have taken a measured and reasonable stance in response to the visit.
And secondly, the complete absence of SF anywhere to be seen, whilst every other Irish community, tradition and political grouping has been in evidence, indicates to me that unless they "get with the programme", SF are likely to be increasingly confined to the historical margins of any New Ireland, irrelevant, disregarded and powerless.
Which can only be a good thing for Irish people like me!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Oh so there is no significance in the fact that five of the six counties refused to send representatives?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2011, 04:12:38 PM
What is objectionable about British policy is that they are working to keep Ireland divided, and that is not acceptable.
They're doing no such thing. They can't wait to get rid of the place and they worked very hard to get the GFA in place as a pathway to Irish unity. Some people seem to think the Brits have the ability to just pull the plug and leave tomorrow but are refusing to do so out of spite. It doesn't work like that.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
I wasnt having a go at Down although i cant get my head around them turning up and Im glad most stayed away though and was just pointing that out.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
Or, to put it another way, you have finally got your "Nation Once Again"; the only problem is, it is a 26 county nation, with the hope of acquiring the other sic Irish counties receding with every year of peace etc enjoyed by Northern Ireland.
I wouldn't count on that. Every year of peace builds new bridges between catholics and protestants, and protestants will gradually lose this anti-catholic gaelophobia that pollutes their minds.
Quote... I am at least reassured by two aspects of the current visit. Namely, the low numbers of unwashed rabble protesting in Dublin yesterday prove that the great majority of people in the ROI have taken a measured and reasonable stance in response to the visit.
Agreed. The wrekcing seem to be confined to a handful of Celtic shirt-wearing spides who just want an excuse to go out and cause trouble and get on TV.
QuoteAnd secondly, the complete absence of SF anywhere to be seen, whilst every other Irish community, tradition and political grouping has been in evidence, indicates to me that unless they "get with the programme", SF are likely to be increasingly confined to the historical margins of any New Ireland, irrelevant, disregarded and powerless.
SF have made a token of opposition by questioning the timing, saying it was on the anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. It's a bit of a lame objection, there's not a day in the calendar that's not an anniversary of some atrocity or other. The only reason they made a token of opposition is to throw a bone to their own hardliners who want to be bitching about something, while in practice they're not standing in the way of the visit and haven't come out and explicitly opposed it. It's just part of the delicate fine line that SF have had to tread between keeping their hardliners on board while engaging with their opposite numbers on the unionist side. They've been doing it for long enough that they've gotten quite good at it.
great to see iris back on the scene....id still give her 1! :P
I heard Cavan sent Larry really down but he pulled out because the queen lizzie touched his elbow and started drooling uncontrollably. It is pity as Larry could have protected her on his own for 5m euro and saved the state the other 27.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 02:31:27 PM
No Hardy, Irish Independence is NOT a done deal and it is wholly insulting to say that it is and I would be hugely surprised if you held that view had you grown up in Tyrone. I say that as a whole-hearted supporter of the GFA. The GFA structures which are a stepping stone to Irish Independence are a done deal.
Independence is not a done deal, but the means by which it can become a done deal, is a done deal. :P
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
When is she due to make her statement?
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Seriously? Monaghan / Donegal / Cavan declined as well?
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 06:45:11 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
I wasnt having a go at Down although i cant get my head around them turning up and Im glad most stayed away though and was just pointing that out.
Wasn't it Down that submitted the motion to abolish Rule 21? If so then that tells me that a county that was deeply affected by the troubles wanted to work to put those events in the past and build a better future. I can get my head around that quite easily.
Let's not forget all those protestant children playing hurling in the north under the CuChullain initiative. Won't it be reassuring to their unionist parents that their head of state is being treated so respectfully by the association?
And let's not forget the children in Britain playing gaelic games. Those GAA members will be reassured that the association is respectful to them and their traditions too. Right?
Quote from: The Worker on May 18, 2011, 06:50:48 PM
great to see iris back on the scene....id still give her 1! :P
If you're over 20 then you might be too old for her.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:50:34 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
Or, to put it another way, you have finally got your "Nation Once Again"; the only problem is, it is a 26 county nation, with the hope of acquiring the other sic Irish counties receding with every year of peace etc enjoyed by Northern Ireland.
I wouldn't count on that. Every year of peace builds new bridges between catholics and protestants, and protestants will gradually lose this anti-catholic gaelophobia that pollutes their minds.
Other than a rather dreadful sweeping generalisation there, don't count on that either.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 18, 2011, 11:04:10 AMNow, there is another matter to consider; when we speak of a united Ireland, it is well to keep in mind that not all the people of the island wish see this come about.
All of them are not from the Unionist side of the fence either.
I would safely say that, for everyone living Irish person who wants to see a United Ireland, there is at least one other who doesn't give a damn or who would actively oppose it.
That is the stark reality; I have no hang ups at all about the Garden or what stands for but there are many who have.
Agree 100%.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 18, 2011, 11:04:10 AM
We will never have any form of a United Ireland until all parties concerned come to a mutual understanding will respect all traditions.
I think the Queen started the process yesterday.
Agree that mutual respect and understanding etc are a pre-requisite for any UI.
However, I do not agree that if/when we do finally achieve complete mutual respect and understanding, then a UI must inevitably follow.
As I see it, this weeks events are like a big party, to which everyone has been invited.
But although both Unionism and Nationalism* have agreed to accept their invite, there's still no sign of them "sharing a taxi home" afterwards! ;)
* - SF excepted
Quote from: AQMP on May 18, 2011, 12:35:31 PMActually I get the feeling from speaking to some Northern Unionists that they don't know quite how to react to the visit either (once again what we have in common is greater than what divides us? :P)
Understand what you're saying, but if we can eg stomach the sight of Martin McGuinness in government in Stormont, then the sight of Her Majesty in Dublin, even in the Garden of Remembrance, shouldn't be
that hard to swallow.
Quote from: AQMP on May 18, 2011, 12:35:31 PMOne woman I spoke to this morning said she found the Garden of Remembrance uncomfortable because she had been brought up to believe that Pearse et al were terrorists.
Aye, but whether they be "terrorists" or "freedom fighters", the point is that they're dead and she and you aren't.
Therefore if the likes of you and she can get along, Pearse et al are mere history.
Literally. :D
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1098675
Micheal O M gives a great bit of input around 4 minutes
Evil Genuis, of someone of the Unionist persuasion, what it the feeling amongst Unionist of the Queen visiting such places as The Garden of Remembrance and Croke Park. Positive signs or look upon with mistrust and suspicion?
I think it's fabulous that Eilis 2 gets to go to Porky Croky and it gets broadcast all over the world.
Especially the hurling at 19 minutes
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1098675
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 07:15:01 PM
Quote from: AQMP on May 18, 2011, 12:35:31 PMActually I get the feeling from speaking to some Northern Unionists that they don't know quite how to react to the visit either (once again what we have in common is greater than what divides us? :P)
Understand what you're saying, but if we can eg stomach the sight of Martin McGuinness in government in Stormont, then the sight of Her Majesty in Dublin, even in the Garden of Remembrance, shouldn't be that hard to swallow.
Shouldn't be, but Gregory Campbell, the unionist whiner-in-chief, has found something to pick holes in. He has complained about HM paying respects to the fallen in the war of independence. But apart from that he welcomes the trip. Seems to be doing a bit of token opposition while welcoming the trip. A bit like SF.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 06:55:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
When is she due to make her statement?
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Seriously? Monaghan / Donegal / Cavan declined as well?
All the info i got through media i might add said only 1 county from Ulster attended so im assuming that yes Monaghan, Donegal and Cavan declined as they are part of Ulster but the media could be wrong or have meant the occupied 6 counties which it should of said 4/9 Ulster counties were present.
Shouldnt we show soldidarity with those affected most by the british in Ireland, i think the gaa keep your mouth shut campaign is dictatorial, and awful act of censoring. Why are those affected most so disrespected?
I actually think cooney, kelly, mcaleese, etc.. did this more for ego reasons than anything else, self importance bs.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 08:19:06 PM
Shouldnt we show soldidarity with those affected most by the british in Ireland, i think the gaa keep your mouth shut campaign is dictatorial, and awful act of censoring. Why are those affected most so disrespected?
I actually think cooney, kelly, mcaleese, etc.. did this more for ego reasons than anything else, self importance bs.
I'm with you Sligonian. The una duce, una voce stuff from the media this week has been sickening.
I feel sorry for the lads in the wee six. For ninety years we thought they might join us, somebody. Now it looks like all the momentum is the other way. We'll back under the crown soon enough.
Not as part of the United Kingdom, of course - that could be coming to an end itself, now the Scots have the drop of oil to make them brave. But Britain may end up being some of federation and Ireland will be once again united under the crown. Dominion status. Home rule, of a kind. Using sterling for money because the Euro will have gone wallop, the people having thrown their hats at any notion of standing for themselves among the nations of the Earth and enjoying the sweet benefits of the NHS and a fully functional welfare state.
I haven't been able to read papers this week or look at the news. I don't recognise this country any more. I don't. It's utterly heartbreaking.
To be far both herself & Phil are looking well for their age.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 05:17:53 PM
:
In this federations idea, would you allow the 26 counties to surrender some of it's power to the UK so that it would have equal ties to the UK as you would picture the six counties to have? If not, then is that not telling me that your right to full Independence from Britain supersedes mine?
[/quote]
The Dáil would be the local Parliamnet for the 26 Cos looking after internal affairs and Stormont would be similar for the 6 Cos.
The Dáil would cede some of their powers to an All Ireland Government/Parliament/Confederacy/Congress or whateverwhile Westminster would cede all of their overlordship of the 6 Cos..
As there would be a large 45% ish minority in the 6 Cos who would still consider themselves British there would need to be a mechanism for them to retain British citizenship/passports if they so wish.
There would likely be some sort of formal Brit link e.g 6 Cos remain in Commonwealth ( a rather meaningless body ) and you can have all the freedom you want .
All this federation stuff is my own idea of how the future All Ireland entity might work out so that all sorts can feel they belong.
I strongly suspect Nally that you want a United Ireland to stick it into Unionists like they did to Nationalists in the 6 Cos from 1922 to 72.
As for 5 of the 6 Co GAA Units staying away from Croke Pk today while Mrs windsor was there ... that's their perogative ... but will they turn down the oul grants ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 08:37:07 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 05:17:53 PM
:
In this federations idea, would you allow the 26 counties to surrender some of it's power to the UK so that it would have equal ties to the UK as you would picture the six counties to have? If not, then is that not telling me that your right to full Independence from Britain supersedes mine?
The Dáil would be the local Parliamnet for the 26 Cos looking after internal affairs and Stormont would be similar for the 6 Cos.
The Dáil would cede some of their powers to an All Ireland Government/Parliament/Confederacy/Congress or whateverwhile Westminster would cede all of their overlordship of the 6 Cos..
As there would be a large 45% ish minority in the 6 Cos who would still consider themselves British there would need to be a mechanism for them to retain British citizenship/passports if they so wish.
There would likely be some sort of formal Brit link e.g 6 Cos remain in Commonwealth ( a rather meaningless body ) and you can have all the freedom you want .
All this federation stuff is my own idea of how the future All Ireland entity might work out so that all sorts can feel they belong.
I strongly suspect Nally that you want a United Ireland to stick it into Unionists like they did to Nationalists in the 6 Cos from 1922 to 72.
As for 5 of the 6 Co GAA Units staying away from Croke Pk today while Mrs windsor was there ... that's their perogative ... but will they turn down the oul grants ;)
[/quote]
The people in the 6 counties work and pay tax, unlike queen Elizabeth, and are as entitled to any grants going as anyone else.
Quote from: Blowitupref on May 18, 2011, 08:35:38 PM
To be far both herself & Phil are looking well for their age.
The pair of c***ts havent done a day's work in their lives :D
What are yiz waffling about with the free state rejoining the UK? Catch yourselves on! It's not going to happen and nobody's seriously suggesting it!
As for the currency, it would do no harm to bring back the punt and keep it in line with sterling since the UK is Ireland's biggest trading partner. This Euro experiment has been an utter disaster and the current problems could have been avoided if the Irish central bank still had control of its own currency and interest rates.
some of the events this week have been a step too far. partition seems to have been copper fastened. the queen has been paraded around like some sort of celebrity with the usual suspects lining up to kiss ass. any dissenting voices are quickly ridiculed as only speaking for a minority. have to say im really disappointed with the down co.board decision to partake in todays sham at croke park. a united ulster non show would have sent the gaa a strong message
Quote from: sammymaguire on May 18, 2011, 08:55:32 PM
Quote from: Blowitupref on May 18, 2011, 08:35:38 PM
To be far both herself & Phil are looking well for their age.
The pair of c***ts havent done a day's work in their lives :D
That's actually been refuted on one of the other threads where Philip's concerned. And wasn't Liz a mechanic for the army during the war?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 08:37:07 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 05:17:53 PM
:
In this federations idea, would you allow the 26 counties to surrender some of it's power to the UK so that it would have equal ties to the UK as you would picture the six counties to have? If not, then is that not telling me that your right to full Independence from Britain supersedes mine?
The Dáil would be the local Parliamnet for the 26 Cos looking after internal affairs and Stormont would be similar for the 6 Cos.
The Dáil would cede some of their powers to an All Ireland Government/Parliament/Confederacy/Congress or whateverwhile Westminster would cede all of their overlordship of the 6 Cos..
As there would be a large 45% ish minority in the 6 Cos who would still consider themselves British there would need to be a mechanism for them to retain British citizenship/passports if they so wish.
There would likely be some sort of formal Brit link e.g 6 Cos remain in Commonwealth ( a rather meaningless body ) and you can have all the freedom you want .
All this federation stuff is my own idea of how the future All Ireland entity might work out so that all sorts can feel they belong.
I strongly suspect Nally that you want a United Ireland to stick it into Unionists like they did to Nationalists in the 6 Cos from 1922 to 72.
As for 5 of the 6 Co GAA Units staying away from Croke Pk today while Mrs windsor was there ... that's their perogative ... but will they turn down the oul grants ;)
[/quote]
Aside from all your federation nonsense (which is not mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement, which you were earlier championing the cause of), I would like you to clarify something:
You accuse me of wanting a united Ireland "to stick it into Unionists". That is a disgusting and groundless accusation. You know nothing of me other than what I have posted in this board. If you can find one single sectarian utterance from me about the unionist people, then come forward with it, otherwise, retract your implication that my desire for Irish reunification/freedom is grounded in sectarian pettiness.
(While you are at it, I'll ask you again, maybe you could tell me where I supposedly described the type of Republic Connolly et al died for).
Quote from: SHEEDY on May 18, 2011, 08:56:42 PM
some of the events this week have been a step too far. partition seems to have been copper fastened. the queen has been paraded around like some sort of celebrity with the usual suspects lining up to kiss ass. any dissenting voices are quickly ridiculed as only speaking for a minority. have to say im really disappointed with the down co.board decision to partake in todays sham at croke park. a united ulster non show would have sent the gaa a strong message
There are plenty of dissenting voices - just not very many who want to be associated with the pikeys on O'Connell street yesterday whose idea of protest is to loot building sites and set bins on fire.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 10:22:40 AM
, the men and women for whom that garden was built to remember, died for a 32 county republic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I said I SUSPECT you want it stuck into Unionists ... not an allegation , just an opinion to which I am entitled to arrive at based on your absolutist views when you talk about the type of a United Ireland you want.
The only people politicising Mrs Windsor in Croker are those GAA officials from 5 of the 6 Cos who refused to attend.
Not doing much to "reach out" there lads as ye adopt the same position as Sinn Féin fuelling the oul accusation by Unionists and anti GAA people that the GAA was " Sinn Féin at play".
But sure the same people were opposed to Rule 21'a abolition and to the Rule 42 amendment.
Ye'll catch up with the good ship GAA yet lads. ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 10:22:40 AM
, the men and women for whom that garden was built to remember, died for a 32 county republic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I said I SUSPECT you want it stuck into Unionists ... not an allegation , just an opinion to which I am entitled to arrive at based on your absolutist views when you talk about the type of a United Ireland you want.
The only people politicising Mrs Windsor in Croker are those GAA officials from 5 of the 6 Cos who refused to attend.
Not doing much to "reach out" there lads as ye adopt the same position as Sinn Féin fuelling the oul accusation by Unionists and anti GAA people that the GAA was " Sinn Féin at play".
But sure the same people were opposed to Rule 21'a abolition and to the Rule 42 amendment.
Ye'll catch up with the good ship GAA yet lads. ;)
It's like talking to a child.
1. Quote me making any sectarian comment about unionists or retract your accusation.
2. Quote where I described "the type of Republic" Connolly died for.
Quote from: SHEEDY on May 18, 2011, 08:56:42 PM
some of the events this week have been a step too far. partition seems to have been copper fastened. the queen has been paraded around like some sort of celebrity with the usual suspects lining up to kiss ass. any dissenting voices are quickly ridiculed as only speaking for a minority. have to say im really disappointed with the down co.board decision to partake in todays sham at croke park. a united ulster non show would have sent the gaa a strong message
How has a state visit from a friendly neighbouring country "copper fastened partition"? I thought the constitutional setup was settled when the people voted for the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that was a long time before this visit.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 09:39:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 10:22:40 AM
, the men and women for whom that garden was built to remember, died for a 32 county republic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
2. Quote where I described "the type of Republic" Connolly died for.
For fcuk sake where did they get you from ;D ;D
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 09:44:59 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 09:39:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 10:22:40 AM
, the men and women for whom that garden was built to remember, died for a 32 county republic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
2. Quote where I described "the type of Republic" Connolly died for.
For fcuk sake where did they get you from ;D ;D
1. Quote me making any sectarian comment about unionists or retract your accusation.
2. Quote where I described "the type of Republic" Connolly died for.
A United Ireland under British control is the answer.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 09:49:39 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 09:44:59 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 09:39:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2011, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 10:22:40 AM
, the men and women for whom that garden was built to remember, died for a 32 county republic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
2. Quote where I described "the type of Republic" Connolly died for.
For fcuk sake where did they get you from ;D ;D
for fcuk sake where did they get you from ;D ;D
Quote from: lfdown2 on April 08, 2011, 02:19:54 AM
Does no-one think that (as is implied either on this thread or the thread in general discussion) the only reason for her visiting Croke Park is to issue an apology?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 12:29:05 PM
Whilst this is clearly a sensitive subject, is it not likely that she's going there to mark or apologise for what happened there?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: gerry on April 09, 2011, 09:45:17 PM
can anyone tell me why she going to croker?
Could you take an educated guess?
Quote from: Orangemac on April 10, 2011, 12:59:24 AM
You wouldimagne she will make some sort of statement when she goes to Croke park in terms of acknowledging Brithish wrongdoings in the past
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 04:16:46 PM
And if the IRA are absolved simply by an apology, surely an apology by the Queen in Ireland will put an enter to your whataboutery?
So I heard the reports of her visit to croke Park, and I've read the text of her speech this evening. What happened this apology lads?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 18, 2011, 11:04:10 AMNow, there is another matter to consider; when we speak of a united Ireland, it is well to keep in mind that not all the people of the island wish see this come about.
All of them are not from the Unionist side of the fence either.
I would safely say that, for everyone living Irish person who wants to see a United Ireland, there is at least one other who doesn't give a damn or who would actively oppose it.
That is the stark reality; I have no hang ups at all about the Garden or what stands for but there are many who have.
Agree 100%.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 18, 2011, 11:04:10 AM
We will never have any form of a United Ireland until all parties concerned come to a mutual understanding will respect all traditions.
I think the Queen started the process yesterday.
Agree that mutual respect and understanding etc are a pre-requisite for any UI.
However, I do not agree that if/when we do finally achieve complete mutual respect and understanding, then a UI must inevitably follow.
As I see it, this weeks events are like a big party, to which everyone has been invited.
But although both Unionism and Nationalism* have agreed to accept their invite, there's still no sign of them "sharing a taxi home" afterwards! ;)
* - SF excepted
Don't build your hopes too high, EG; that taxi ride could well be on hold!
When you see the heads of two sovereign states sitting down at table together, there could well be dark moves afoot! Especially so when they have their respective prime ministers and their foreign affairs ministers in tow as well.
That's unsurprising since they have so many matters of mutual interest to discuss; after all, we are Britain's fifth largest trades' partner while they are our number one.
To cap it ff, it's two bloody women that's doing the nattering!
Aye, there be changed times indeed, North and South!
I'd imagine, Lizzie won't lose the run of herself and sell her loyal subjects in the Wee Six off at a bargain price and I can't see Mary accepting any sort of sweetener to take you them aboard either.
It's good to see that representatives of constitutional |Unionism and Nationalism are taking up their invites and I've no problems with Sinn Fein in this regard. Both Adams and McGuinness made their positions clear from the outset.
I know their feelings on the matter and I respect their points of view. They have had their say- as they are entitled to do.
I get the feeling that the great majority of people down here are pleased that the visit is going well.
I don't think anybody would wish that she would be insulted or upset in any way. It's going to take some time to evaluate the consequences of her visit but I think only good can come from it.
In my last post, I wrote: " We will never have any form of a United Ireland until all parties concerned come to a mutual understanding will respect all traditions."
To which, you replied: "Agree that mutual respect and understanding etc are a pre-requisite for any UI. However, I do not agree that if/when we do finally achieve complete mutual respect and understanding, then a UI must inevitably follow."
I see no conflict there. I can't see any prospects for any sort of a UI until there is mutual respect and understanding etc etc. between all parties concerned but that is a long way short of declaring that a UI is the inevitable follow on.
Who knows? We can't hold our descendants to ransom.
Anyway, I'm sure you will join with me in wishing the pair of ladies good luck and good judgement in their deliberations and that, as democrats, we will abide by their decisions.
Don't fret, EG, I'll share a taxi with you any time! ;D
There was none. Disappointing. Especially considering the venue. But like I said earlier... her visit/Obama's/the protests about it are all an overhyped waste of time.
QuoteQueen gives Ireland closest royals have come to apology for Britain's actions
Queen's speech refers to history of 'heartache and loss' as demonstrators held back from Dublin Castle
Stephen Bates and Henry McDonald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 18 May 2011 21.34 BST
The Queen offered Ireland the nearest the royal family has ever come to an apology for Britain's actions in the tortured relations between the two countries, in a speech at a state banquet Dublin.
She told guests from the northern and southern Irish communities: "It is a sad and regrettable reality that through history our islands have experienced more than their fair share of heartache, turbulence and loss ... with the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we wish had been done differently, or not at all."
The remarks, at a dinner in Dublin Castle, the former headquarters of British rule in Ireland before independence in 1922, came as dissident republicans staged a small but violent demonstration.
The Queen spoke of the importance of forbearance and conciliation, "of being able to bow to the past but not to be bound by it" and she spoke of many who have suffered the painful legacy of loss. Lord Mountbatten, her husband's uncle, was killed by the IRA off the west coast of Ireland in August 1979.
She said: "To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy."
But she spoke also of increasingly strong bonds and values: "The lessons of the peace process are clear: whatever life throws at us, our individual responsibilities will be all the stronger for working together and sharing the load ... The ties of family, friends and affection are our most precious resource ... the lifeblood of partnership across these islands, a golden thread runs through all our joint successes so far and all we will go on to achieve."
Earlier, the Queen's reconciliation tour of the Irish Republic had continued its remarkable course when she visited Croke Park, the headquarters of Gaelic sport in Dublin.
Her Majesty visits many sports grounds despite showing no visible enthusiasm for team games and the 82,000 seater modern stadium can have differed little in her eyes from hundreds of others around the world, apart from the shape of its goal posts.
With its tiers of seating, advertisement boards and video screens it seems exactly the same: except for the fact that in a few minutes on Sunday 21 November 1920 British troops and Irish police fired into the crowd at a Gaelic football match between Tipperary and Dublin, killing 14 people, including one of the away team players, Michael Hogan.
The stadium has, of course, changed utterly, out of all recognition, since then. It was one of the worst incidents of the savage Irish war of independence, the fact that it was a retaliation for the IRA's assassination of British undercover agents earlier in the day no excuse and it has scarred Anglo-Irish relations for 90 years. So the Queen's emergence from the players' tunnel in the Michael Hogan stand represented a second gesture of reconciliation in two days, after her wreath-laying on Tuesday at the city's garden of remembrance, where those killed in the fight for independence from Britain are honoured.
Christy Cooney, the Gaelic Athletic Association's president welcomed her, referring briefly to "tragic events" in the two countries' history and the loss of lives "including those who died in this place".
He called the visit "an important underpinning and advance of the process which ... is now irreversible." Unspoken, but hanging heavy over proceedings, were thoughts of the young Northern Irish policeman — and Gaelic footballer — Ronan Kerr, murdered by the Real IRA in April: a previously unimaginable happening not least because members of the north's police were until recently banned from membership of the GAA.
Nevertheless, so tender are sensitivities that only one county GAA organisation from Ulster attended the Queen's visit.
Outside the stadium, well out of earshot, 40 members of Republican Sinn Féin, aligned to the Continuity IRA, protested against the attempt to normalise relations with Britain. Later, outside Dublin Castle, missiles and fireworks were fired at Garda lines by up to 200 dissident republican demonstrators. The protesters, from three dissident Republican organisations — Republican Sinn Féin, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement and the socialist Irish republican party Éirígí, confronted the Garda to the side of the city's Christ Church cathedral, several hundred yards away from the back of Dublin Castle where the state banquet was taking place. The Garda made 20 arrests.
In the morning, the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, accompanied by the Irish president, Mary McAleese, had paid respects to more forgotten Irish casualties of the last century: the 49,400 who died fighting for Britain in the first world war. She laid a wreath at the memorial built only in the last few years to honour their memory.
Among those in attendance many of whom had come down from the North, was Jackie McDonald, a leader of the banned "loyalist" terrorist Ulster Defence Association, which killed 260 people during the Troubles. It was not clear whether the royal party realised he was present and there was no sign that the Queen recognised his presence.
Official representatives of Sinn Féin have been absent from this and other events, having asked not to be invited to meet the Queen, though Gerry Adams, the party's president, was seen briefly at the back of a demonstration against the visit.
The Queen – and journalists covering her trip – have been whisked through heavily policed streets nearly devoid of traffic and spectators. Those who turned up early outside the Guinness Storehouse visitor centre to catch a glimpse of the royal couple only managed a distant glimpse of the car.
Eamonn Murphy, 66, a former brewery worker, was philosophical about the security. "History is history," he told reporters. "It is always there but it is like every disagreement or row that people have, there is always a way back. In this case it has taken a very long time, but the mere fact that she did what she did yesterday has gone a long way to bury the past."
On a more mundane level of reconciliation, Iris Robinson, wife of the Northern Ireland first minister, Peter Robinson, was due to attend the state dinner with her husband, her first public appearance since revelations last year of her affair with a teenager.
That's close enough for me.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PMInteresting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
From Christy Cooney's speech:
"The Gaelic Athletic Association for its part will continue to try and build new relationships and to reach out in particular to members of the Unionist community"If we assume that Pres. Cooney is sincere, along with those GAA heads who were in attendance, how do the missing 5 NI (or 8 Ulster?) counties reconcile their absence with their Association's stated aim of reaching out to Unionists?
There is a significant mistrust of the GAA amongst Unionists, which I suspect GAA fans in Munster, Leinster & Connacht find hard to accept, or even understand. But one of the things I have learned from reading this Board is that not all GAA fans think or behave the same (I suppose I should have guessed).
Anyhow, if communication and bridge-building etc needs to be two-way in order to work, people need to be honest and admit that the current mistrust between Unionism and Ulster GAA is not all the fault of Tom Elliot or Nelson McCausland.
As you can see, EG, there are nuances. I'm from the north, grew up through the troubles, our family was affected. But I for one am ready to move on. Others less so. The people who snubbed the event aren't representative of the majority in the association.
When it comes to voting on the likes of Rule 21 and Rule 42, the northern counties tend to take a more conservative line. But having said that, there are people in the GAA in the north who are more progressive. The Ulster Council is arguably a lot more progressive than the counties that affiliate to it since they have been the driving force behind a lot of the cross-community initiatives like the Cu Chullain underage hurling teams and other unionist outreach endeavours.
You have to give credit where it's due.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Of course Down was affected by the Troubles, like every other county in Ireland.
But it seems to me that the reaction of Down GAA fans to such events is often more in accordance with the 23 counties of Munster, Leinster and Connacht, than the other 8 in Ulster.
Are they to be blamed for that?
Edit: My comment is directed towards Sligonian, rather than Eammonca1
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: lfdown2 on April 08, 2011, 02:19:54 AM
Does no-one think that (as is implied either on this thread or the thread in general discussion) the only reason for her visiting Croke Park is to issue an apology?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 12:29:05 PM
Whilst this is clearly a sensitive subject, is it not likely that she's going there to mark or apologise for what happened there?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: gerry on April 09, 2011, 09:45:17 PM
can anyone tell me why she going to croker?
Could you take an educated guess?
Quote from: Orangemac on April 10, 2011, 12:59:24 AM
You wouldimagne she will make some sort of statement when she goes to Croke park in terms of acknowledging Brithish wrongdoings in the past
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 04:16:46 PM
And if the IRA are absolved simply by an apology, surely an apology by the Queen in Ireland will put an enter to your whataboutery?
So I heard the reports of her visit to croke Park, and I've read the text of her speech this evening. What happened this apology lads?
You're right - no apology. (And i'm sure you're happy there wasn't.)
Maybe the theme is just about 'moving on'... don't forget the past, but don't let it dictate the future.
Jaysus Eamonn that is some condescending nonsense. Now those in the north who oppose the visit are just unable to move on and are not progressive?
And if a deliberate and careful avoidance of an apology in her speech is enough for you, well, what ever floats your boat.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:41:56 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2011, 04:12:38 PM
What is objectionable about British policy is that they are working to keep Ireland divided, and that is not acceptable.
They're doing no such thing. They can't wait to get rid of the place and they worked very hard to get the GFA in place as a pathway to Irish unity. Some people seem to think the Brits have the ability to just pull the plug and leave tomorrow but are refusing to do so out of spite. It doesn't work like that.
Under the GFA, the Brits can't "leave" until/unless a majority of voters in NI opt for a UI.
And as I've argued elsewhere (without, I think, any persuasive argument to the contrary), that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
That being so, if the Brits really can't wait etc, one might expect them to be taking steps in designed to ease/persuade/finagle NI's Unionists towards a UI.
What such steps can you point to, since I certainly cannot discern any from this side of the water, under this Government at least.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 10:49:47 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: lfdown2 on April 08, 2011, 02:19:54 AM
Does no-one think that (as is implied either on this thread or the thread in general discussion) the only reason for her visiting Croke Park is to issue an apology?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 12:29:05 PM
Whilst this is clearly a sensitive subject, is it not likely that she's going there to mark or apologise for what happened there?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: gerry on April 09, 2011, 09:45:17 PM
can anyone tell me why she going to croker?
Could you take an educated guess?
Quote from: Orangemac on April 10, 2011, 12:59:24 AM
You wouldimagne she will make some sort of statement when she goes to Croke park in terms of acknowledging Brithish wrongdoings in the past
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 09, 2011, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2011, 09:56:15 PM
Reagan - no visit to Croke Park.
Clinton - no visit to Croke Park.
JKF - nope.
Prince Rainier - nope.
Has it occurred to anyone why she might be going to Croke Park?
Some people are a bit slow on the uptake. I also suspect some people don't really want acknowledgement or apologies and would rather 'retain' a perceived 'moral high ground'.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2011, 04:16:46 PM
And if the IRA are absolved simply by an apology, surely an apology by the Queen in Ireland will put an enter to your whataboutery?
So I heard the reports of her visit to croke Park, and I've read the text of her speech this evening. What happened this apology lads?
You're right - no apology. (And i'm sure you're happy there wasn't.)
Maybe the theme is just about 'moving on'... don't forget the past, but don't let it dictate the future.
Repeating someone in particular there? Yes? There's a good sheep.
Oh, are you the same Maguire who said people were 'slow on the uptake' as to why she mite have been going specifically to croke park, and implied she would be going to make some sort of apology?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 10:44:40 PM
As you can see, EG, there are nuances. I'm from the north, grew up through the troubles, our family was affected. But I for one am ready to move on. Others less so. The people who snubbed the event aren't representative of the majority in the association.
When it comes to voting on the likes of Rule 21 and Rule 42, the northern counties tend to take a more conservative line. But having said that, there are people in the GAA in the north who are more progressive. The Ulster Council is arguably a lot more progressive than the counties that affiliate to it since they have been the driving force behind a lot of the cross-community initiatives like the c* Chullain underage hurling teams and other unionist outreach endeavours.
You have to give credit where it's due.
this line being rolled out is starting to rag me. its the new excuse for people having a different opinion to something. so a few counties chose not to go down, so what? they probably missed a big dinner and a few jars but the fact that our chairman didn't go and see the Queen of England isn't going to be the reason why children brought up in non-GAA houses don't join GAA clubs. But the media will spin it up as will politicians and it will go round in circles again. the real change is and will hopefully be made by grass roots people by simple things like asking their neighbours do their children want to try something new. By asking primary schools who don't have GAA in their PE classes do they want to try something new. Not by some gobshite sitting rubbing shoulders with other gobshites in Croke Park, eating a steak and smiling at the cameras.
Not having a go at you there Eamonn in case you thought I was
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 10:57:48 PM
Repeating someone in particular there? Yes? There's a good sheep.
Oh, are you the same Maguire who said people were 'slow on the uptake' as to why she mite have been going specifically to croke park, and implied she would be going to make some sort of apology?
I'm a sheep? Why? Because I don't agree with you? If I agreed with you, would I not just be a different sheep? Does everyone have to have a unique opinion on everything?
And yes, I know what I said and you've conveniently posted the quotes. I'm happy to admit I was wrong. Not that I think it has changed the minds of anyone on either side of the argument.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Oh so there is no significance in the fact that five of the six counties refused to send representatives?
In the light of 5 NI counties deliberately snubbing their (i.e. Unionists') Monarch, Unionists in NI will feel vindicated in their belief that the GAA is not just a pro-Irish organisation, but is actually also an
anti-British organisation.
And as a consequence, many will go further and conclude that the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
And with examples such as today's who can properly blame us?
Eamonn, do you seriously think that represents an apology! Her visit marked the anniversary of the worst atrocity of the troubles which many suspect her crown forces were involved in. This suspicion is increased by the fact that they won't hand over their files. I'm sorry but some waffle about historical hindsight is bullshit. I really don't know what the hell the purpose if this visit was except to waste another 30 million euro.
The Queen of f**king England.
Who gives a shit? I've heard that line 'oh it's a sad day for Ireland and the GAA'. You ask them why. They say 'cos she's the Queen of England and 800 years and Bloody Sunday an all'.
Jesus lads, leave it to the politicians and those in the background and move on. The Queen now (or the King/Queen then) hasn't a clue about what military operations their nation's army are/were engaging in, not then, not now. For all we know she could be a fanatical supporter of the S Armagh Snipers' Organisation. This country has important political and economic dealings to be getting on with. Leave it to those we elected. The creation and development of the N-S bodies (and the unseen work regarding those) means we're actually a lot closer to the end goal than ever before. Harping on about the horrible symbolism of an old lady born into a family of dimwits visiting a piece of land where one of the hundreds of cold killings took place 90 years ago is pointless and close-minded. There's much more important work to be done.
When Alex Maskey laid a wreath to commemorate those who died in the British Army during WW1 (not long before Bloody Sunday) the sky didn't fall. When the Queen of England visited a place where her nation's forces killed Irishmen in retaliation for an earlier successful mission, the sky won't fall either. In two days' time you'll still be paying your bills, you'll still be lambasting Sludden and the ongoing work to better where we are today as republicans or nationalists will continue. The pseudo-republican stance of many up here is an empty one. Progressive republicans will pay this week's events no heed.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 10:51:23 PM
Now those in the north who oppose the visit are just unable to move on and are not progressive?
Yes. How else would you describe it?
Quote
And if a deliberate and careful avoidance of an apology in her speech is enough for you, well, what ever floats your boat.
An apology is a statement of regret.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Oh so there is no significance in the fact that five of the six counties refused to send representatives?
In the light of 5 NI counties deliberately snubbing their (i.e. Unionists') Monarch, Unionists in NI will feel vindicated in their belief that the GAA is not just a pro-Irish organisation, but is actually also an anti-British organisation.
And as a consequence, many will go further and conclude that the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
And with examples such as today's who can properly blame us?
Perhaps the majority of gaa members in ulster would also pass on an opportunity to meet the British queen and maybe the elected gaa representatives are merely reflecting the reality on the ground. I know i would have no interest in meeting her or having someone who represents me meeting her either. There are plenty if people with that view in the northern cities of England too.
She got her bit of Irish in too - good move by her PR team. Nelson will be ragin'!
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 10:54:05 PM
That being so, if the Brits really can't wait etc, one might expect them to be taking steps in designed to ease/persuade/finagle NI's Unionists towards a UI.
That's a bit of an extrapolation on your part. The position they seem to have taken is one of neutrality. They'll respect the wishes of the majority in the north no matter which way they vote in a future border poll. Maybe they know that northern Protestants can only be persuaded by their catholic neighbours in the north and that relations are so complex and involved that it's best to leave it up to the people on the ground to sort it out between themselves.
Do you seriously think that northern unionists would listen to a British government telling them the benefits of a united Ireland? Yiz have never trusted any British government, you're not likely to start listening to them now.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 18, 2011, 07:32:41 PM
Evil Genuis, of someone of the Unionist persuasion, what it the feeling amongst Unionist of the Queen visiting such places as The Garden of Remembrance and Croke Park. Positive signs or look upon with mistrust and suspicion?
Can't speak for other Unionists ("Ussuns isn't all the same", ye know!) but for myself, I was unsure, even disconcerted when I heard these were on her Itinerary (esp the Garden, with its clear connection to the Rising etc).
But when I witnessed the occasion yesterday and realised that it was as big a step for her hosts as it was for her (eg playing GSTQ), I concluded that it is a positive thing.
That said, it's easier for me to take a somewhat detached view from GB - those Unionists who live in NI, with all the pressures and tensions etc, might well be more concerned.
But I guess when they waken up tomorrow and realise the sky
hasn't fallen in, they will settle down. After all, like everyone else in NI, they've had to get used to much more challenging facts of life than this.
P.S. Speaking personally, the only antagonistic note for me thus far was the sight of that lowlife sc**bag Jackie McDonald at Island Bridge this morning, esp when he talked about "his" community - a community which he and his kind have terrorised and destroyed etc as much as the IRA ever did. I must accept that the concensus is that it was right for him to be there, but I find it deeply shameful to be associated with vermin like that and I know many, many Unionists feel the same. >:(
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 18, 2011, 11:17:30 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Oh so there is no significance in the fact that five of the six counties refused to send representatives?
In the light of 5 NI counties deliberately snubbing their (i.e. Unionists') Monarch, Unionists in NI will feel vindicated in their belief that the GAA is not just a pro-Irish organisation, but is actually also an anti-British organisation.
And as a consequence, many will go further and conclude that the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
And with examples such as today's who can properly blame us?
Perhaps the majority of gaa members in ulster would also pass on an opportunity to meet the British queen and maybe the elected gaa representatives are merely reflecting the reality on the ground. I know i would have no interest in meeting her or having someone who represents me meeting her either. There are plenty if people with that view in the northern cities of England too.
I wouldn't have any interest in meeting her myself (anymore than most heads of state). And I imagine a lot of people all over the country are indifferent to the visit.
But I can see EG's point. This was clearly a snub, and will be interpreted as such by Unionists in the north. And will give them more reasons to refute claims of 'outreach'.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
In the light of 5 NI counties deliberately snubbing their (i.e. Unionists') Monarch, Unionists in NI will feel vindicated in their belief that the GAA is not just a pro-Irish organisation, but is actually also an anti-British organisation.
And as a consequence, many will go further and conclude that the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
And with examples such as today's who can properly blame us?
I can. The GAA invites the Queen to Croke Park despite protests from some quarters, including some within the organisation, and you're still not willing to acknowledge the gesture because you're only focused on the minority who didn't attend rather than the majority of counties who did attend. Your description of the Ulster Council's genuine attempts to reach out to unionists as a "sham" says more about you and your inability to let go of your hatred than it does about the GAA.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 10:54:05 PM
That being so, if the Brits really can't wait etc, one might expect them to be taking steps in designed to ease/persuade/finagle NI's Unionists towards a UI.
That's a bit of an extrapolation on your part. The position they seem to have taken is one of neutrality. They'll respect the wishes of the majority in the north no matter which way they vote in a future border poll. Maybe they know that northern Protestants can only be persuaded by their catholic neighbours in the north and that relations are so complex and involved that it's best to leave it up to the people on the ground to sort it out between themselves.
Do you seriously think that northern unionists would listen to a British government telling them the benefits of a united Ireland? Yiz have never trusted any British government, you're not likely to start listening to them now.
David Cameron, 6 December 2008:
"I will never be neutral when it comes to expressing my support for the Union"
Quote from: SHEEDY on May 18, 2011, 08:56:42 PM
some of the events this week have been a step too far. partition seems to have been copper fastened. the queen has been paraded around like some sort of celebrity with the usual suspects lining up to kiss ass. any dissenting voices are quickly ridiculed as only speaking for a minority. have to say im really disappointed with the down co.board decision to partake in todays sham at croke park. a united ulster non show would have sent the gaa a strong message
Not just the GAA; the non-GAA people of NI will have got the message, too... ::)
* - Instead of "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish", is it "No Black Prods or British"?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 11:23:39 PM
But I can see EG's point. This was clearly a snub, and will be interpreted as such by Unionists in the north. And will give them more reasons to refute claims of 'outreach'.
The Nelson McCauslands of this world will always find ways to pick holes in the GAA and gaelic culture in general. Out of 32 counties, only five were not represented. People like EG would rather focus on the 5 who were absent rather than the 27 who were present.
Quote from: ONeill on May 18, 2011, 11:09:30 PM
The Queen of f**king England.
Who gives a shit? I've heard that line 'oh it's a sad day for Ireland and the GAA'. You ask them why. They say 'cos she's the Queen of England and 800 years and Bloody Sunday an all'.
Jesus lads, leave it to the politicians and those in the background and move on. The Queen now (or the King/Queen then) hasn't a clue about what military operations their nation's army are/were engaging in, not then, not now. For all we know she could be a fanatical supporter of the S Armagh Snipers' Organisation. This country has important political and economic dealings to be getting on with. Leave it to those we elected. The creation and development of the N-S bodies (and the unseen work regarding those) means we're actually a lot closer to the end goal than ever before. Harping on about the horrible symbolism of an old lady born into a family of dimwits visiting a piece of land where one of the hundreds of cold killings took place 90 years ago is pointless and close-minded. There's much more important work to be done.
When Alex Maskey laid a wreath to commemorate those who died in the British Army during WW1 (not long before Bloody Sunday) the sky didn't fall. When the Queen of England visited a place where her nation's forces killed Irishmen in retaliation for an earlier successful mission, the sky won't fall either. In two days' time you'll still be paying your bills, you'll still be lambasting Sludden and the ongoing work to better where we are today as republicans or nationalists will continue. The pseudo-republican stance of many up here is an empty one. Progressive republicans will pay this week's events no heed.
Good man, O'Neill!
Very well put.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
* - Instead of "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish", is it "No Black Prods or British"?
It'd be a bit difficult since children in Britain are busily playing Gaelic football in their hundreds as part of their school PE programs.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 11:27:26 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 10:54:05 PM
That being so, if the Brits really can't wait etc, one might expect them to be taking steps in designed to ease/persuade/finagle NI's Unionists towards a UI.
That's a bit of an extrapolation on your part. The position they seem to have taken is one of neutrality. They'll respect the wishes of the majority in the north no matter which way they vote in a future border poll. Maybe they know that northern Protestants can only be persuaded by their catholic neighbours in the north and that relations are so complex and involved that it's best to leave it up to the people on the ground to sort it out between themselves.
Do you seriously think that northern unionists would listen to a British government telling them the benefits of a united Ireland? Yiz have never trusted any British government, you're not likely to start listening to them now.
David Cameron, 6 December 2008: "I will never be neutral when it comes to expressing my support for the Union"
I see you and I raise you:
QuoteThe Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships.
Downing Street Declaration, 1993
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
Quote from: SHEEDY on May 18, 2011, 08:56:42 PM
some of the events this week have been a step too far. partition seems to have been copper fastened. the queen has been paraded around like some sort of celebrity with the usual suspects lining up to kiss ass. any dissenting voices are quickly ridiculed as only speaking for a minority. have to say im really disappointed with the down co.board decision to partake in todays sham at croke park. a united ulster non show would have sent the gaa a strong message
Not just the GAA; the non-GAA people of NI will have got the message, too... ::)
* - Instead of "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish", is it "No Black Prods or British"?
You do know who Samuel Maguire was EG ::)
The G.A.A. is all its membership not just a tiny minority.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:29:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 11:23:39 PM
But I can see EG's point. This was clearly a snub, and will be interpreted as such by Unionists in the north. And will give them more reasons to refute claims of 'outreach'.
The Nelson McCauslands of this world will always find ways to pick holes in the GAA and gaelic culture in general. Out of 32 counties, only five were not represented. People like EG would rather focus on the 5 who were absent rather than the 27 who were present.
I wouldn't equate EG with McCausland. I fully acknowledge that some people will never be happy and will always look to pick holes.
Although surely, from his perspective, as a Unionist, the fact that the 5 counties were those from Norn Iron is the issue.
As a Tyrone man, I'm proud my county wasn't represented
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:32:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 11:27:26 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 10:54:05 PM
That being so, if the Brits really can't wait etc, one might expect them to be taking steps in designed to ease/persuade/finagle NI's Unionists towards a UI.
That's a bit of an extrapolation on your part. The position they seem to have taken is one of neutrality. They'll respect the wishes of the majority in the north no matter which way they vote in a future border poll. Maybe they know that northern Protestants can only be persuaded by their catholic neighbours in the north and that relations are so complex and involved that it's best to leave it up to the people on the ground to sort it out between themselves.
Do you seriously think that northern unionists would listen to a British government telling them the benefits of a united Ireland? Yiz have never trusted any British government, you're not likely to start listening to them now.
David Cameron, 6 December 2008: "I will never be neutral when it comes to expressing my support for the Union"
I see you and I raise you:
QuoteThe Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships.
Downing Street Declaration, 1993
Yes, the constitutional position is clear - it's the same in the GFA. The will of the people will dictate the constitional position. And Cameron hasn't contradicted this. He has just said he wasn't neutral - he's a Unionist. And he's the current PM.
Quote from: red hander on May 18, 2011, 11:40:59 PM
As a Tyrone man, I'm proud my county wasn't represented
Maybe in a few years when things calm down further we may grant the Queen an audience with God! But I suppose there's a fair bit of work to do before she earns that right!
"We cannot change the past, but we have decided to change the future."
Trite or an aphorism to rank with "ask not ... " or "I have a dream ..."?
Quote from: andoireabu on May 18, 2011, 11:03:22 PM
this line being rolled out is starting to rag me. its the new excuse for people having a different opinion to something. so a few counties chose not to go down, so what? they probably missed a big dinner and a few jars
Try turning that around.
If the Queen's visit
isn't such a big deal, then why
couldn't the Ulster counties attend?
Be honest, one of the few things which most people agree on is that the visit is significant. Consequently, the various events have been attended by every shade of political opinion and society in the Republic; and by Unionists, Nationalists, Loyalists and all sorts from NI (even the Orange Order and UDA were at Island Bridge this morning!)
In fact, it is easier to list those organisations who
weren't there: i.e. Eirige, 32 County Sovereignty Movement, Republican SF and SF itself. Oh, and (with the honourable exception of Down) Ulster GAA....
Some pretty choice company, there, eh? ::)
Quote from: andoireabu on May 18, 2011, 11:03:22 PM... but the fact that our chairman didn't go and see the Queen of England isn't going to be the reason why children brought up in non-GAA houses don't join GAA clubs.
You are confusing cause and symptom.
The reason why parents from non-GAA (i.e. Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist) households in NI do not encourage their children to attend GAA is because rightly or wrongly, they perceive the GAA (in NI, at any rate) to be anti-Prod/Unionist/Loyalist.
And since the Queen is the very symbol of Prodism/Unionism/Loyalism etc, the fact that the GAA in NI deliberately chooses to snub her, and in in their (GAA's) own home at that, seems unarguable evidence that this perception is at least partly correct.
Quote from: andoireabu on May 18, 2011, 11:03:22 PMBut the media will spin it up as will politicians and it will go round in circles again.
Ah right, the media are to to blame... ::)
Quote from: andoireabu on May 18, 2011, 11:03:22 PMthe real change is and will hopefully be made by grass roots people by simple things like asking their neighbours do their children want to try something new. By asking primary schools who don't have GAA in their PE classes do they want to try something new.
And what if the answer is "No", as it likely will be, following this latest snub?
Quote from: andoireabu on May 18, 2011, 11:03:22 PMNot by some gobshite sitting rubbing shoulders with other gobshites in Croke Park, eating a steak and smiling at the cameras.
Er, the "news" is not that some GAA-head or other had steak on a visit to Croke Park, but that he went* there to meet the Queen.
Actually on reflection, that's only half the news. The other half is, of course, that the Queen went to Croke, to meet the GAA.
* - Or didn't, as in this case... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 12:11:15 AM
The other half is, of course, that the Queen went to Croke, to meet the GAA.
...at the GAA's invitation.
QuoteYes, the constitutional position is clear - it's the same in the GFA. The will of the people will dictate the constitional position. And Cameron hasn't contradicted this. He has just said he wasn't neutral - he's a Unionist. And he's the current PM.
Exactly. The motives of the British haven't changed, they still want to keep as much of Ireland as possible. They just have to be more circumspect in their methods in this day and age.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 12:11:15 AM
In fact, it is easier to list those organisations who weren't there: i.e. Eirige, 32 County Sovereignty Movement, Republican SF and SF itself. Oh, and (with the honourable exception of Down) Ulster GAA....
There are 9 counties in Ulster GAA - 5 didn't attend.
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
Shocking.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 18, 2011, 11:17:30 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Oh so there is no significance in the fact that five of the six counties refused to send representatives?
In the light of 5 NI counties deliberately snubbing their (i.e. Unionists') Monarch, Unionists in NI will feel vindicated in their belief that the GAA is not just a pro-Irish organisation, but is actually also an anti-British organisation.
And as a consequence, many will go further and conclude that the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
And with examples such as today's who can properly blame us?
Perhaps the majority of gaa members in ulster would also pass on an opportunity to meet the British queen and maybe the elected gaa representatives are merely reflecting the reality on the ground. I know i would have no interest in meeting her or having someone who represents me meeting her either. There are plenty if people with that view in the northern cities of England too.
Being "interested" is hardly the point. I'm quite sure the likes of Christy Cooney, as President of the GAA, gets invited to all sorts of events in which he has no personal interest, but he goes because of his position.
Come to that, do you think the Queen was interested in visiting Croke, to see the exact spot where somebody-or-other did something against somebody else, in the course of some sport she has never even heard of? ::)
I actually felt sorry for the poor woman. They were tripping over themselves and almost bumping into her in croke park to get close. Then On a cold day they sat her out with only 5 others listening to the band. How surreal would that have felt in an empty stadium. She will go home now wondering why they are making gumshields compulsory in hurling.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2011, 12:15:33 AM
Exactly. The motives of the British haven't changed, they still want to keep as much of Ireland as possible. They just have to be more circumspect in their methods in this day and age.
Oh please! The Brits are hanging onto the north because they're greedy? Give me a break! Some people have an over-inflated sense of Ireland's importance. The Brits have plenty on their plates without having to worry about their troublesome little "province" in the north.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 04:07:24 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2011, 12:15:33 AM
Exactly. The motives of the British haven't changed, they still want to keep as much of Ireland as possible. They just have to be more circumspect in their methods in this day and age.
Oh please! The Brits are hanging onto the north because they're greedy? Give me a break! Some people have an over-inflated sense of Ireland's importance. The Brits have plenty on their plates without having to worry about their troublesome little "province" in the north.
Sorry to rain on people's parades, but having worked for ten years in Ireland, I'm pretty sure that outside the border counties a referendum on a United Ireland would be defeated- and I'm not hanging that on the current economic situation either by the way.
Speech in full:
Quote
"A hUachtarain agus a chairde [president and friends].
"Prince Philip and I are delighted to be here, and to experience at first hand Ireland's world famous hospitality.
"Together we have much to celebrate: the ties between our people, the shared values, and the economic, business and cultural links that make us so much more than neighbours, that make us firm friends and equal partners.
"Madame President, speaking here in Dublin Castle it is impossible to ignore the weight of history, as it was yesterday when you and I laid wreaths at the Garden of Remembrance.
"Indeed so much of this visit reminds us of the complexity of our history, its many layers and traditions, but also the importance of forbearance and conciliation, of being able to bow to the past but not be bound by it.
"Of course the relationship has not always been straightforward; nor has the record over the centuries been entirely benign.
"It is a sad and regrettable reality that through history our islands have experienced more than their fair share of heartache, turbulence and loss.
"These events have touched us all, many of us personally, and are a painful legacy. We can never forget those who have died or been injured or their families.
"To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy.
"With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all.
"But it is also true that no one who looked to the future over the past centuries could have imagined the strength of the bonds that are now in place between the governments and the people of our two nations, the spirit of partnership that we now enjoy, and the lasting rapport between us.
"No one here this evening could doubt that heartfelt desire of our two nations.
"Madame President, you have done a great deal to promote this understanding and reconciliation. You set out to build bridges. And I have seen it first hand, your success in bringing together different communities and traditions on this island.
"You have also shed new light on the sacrifice of those who served in the First World War. Even as we jointly opened the Messines Peace Park in 1998 it was difficult to look ahead to the time when you and I would be standing together at Islandbridge as we were today.
"That transformation is also evident in the establishment of a successful power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. A knot of history that was painstakingly loosened by the British and Irish Governments together with the strength, vision and determination of the political parties in Northern Ireland.
"What were once only hopes for the future have now come to pass; it is almost exactly 13 years since the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland and Northern Ireland voted in favour of the agreement signed on Good Friday 1998, paving the way for Northern Ireland to become the exciting and inspirational place that it is today.
"I applaud the work of all those involved in the peace process and of all those who support and nurture peace, including members of the police, the Garda and the other emergency services, and those who work in the communities, the Churches and charitable bodies like Co-operation Ireland.
"Taken together, their work not only serves as the basis for reconciliation between our peoples and communities, but it gives hope to other peacemakers across the world that through sustained effort, peace can and will prevail.
"For the world moves on quickly. The challenges of the past have been replaced by new economic challenges which will demand the same imagination and courage.
"The lessons from the peace process are clear - whatever life throws at us, our individual responses will be all the stronger for working together and sharing the load.
"There are other stories written daily across these islands which do not find their voice in solemn pages of history books, or newspaper headlines but which are at the heart of shared narrative.
"Many British families have members who live in this country, as many Irish families have close relatives in the United Kingdom. These families share the two islands; they have visited each other and have come home to each other over the years.
"They are the ordinary people who yearned for the peace and understanding we now have between our two nations and between the communities within those two nations; a living testament to how much in common we have.
"These ties of family, friendship and affection are our most precious resource. They are the lifeblood of the partnership across these islands, a golden thread that runs through all our joint successes so far, and all we will go on to achieve.
"They are a reminder that we have much to do together to build a future for all our grandchildren; the kind of future our grandparents could only dream of.
"So we celebrate together the widespread spread of goodwill and deep mutual understanding that has served to make the relationship more harmonious, close as good neighbours should always be."
Incidentally, EG, Her Majesty started her speech today by speaking in Irish. Now when a northern politician does that it usually gets greeted by hisses and jeers from your crowd. What do youse think of the Irish language now that HM thinks it's okay to speak it? And what do you think of HM honouring the fallen who fought for Irish independence? Hmm? And if it's okay for Her Majesty to associate with the GAA then surely it must now be okay for your crowd to do the same?
This trip must really be f***ing with your heads, musn't it?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
For once I'm in complete agreement with you.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
O'Snodaigh was embarrassing last night. Bumbling his words... couldnt look anyone in the eye.... and managed to stray past the point so much that Brown tied him up in knots.
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
O'Snodaigh was embarrassing last night. Bumbling his words... couldnt look anyone in the eye.... and managed to stray past the point so much that Brown tied him up in knots.
He was also noticable that he was the only panel member who was challenged on his opinion, which backs up the point in my last post that in the 26 counties, there is no room/tolerance for anyone who voices an opinion which strays from a certain viewpoint on this visit.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 07:53:14 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
For once I'm in complete agreement with you.
In that case I completely retract my statement haha Only joking ya!
EG, quick question - you mentioned that that you were uneasy about the visit to the Garden of Remembrance. Would you be equally as uneasy if she was to visiti the quivalent memorials in other former parts of the Empire, both in and out of the Commonwealth?! I have no idea, but I imagine she's probably visited the Washington monument before.
You can criticise the attitude of people or the GAA for "sham" attempts to reach out to Unionists, but that kind of opinion speaks volumes about how some Unionists still feel about the loss of the 26 counties. Shameful.
Quote from: mc_grens on May 19, 2011, 04:13:47 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 04:07:24 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2011, 12:15:33 AM
Exactly. The motives of the British haven't changed, they still want to keep as much of Ireland as possible. They just have to be more circumspect in their methods in this day and age.
Oh please! The Brits are hanging onto the north because they're greedy? Give me a break! Some people have an over-inflated sense of Ireland's importance. The Brits have plenty on their plates without having to worry about their troublesome little "province" in the north.
Sorry to rain on people's parades, but having worked for ten years in Ireland, I'm pretty sure that outside the border counties a referendum on a United Ireland would be defeated- and I'm not hanging that on the current economic situation either by the way.
Irish Unity will happen, perhaps not for another generation, when it does it will be because there are sensible economic and political reasons for doing so. The GFA allows for this. It protects Nationalists within the current jurisdiction but conversely will protect Unionists within any unified state.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 08:08:02 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
O'Snodaigh was embarrassing last night. Bumbling his words... couldnt look anyone in the eye.... and managed to stray past the point so much that Brown tied him up in knots.
He was also noticable that he was the only panel member who was challenged on his opinion, which backs up the point in my last post that in the 26 counties, there is no room/tolerance for anyone who voices an opinion which strays from a certain viewpoint on this visit.
Being the only one challenged should have given him a chance to make his point clearly instead of wandering in to GFA where Browne nailed him. I actually agree with him that she didnt go far enough in her statement but he was a pathetic representative of that side of the argument.
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 08:08:02 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
O'Snodaigh was embarrassing last night. Bumbling his words... couldnt look anyone in the eye.... and managed to stray past the point so much that Brown tied him up in knots.
He was also noticable that he was the only panel member who was challenged on his opinion, which backs up the point in my last post that in the 26 counties, there is no room/tolerance for anyone who voices an opinion which strays from a certain viewpoint on this visit.
Being the only one challenged should have given him a chance to make his point clearly instead of wandering in to GFA where Browne nailed him. I actually agree with him that she didnt go far enough in her statement but he was a pathetic representative of that side of the argument.
How well he performed is one aspect but I think he was clearly under most pressure as he was the only panel member who it seemed acceptable to challenge. It was reminiscent of Inda's plea for people not to protest and embarass the country, and of Christy Cooney's instruction for no discussion on his Croke Park invitation. No room or tolerance for anyone who might dare to feel uncomfortable about or opposed to the visit, and who are opposed to this seemingly agreed version of how this visit should be viewed.
I'm far from Enda Kenny's biggest fan Nally, but I think you are misrepresenting what he said. He said people were entitled to protest, peacefully. What he said was the he hoped they didn't embarrass our country in doing so. The lads setting fire to bins and throwing things at the gardai didn't heed him unfortunately, but there was only a few of them at least.
Quote from: Bingo on May 18, 2011, 04:56:24 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 18, 2011, 04:51:38 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on May 18, 2011, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: Canalman on May 18, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
For a man nearing 90 that Prince Philip is looking well. Oh and I am aware that he hasn't worked a day in his life.
I'm pretty sure he won't die until he has insulted every race and country on this planet.
It's a wonder he hasn't said anything yet.
By all accounts he asked Joe Sheridan why he wasn't playing for Leinster at the weekend in Cardiff.
He said to a physio student in TCD on Tuesday that she is of the right build for that kind of work, she is of the stocky variety. Anyone got footage of Nicky putting his foot in it yesterday? We were always schooled to help aul wans around the place, he should have given the protocol observer a rap around the ankles and continued on.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 19, 2011, 09:43:57 AM
I'm far from Enda Kenny's biggest fan Nally, but I think you are misrepresenting what he said. He said people were entitled to protest, peacefully. What he said was the he hoped they didn't embarrass our country in doing so. The lads setting fire to bins and throwing things at the gardai didn't heed him unfortunately, but there was only a few of them at least.
Absolutely nothing wrong with peaceful protest, but attacking Gardaí, vandalism and general thuggary is all we saw from these inbreds (the other inbreds, our visitors, behaved themselves :D )
Noticed on the clip of the eejit burning the Union Jack that it was a freebie advertising the Sun.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 09:40:35 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 08:08:02 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
O'Snodaigh was embarrassing last night. Bumbling his words... couldnt look anyone in the eye.... and managed to stray past the point so much that Brown tied him up in knots.
He was also noticable that he was the only panel member who was challenged on his opinion, which backs up the point in my last post that in the 26 counties, there is no room/tolerance for anyone who voices an opinion which strays from a certain viewpoint on this visit.
Being the only one challenged should have given him a chance to make his point clearly instead of wandering in to GFA where Browne nailed him. I actually agree with him that she didnt go far enough in her statement but he was a pathetic representative of that side of the argument.
How well he performed is one aspect but I think he was clearly under most pressure as he was the only panel member who it seemed acceptable to challenge. It was reminiscent of Inda's plea for people not to protest and embarass the country, and of Christy Cooney's instruction for no discussion on his Croke Park invitation. No room or tolerance for anyone who might dare to feel uncomfortable about or opposed to the visit, and who are opposed to this seemingly agreed version of how this visit should be viewed.
Will ya stop wandering off the point and doing the same thing he did. Enda Kenny was referring to the scum with the wheelie bins wearing the english premiership jerseys. And it turned out he was right. Now I dont have much time for Enda or the Queen but the likes of those street trash and that bumbling twit on Vincent Browne last night dont make for great reference points for anyone that had genuine issues with the visit.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 18, 2011, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on May 18, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Interesting that only 1 of the 9 Ulster counties accepted invitation, speaks volumes that those most affected decided not yet, this to me should be respected more than any other viewpoint.
Oh, so Down wasn't affected by the troubles then? That business in Loughinisland didn't happen? Nobody was blown up in Warrenpoint?
Oh so there is no significance in the fact that five of the six counties refused to send representatives?
In the light of 5 NI counties deliberately snubbing their (i.e. Unionists') Monarch, Unionists in NI will feel vindicated in their belief that the GAA is not just a pro-Irish organisation, but is actually also an anti-British organisation.
And as a consequence, And with examples such as today's who can properly blame us?[/b]
Can't do this multiple quote thing EG, but after a great post about the presence of Jackie McDonlad and his mates at Island Bridge (I think the media have decided this should be glossed over as it doesn't support the "aren't we all great mates" message of the visit), in several other posts you state (perhpas not verbatim) "I think Unionists will feel" "Unionists will view" etc and in other posts occasionally "we" and "us". Then in response to Ziggy's question on how Unionists view the visit you say that you can't speak for all Unionists as ussuns aren't all the same which appears to be a dig at Ziggy who I don't think for one minute suggested in his question that "yous'uns" are all the same.
Now you can't have it both ways. You are confident that you know how Unionists will view the decision of some counties not to send a representative to HQ yesterday and how they feel on other issues yet on some issues (when there is no obvious stick with which to beat the GAA?) it's "Hey we're not all the same (as yous'uns always view us)" From reading all your posts of the last couple of days, I think this visit and its perceived "success" (so far) has thrown you a bit, until you found an alleged stick, with which to beat, yesterday.
However my main point was your assertion that "many (Unionists) will go further and conclude that
the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
Now here I admit you don't claim to speak for all Unionists, just "many". How many, 10, 1,000, 99%? How do you know this? As relevant is my straw poll of three Unionists (all of whom live in NI ;)) at work. Now two of these (66%) knew the Queen was at Croke Pk yesterday but didn't know that some counties were not represented and had no strong views on the fact that, for instance, my own county was not there. One of these (33%) actually said "Well it's good if most of them were there" The third (33%) knew that some counties were not represented but said he could understand this position and he also understood the position the Shinners had taken in relation to the visit (and let's just say this person has been directly affected by Republican violence, albeit a long time ago and isn't time he moved on?)
Lastly I can assure you that outreach work being undertaken by the GAA, in Antrim at least, is anything but a sham. Get out from behind your computer screen and ask some of the Unionists who have experienced this (or are there not that many in Hampstead or Barnsley)?
How do Dubs on the board view Tom Idiot Elliott's statement that he was happy to be at Island Bridge as he always regarded Dublin as a "Royal" city (UTV last night)
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 19, 2011, 10:01:17 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 19, 2011, 09:43:57 AM
I'm far from Enda Kenny's biggest fan Nally, but I think you are misrepresenting what he said. He said people were entitled to protest, peacefully. What he said was the he hoped they didn't embarrass our country in doing so. The lads setting fire to bins and throwing things at the gardai didn't heed him unfortunately, but there was only a few of them at least.
Absolutely nothing wrong with peaceful protest, but attacking Gardaí, vandalism and general thuggary is all we saw from these inbreds (the other inbreds, our visitors, behaved themselves :D )
Scumbags for the most part that are out only to cause trouble. I'm sure though when either Manchester Utd/Liverpool play a friendly match against some Irish club they will be out in full force to cheer on 'their' team. ::)
I had my reservations about this visit but so far I have been very proud as an Irish man. I support a 32 county united Ireland, but by peaceful means. Snubbing the Brits is not going to achieve anything. The organisation of this visit involved risks on both sides. From the worry of how the queen would be received in Ireland and for the Royal Family themselves I'm sure they worried about how the visit of the Queen to the Memorial Gardens and to Croke Park would go down back in Britain.
I was disappointed that most of the Ulster Counties decided to stay away but I suppose its more difficult for those in the north than it is for us down here. But I feel we have still come along way. There can be no more violence in Ireland in the future, its important for all that we try and move on from our violent past, whether you're Nationalist or Unionist.
Is the Queen still here? Will she be visiting other places like Knock, the Ardboe Cross and the settings for Ballykissangel or Glenroe or other places of richly important heritage to us?
As an Armaghman with strongly nationalist views I uphold the right of our Association to promote and protect all things Irish. However whilst acknowledging the hurt felt in Armagh, Tyrone, Derry, Fermanagh and Antrim over the harassment, occupation of grounds and indeed murder of members I do believe it is time to move on. Not unlike the Scots we Irish have a complicated relationship with Britain/England and one that has indeed caused hurt on both sides. Personally I would not have objected if my County had have been there yesterday, but I also know that for some it is perhaps too soon. And whilst 5 out of 9 abstained they at least did so without causing embarrassment by voicing dissent and this also must be commended. I welcome the visit and whilst I was uncomfortable the way some of Queen's speech was framed last night I do believe the whole thing will help National reconciliation.
Lads, on this board and on all the tv reports we are being fed the line that those protesting are vandals and unemployed lowlifes. There were many many peaceful protests across dublin which have been roundly ignored. Better to portray opponants to the visit as the minset of neatderthal thugs isn't it?
The anti-war protest in front of the GPO was on the news, what other protests were there?
What to f**k was McAleese at going 'Waow' every time the queen said any irish title. Made her look like a simpleton, and more than a little patronising to the irish public - 'Isnt she great, she said an irish word, see how accomodating shes being'. Really annoyed me, why couldn't she have sat there with her mouth shut and mebbe gave the odd smile, just like the dignitary shes supposed to be
This was sublime
Madam, – Now that "Éirigí" members have staged a sitdown protest in O'Connell Street, should the group be referred to as "Suígí"? Éirigí féin, b'fhéidir. – Yours, etc,
ALAN DOYLE,
Bóthar Belgrave,
An Charraig Dubh,
Baile Átha Cliath
Quote from: haranguerer on May 19, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
What to f**k was McAleese at going 'Waow' every time the queen said any irish title. Made her look like a simpleton, and more than a little patronising to the irish public - 'Isnt she great, she said an irish word, see how accomodating shes being'. Really annoyed me, why couldn't she have sat there with her mouth shut and mebbe gave the odd smile, just like the dignitary shes supposed to be
Not half as bad as Big Bird Robinson and thon false grin she permanently wears :-\
I hope tonight the security detail do not mistake Mary Byrne for a protestor as she bellows in the Queen's face.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 07:09:39 AM
Incidentally, EG, Her Majesty started her speech today by speaking in Irish. Now when a northern politician does that it usually gets greeted by hisses and jeers from your crowd. What do youse think of the Irish language now that HM thinks it's okay to speak it? And what do you think of HM honouring the fallen who fought for Irish independence? Hmm? And if it's okay for Her Majesty to associate with the GAA then surely it must now be okay for your crowd to do the same?
This trip must really be f***ing with your heads, musn't it?
Ah shure they are all the same! ::)
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 11:14:02 AM
Lads, on this board and on all the tv reports we are being fed the line that those protesting are vandals and unemployed lowlifes. There were many many peaceful protests across dublin which have been roundly ignored. Better to portray opponants to the visit as the minset of neatderthal thugs isn't it?
There is a phrase I have learned from the RA lovers on this board which comes to mind. Here goes my first time to use it. I think it suits most of those thugs.
"What else do you expect from pigs only grunts"
Quote from: haranguerer on May 19, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
What to f**k was McAleese at going 'Waow' every time the queen said any irish title. Made her look like a simpleton, and more than a little patronising to the irish public - 'Isnt she great, she said an irish word, see how accomodating shes being'. Really annoyed me, why couldn't she have sat there with her mouth shut and mebbe gave the odd smile, just like the dignitary shes supposed to be
Ya that irritated the f**k out of me too. For fck sake it wasn't like she sang our National Anthem or quoted Seán Óg Ó hAilpín accepting Liam. McAleese annoys my hole.
Quote from: 5 Sams on May 19, 2011, 11:47:17 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 19, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
What to f**k was McAleese at going 'Waow' every time the queen said any irish title. Made her look like a simpleton, and more than a little patronising to the irish public - 'Isnt she great, she said an irish word, see how accomodating shes being'. Really annoyed me, why couldn't she have sat there with her mouth shut and mebbe gave the odd smile, just like the dignitary shes supposed to be
Not half as bad as Big Bird Robinson and thon false grin she permanently wears :-\
Mayo Mary might be bad, but not half as bad as Build-a-Bridge Mary.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 19, 2011, 01:23:34 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 19, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
What to f**k was McAleese at going 'Waow' every time the queen said any irish title. Made her look like a simpleton, and more than a little patronising to the irish public - 'Isnt she great, she said an irish word, see how accomodating shes being'. Really annoyed me, why couldn't she have sat there with her mouth shut and mebbe gave the odd smile, just like the dignitary shes supposed to be
Ya that irritated the f**k out of me too. For fck sake it wasn't like she sang our National Anthem or quoted Seán Óg Ó hAilpín accepting Liam. McAleese annoys my hole.
Yawnnnnnn...more anti Northern sentiments from MGHU.
IN is reporting that only 1 Ulster County was there yesterday whilst others seem to say that 4 attended. Which is it does anyone know.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 01:27:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 19, 2011, 01:23:34 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 19, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
What to f**k was McAleese at going 'Waow' every time the queen said any irish title. Made her look like a simpleton, and more than a little patronising to the irish public - 'Isnt she great, she said an irish word, see how accomodating shes being'. Really annoyed me, why couldn't she have sat there with her mouth shut and mebbe gave the odd smile, just like the dignitary shes supposed to be
Ya that irritated the f**k out of me too. For fck sake it wasn't like she sang our National Anthem or quoted Seán Óg Ó hAilpín accepting Liam. McAleese annoys my hole.
Yawnnnnnn...more anti Northern sentiments from MGHU.
Waow ;D if I said the opposite you would have called me a west brit, can't win with some people. She actually does annoy the hole off me to be honest. Time for a man in the Aras, these women are so patronising.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 01:29:37 PM
IN is reporting that only 1 Ulster County was there yesterday whilst others seem to say that 4 attended. Which is it does anyone know.
Maybe it was RTE - Ulster 4 counties of 9, or Brit tv - ulster 1 county of 6.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 19, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 01:29:37 PM
IN is reporting that only 1 Ulster County was there yesterday whilst others seem to say that 4 attended. Which is it does anyone know.
Maybe it was RTE - Ulster 4 counties of 9, or Brit tv - ulster 1 county of 6.
Or the IRISH News - 1 County out of 9
http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/articles/a-guide-to-bar-stool-republicans
Very witty, although the statistic on unity is quoted a bit out of context. Most Northern Nationalist want to see reunification. Disagreement is on the timing, type of structures and economic considerations. As I have said previously unity will come but through a process of evolution and will take many years. The points about our hero's protesting against British political imperialism whilst wearing the uniform of British cultural imperialism would be lost on the average protester.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
Very witty, although the statistic on unity is quoted a bit out of context. Most Northern Nationalist want to see reunification. Disagreement is on the timing, type of structures and economic considerations. As I have said previously unity will come but through a process of evolution and will take many years. The points about our hero's protesting against British political imperialism whilst wearing the uniform of British cultural imperialism would be lost on the average protester.
When was the first United Ireland declared?
Serious question.
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2011, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
Very witty, although the statistic on unity is quoted a bit out of context. Most Northern Nationalist want to see reunification. Disagreement is on the timing, type of structures and economic considerations. As I have said previously unity will come but through a process of evolution and will take many years. The points about our hero's protesting against British political imperialism whilst wearing the uniform of British cultural imperialism would be lost on the average protester.
When was the first United Ireland declared?
Serious question.
Reunification after partition.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 02:57:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2011, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
Very witty, although the statistic on unity is quoted a bit out of context. Most Northern Nationalist want to see reunification. Disagreement is on the timing, type of structures and economic considerations. As I have said previously unity will come but through a process of evolution and will take many years. The points about our hero's protesting against British political imperialism whilst wearing the uniform of British cultural imperialism would be lost on the average protester.
When was the first United Ireland declared?
Serious question.
Reunification after partition.
Good answer.
From 1690 an all thon just thought I would share (This is a pisstake, lest MGHU take offence)
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Royal Visits til the Free State: A Retrospective.
As oor Queen visits the cloudier part o' this island for a lock o' days, Ah thunk it might be interestin' fur til take a luk at previous royal visits til Ireland. Many o' the papers hiv mentioned Queen Victoria an' King George comin' o'er, but Ah hiv decided til luk at three mair ancient visits. In daein' sae Ah hope fur til putt an end once an' fur all til the difficulties between oor twa nations, bringin' peace an' harmony til us all.
King Henry II, 1171.
As we seen in Bit 13 o' ma histry o' the Ulster Scots in this land, Henry II was nat a prapur royal king bein', as he was, both a French foreign an' the o'er surt. These basic facts shud make themuns sit up an' take notice, fur it was their surt that started it, nat oors. Unner the orders o' the Pope, Henry sent an army o'er in 1169 til subjectgate the Irish folk an' make them intil the o'er surt, but didnae visit hissel til 1171. At this point he papped o'er so that the Irish chiefs cud pay homage til him. Ah amnae tae sure whit homage is, tae be fair, but as a result o' it bein' paid, Henry was duly crowned "Lord o' Ireland".
King John I. 1185 an' 1210.
King Henry thunk it wud be a good idea fur til make his son John Lord o' Ireland insteid, fur til gie him a wee bit o' responsibility. A bit like gittin' yer wain' til cut the grass an' throwin' him a wheen o' poun' fur his money bax. Wee John came o'er til luk at his new lands in 1185, but made a bit o' an arse o' hissel. Apparently he was shacked til see that Irish kings had big long "ZZ Tap" style beards an' proceeded til grab them an' laid them aboot like wee pups. The Irish kings werenae tae plaised aboot this, and John went hame in bad form. Howiver he rectified this mistake in 1210 when he came o'er wi' a rake o' knights an' the like an' kicked the shite clean out o' a lock o' Angle Normans whit were causin' a bit o' bother. This included the first royal visit til Ulster, when he called at Carrickfergus castle an' flung racks at it. The Irish chiefs seem fur til have liked this, fur they all joined in throwin' racks, an' hivnae really stapped since.
King James I an' King Billy.1689 - 1690
Betwain' 1689 an' 1690 Ireland was fortunate enough til have nat one but twa Royal visitors, who made extensive toors durin' their stays. King James arrived first an' fannied about afore decidin' til visit Londonderry. Here the populace taul him til get til feck an' fired stuff at him. In response James surrounded the town wi' French folk an' the Derry Wans celebrated by atin' rats an' firin' stuff at the French til some boats arrived.
Meanwhile the o'er King o' England, King Billy, alsae travelled til Ireland, visitin' Carrickfergus an' tyin' his horse til a tree in every village betwain there an' Dublin. On July 1st the twa kings met up at the Boyne where King Billy knacked James' pan in, despite the Pope bein' there an' everythin'. The date o' the battle was later moved til the Twelfth fur til fit in wi' the rest o' the marchin saison. Incidentally historians now believe there is nae truth in the children's rhyme aboot King Billy havin' a ten fut willy, as the chances o' him showin' it til the woman next door, with her mistakin it fur a snake an' hittin' it wi' a rake, are slim.
Thus oor Queen's visit til themuns is but yin in a lang line o' visits. It is til be hoped that she disnae pull any beards, fling racks at anythin', surround any towns wi' French folk, fight wi' her in-laws or change the religion o' the people. An indaid that Prince Philip disnae show his willy til the woman next door.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:25:29 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
In the light of 5 NI counties deliberately snubbing their (i.e. Unionists') Monarch, Unionists in NI will feel vindicated in their belief that the GAA is not just a pro-Irish organisation, but is actually also an anti-British organisation.
And as a consequence, many will go further and conclude that the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
And with examples such as today's who can properly blame us?
I can. The GAA invites the Queen to Croke Park despite protests from some quarters, including some within the organisation, and you're still not willing to acknowledge the gesture because you're only focused on the minority who didn't attend rather than the majority of counties who did attend.
From what I understand, the Councils in Munster, Connacht and Leinster do not have a problem with being open and attractive to all the people within their Province.
The Ulster Council clearly does, since nearly half the population has (at best) no interest in GAA or even (at worst) views it with suspicion and mistrust etc.
Therefore when 5/9 (8/9) Ulster County Reps decline this Invitation, they are sending out a clear message to the people within their Province.
Moreover, this message is acutely directed, since the GAA is organised on a Local/County/Provincial basis i.e. the fact that Counties from the other Provinces were in attendance doesn't affect the people of NI/Ulster nearly so personally.
Anyhow, I personally do not see the difference in principle between eg Tom Elliott refusing an Invitation to a GAA game and a GAA Rep refusing an Invitation (by his Central Council, btw) to meet the Queen.
In practice, however, there is one difference. Tom Elliott does not profess to "reach out" to his Nationalist (GAA) opponents, whereas the GAA does profess to want to "reach out" to its Unionist fellow Irish folk.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:25:29 PMYour description of the Ulster Council's genuine attempts to reach out to unionists as a "sham" says more about you and your inability to let go of your hatred than it does about the GAA.
I have no doubt that eg those GAA coaches who are involved in
cross-community initiatives on the ground etc in NI are entirely sincere, and I would applaud their efforts.
However, they have to operate within a structure and within that structure they doubtless have to take their lead from the "Blazers" (for want of a better term).
This snub by the County Blazers indicates to me that they still have clear problems in this regard, at least in that they either cannot comprehend, or refuse to acknowledge, that their absence from CP sends the clear message to Unionists in NI that when it comes to it, the people who run the GAA in Ulster cannot even bring themselves to act with common courtesy towards the Queen, in the same way as their fellow Gaels in the rest of Ireland.
P.S. "hatred"? ::)
EG the Ulster Council is the body which is responsible for outreach and was represented by it's President who shook the Queens hand. Because some County Boards opted out should not be taken as representative of the views of the majority of members. As a life long Gael I don't really care wether Tom Elliott wants to go to matches or not, his recent comments show exactly where he stands. I welcome the Queens visit as a symbolic gesture to our shared history and as a Gael have no issue with it. However I do understand that some events from the recent troubles are still raw for some members e.g. Aiden McAnespie, Crossmaglen's ground, Sean Brown etc... In the same way Unionist victims still hurt. These view points must be respected you can't force healing. But yesterday was a small step along the way. The Irish ethos of the GAA is going to be an impediment to most Unionists embracing it in the short term, but in the long term who knows. Progress though could be heard in the sounds of silence from Sinn Fein and these Countys who did not fully endorse the visit. In the past there would have been significant protest.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:29:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 11:23:39 PM
But I can see EG's point. This was clearly a snub, and will be interpreted as such by Unionists in the north. And will give them more reasons to refute claims of 'outreach'.
The Nelson McCauslands of this world will always find ways to pick holes in the GAA and gaelic culture in general. Out of 32 counties, only five were not represented. People like EG would rather focus on the 5 who were absent rather than the 27 who were present.
In his speech, Christy Cooney specifically mentioned the GAA's aim of reaching out to Irish Unionists. Yet the Representatives from the five Counties where 80%+ of Irish Unionists actually live, were not there.
Still, I'm sure all those Unionists in Cork, Tipperary, Galway and Leitrim etc were pleased to see themselves being represented at the Queen's reception... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 03:20:28 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:29:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 11:23:39 PM
But I can see EG's point. This was clearly a snub, and will be interpreted as such by Unionists in the north. And will give them more reasons to refute claims of 'outreach'.
The Nelson McCauslands of this world will always find ways to pick holes in the GAA and gaelic culture in general. Out of 32 counties, only five were not represented. People like EG would rather focus on the 5 who were absent rather than the 27 who were present.
In his speech, Christy Cooney specifically mentioned the GAA's aim of reaching out to Irish Unionists. Yet the Representatives from the five Counties where 80%+ of Irish Unionists actually live, were not there.
Still, I'm sure all those Unionists in Cork, Tipperary, Galway and Leitrim etc were pleased to see themselves being represented at the Queen's reception... ::)
FFS - so its not the south that the unionists/loyalists have a problem with then !
Must have misheard things this past few years - and I obv misunderstood evil f myles posts about having problems reunifying with the south !! :D
Anyhow, I personally do not see the difference in principle between eg Tom Elliott refusing an Invitation to a GAA game and a GAA Rep refusing an Invitation (by his Central Council, btw) to meet the Queen.....of course you dont....the queen not being a political figure and the GAA ????
keep digging! though fair enough thats your perspective and opinion,but fecking hell - do you expect us to believe that !
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:30:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
* - Instead of "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish", is it "No Black Prods or British"?
It'd be a bit difficult since children in Britain are busily playing Gaelic football in their hundreds as part of their school PE programs.
That's all right, then.
P.S. Do you think that if their Representatives were invited to meet the Queen, they would decline out of solidarity with their oppressed fellow-Gaels in Ulster, or would accept, in line with their free and independent fellow-Gaels in Munster, Leinster and Connacht? Or does that question not really deserve an answer, on the basis that it is vaguely Partitionist?
The Queen is visiting a foreign country, why on earth would counties from the United Kingdom send representatives?
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2011, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
Very witty, although the statistic on unity is quoted a bit out of context. Most Northern Nationalist want to see reunification. Disagreement is on the timing, type of structures and economic considerations. As I have said previously unity will come but through a process of evolution and will take many years. The points about our hero's protesting against British political imperialism whilst wearing the uniform of British cultural imperialism would be lost on the average protester.
When was the first United Ireland declared?
Serious question.
Not sure, but the first Republican United Ireland declared was declared in Mayo with Castlebar as its Provisional Capital.
See - what chance had it got?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 19, 2011, 03:40:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2011, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
Very witty, although the statistic on unity is quoted a bit out of context. Most Northern Nationalist want to see reunification. Disagreement is on the timing, type of structures and economic considerations. As I have said previously unity will come but through a process of evolution and will take many years. The points about our hero's protesting against British political imperialism whilst wearing the uniform of British cultural imperialism would be lost on the average protester.
When was the first United Ireland declared?
Serious question.
Not sure, but the first Republican United Ireland declared was declared in Mayo with Castlebar as its Provisional Capital.
In the Cobweb?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 03:01:24 PM
in the same way as their fellow Gaels in the rest of Ireland.
::)
Plenty of Normans, Bretons, Britons, Cumbrics, Flemish, Norse, Norse-Gaels, Cornish, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Manx, Franks, Gallo-Gauls, Frisians, Palatines and a few Spaniards playing down here too ;)
The G.A.A. is quite inclusive really, don't forget the Fijians ;)
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 18, 2011, 11:34:06 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
Quote from: SHEEDY on May 18, 2011, 08:56:42 PM
some of the events this week have been a step too far. partition seems to have been copper fastened. the queen has been paraded around like some sort of celebrity with the usual suspects lining up to kiss ass. any dissenting voices are quickly ridiculed as only speaking for a minority. have to say im really disappointed with the down co.board decision to partake in todays sham at croke park. a united ulster non show would have sent the gaa a strong message
Not just the GAA; the non-GAA people of NI will have got the message, too... ::)
* - Instead of "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish", is it "No Black Prods or British"?
You do know who Samuel Maguire was EG ::)
Yes. He was a Prod. As we get reminded
ad nauseum every time someone points out just how few Prods actually play Gaelic Sports in NI.
Mind you, his prominence eg in the IRB doesn't tend to receive the same emphasis during such conversations...
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 18, 2011, 11:34:06 PMThe G.A.A. is all its membership not just a tiny minority.
No doubt.
But what you seem unable to get your head round is that the GAA's appeal to all to all the people who live eg in Mayo hardly cancels out the converse lack of appeal to all the people who eg live in Antrim.
The bottom line is that the organisation professes to be open to all Irish people, yet it has no little or no appeal to 20% of the population of Ireland who live in one of its four Provinces.
The refusal yesterday by five (eight?) of the County Representatives from that Province to display the common courtesy of shaking the Queen's hand etc is hardly coincidental (imo).
Nor do I expect the presence of 26 (23?) other county representatives from outside of NI to go far towards remedying that situation.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 12:15:01 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 12:11:15 AM
The other half is, of course, that the Queen went to Croke, to meet the GAA.
...at the GAA's invitation.
And in the spirit in which it was made, the Queen had the courtesy to accept the invitation.
Meanwhile, 5 (8?) of the Ulster Reps did not have the same courtesy to accept
their Invitation... ::)
EG as you ignored my post I can only assume that like a well organised residents group you are going out of your way to take offence.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 03:20:28 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:29:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2011, 11:23:39 PM
But I can see EG's point. This was clearly a snub, and will be interpreted as such by Unionists in the north. And will give them more reasons to refute claims of 'outreach'.
The Nelson McCauslands of this world will always find ways to pick holes in the GAA and gaelic culture in general. Out of 32 counties, only five were not represented. People like EG would rather focus on the 5 who were absent rather than the 27 who were present.
In his speech, Christy Cooney specifically mentioned the GAA's aim of reaching out to Irish Unionists. Yet the Representatives from the five Counties where 80%+ of Irish Unionists actually live, were not there.
Still, I'm sure all those Unionists in Cork, Tipperary, Galway and Leitrim etc were pleased to see themselves being represented at the Queen's reception... ::)
Rugby Union!
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 03:49:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 12:15:01 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 12:11:15 AM
The other half is, of course, that the Queen went to Croke, to meet the GAA.
...at the GAA's invitation.
And in the spirit in which it was made, the Queen had the courtesy to accept the invitation.
Meanwhile, 5 (8?) of the Ulster Reps did not have the same courtesy to accept their Invitation... ::)
To be honest I am not going to defend the Ulster counties. I can only speak as a Connachtman, who has been actively involved in GAA in Connacht and Leinster.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2011, 12:15:33 AM
QuoteYes, the constitutional position is clear - it's the same in the GFA. The will of the people will dictate the constitional position. And Cameron hasn't contradicted this. He has just said he wasn't neutral - he's a Unionist. And he's the current PM.
Exactly. The motives of the British haven't changed, they still want to keep as much of Ireland as possible. They just have to be more circumspect in their methods in this day and age.
Will you Nationalists make up your mind?
According to Lynchbhoy and Eammonc1 etc, the Brits can't wait to get rid of NI... :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 03:28:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:30:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
* - Instead of "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish", is it "No Black Prods or British"?
It'd be a bit difficult since children in Britain are busily playing Gaelic football in their hundreds as part of their school PE programs.
That's all right, then.
P.S. Do you think that if their Representatives were invited to meet the Queen, they would decline out of solidarity with their oppressed fellow-Gaels in Ulster, or would accept, in line with their free and independent fellow-Gaels in Munster, Leinster and Connacht? Or does that question not really deserve an answer, on the basis that it is vaguely Partitionist?
Pretty sure the British Council would have accepted, tbf.
Page 14 of the Irish News today says that Tyrone and Derry didn't get an invite, while the Antrim representative couldn't go due to work commitments.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 19, 2011, 03:57:33 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 03:28:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2011, 11:30:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 18, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
* - Instead of "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish", is it "No Black Prods or British"?
It'd be a bit difficult since children in Britain are busily playing Gaelic football in their hundreds as part of their school PE programs.
That's all right, then.
P.S. Do you think that if their Representatives were invited to meet the Queen, they would decline out of solidarity with their oppressed fellow-Gaels in Ulster, or would accept, in line with their free and independent fellow-Gaels in Munster, Leinster and Connacht? Or does that question not really deserve an answer, on the basis that it is vaguely Partitionist?
Pretty sure the British Council would have accepted, tbf.
The Official British Council would have met her while The 32 County British Council would have protested.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on May 19, 2011, 04:05:09 PM
Page 14 of the Irish News today says that Tyrone and Derry didn't get an invite, while the Antrim representative couldn't go due to work commitments.
Antrim representative??...work committments?? Don't think so ;D
On cool reflection by far the most odious sight during the Queen's visit has to be that of red nose gansta Bertie Ahern pontificating here there and everywhere >:(
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on May 19, 2011, 04:05:09 PM
Page 14 of the Irish News today says that Tyrone and Derry didn't get an invite, while the Antrim representative couldn't go due to work commitments.
In other words Tyrone and Derry made it clear that an invitation would not be accepted.
Maybe Derry's invitation went to a non-existent county
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 07:09:39 AM
Incidentally, EG, Her Majesty started her speech today by speaking in Irish. Now when a northern politician does that it usually gets greeted by hisses and jeers from your crowd. What do youse think of the Irish language now that HM thinks it's okay to speak it?
When HM spoke last night, imo it was entirely appropriate, for four reasons:
(a ) It is the Official Language of the State which was receiving her;
(b ) Most, if not all, of the audience will have understood what she was saying;
(c ) She could have predicted that her audience will have appreciated the gesture;
(d ) The Irish Language is not a divisive, Party-political subject in the ROI.
None of those factors obtains in NI - quite the contrary, in fact. Consequently when SF insist on using Irish in Stormont etc, rather than being a means of commuication, which Language should surely be, in their mouths it becomes a
barrier to communication.
And if I were a devotee of Irish (and I greatly respect those who study and speak it for genuine reasons), I expect I would be dismayed to see my Language hijacked, exploited and (apparently) often spoken badly by the Shinners, for purely petty, partisan and political reasons.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 07:09:39 AMAnd what do you think of HM honouring the fallen who fought for Irish independence? Hmm?
The Garden of Remembrance clearly means a lot to the people of the Republic. And if their President wanted on their behalf to receive the Queen there, it would have been churlish for Her Majesty to refuse (imo).
Of course, I hold no brief for the Rebels of 1916 etc (far from it), and neither does HM, I'm sure. But in the end, that was all before even her time (and she's 85!), and in any case, if the Republic can accept the playing of GSTQ in that place, then we Brits should accept our Monarch laying a wreath there.
Of course, the Sky might
still fall in before the end of her visit, but having got as far as Day 3, I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll all be OK...
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 07:09:39 AMAnd if it's okay for Her Majesty to associate with the GAA then surely it must now be okay for your crowd to do the same?
You clearly don't see the irony in the fact that the Queen can visit Croke Park, but the GAA's Ulster Counties can't (Down excepted)!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 07:09:39 AMThis trip must really be f***ing with your heads, musn't it?
I have only one head, and it's in on the top my neck, exactly where it was at the beginning of the week.
P.S. Like the use of "your crowd" etc. Classy.
Perhaps
This joke has been told in many forms on this forum by Ziggy and Hardy and others, but it still makes me laugh.
So why did the queen wear a fox hat to Croke Park? The morning of the visit, QEII told Prince Phillip that they would be visiting Croke Park that day.
"Where the fcuk's zat?" he asked.
"Oh, thank you, dear. I think I shall."
On a second note, I have to commend Evil Genius for coming on here and comporting himself with poise and patience when it would be so much easier to rant and rave; true, he is a cannon of facts, stats and historical shrapnel, but his motivation appears genuine. Given his prolific posting prowess, though, I do have to wonder if he is independently wealthy or is the PRO for the OWC. I also find it difficult to respond to so many interconnected threads. It's getting to be more like the Bayeux Tapestry here than a bulletin board.
Still, EG's measured voice is both refreshing and reassuring, and much as I dislike it, I think his view of the political landscape is probably pretty accurate.
I had hoped that I'd see a UI in my lifetime, but that isn't going to happen. I had hoped that a surging Irish economy would make partition redundant, but now that we're all part of the Commonpov of Nations, that seems less likely. As I see it, the biggest threat to a UI in the foreseeable future is, for want of a better word, Nationalism. If the much ballyhooed referendum were to occur (it isn't happening soon), I fear that many Nats would talk the good talk but not produce at the ballot box, familiarity breeding content. In the South, it would be even worse. My faith in my 26-county brethren runs even shallower, status quo still being a surprisingly popular rock band at the moment, as someone noted elsewhere.
But despite my apparent loss of political religion, I sway-irr aah do have fay-ith, and I see it in the little things (EG on here, e.g., consistent in his condemnation of evil). I see it even in the very avatar that EG uses. In the good old days, the Union Jack would have been the fleg of choice among Unionists, but increasingly that emblem is being supplanted by one that, paradoxically, promotes an Irish identity, albeit a northern one, and at the same time declares subtlely a separation, like pulling teat, so to speak (apologies to NYT). Ulster unionists are staunch and true, but increasingly to themselves, their history, their culture, one that is increasingly divorced from Britain.
It seems to me, unionism is grappling with self-definition, a dilemma I think MGHU implied, about 358 pages ago, when "he" (don't know gender—call me Chaz) described a NI friend of his describing herself as Irish, and then qualifying that definition seeing the presence of a lower case republican. Unionists are Irish, no ifs ands or buts, but it will take time for them to wear that cloak comfortably. The truth is, all the serious impediments to reunification have been lifted (increased secularism/revoking of constitutional claim) and fears should be further assuaged by the GFA. It's just a matter of time, but sadly for me, a lot longer than I'd like.
Though I heap praise on EG, I do think his condemnation of the northern GAA for skipping the Freddy Mercury comeback tour is a little harsh, especially given his own gra for history.
I should also say that I wouldn't have attended myself (of course, I wasn't invited), but that derives less from an antipathy towards Britain (I lived and worked there) and more out of distaste for the very institution of monarchy, a medieval/renaissance/Victorian vestige of empire, horribly and excessively out of place in the twenty-first century.
Further, who in God's name organized that Croke Park Bataan death march—it was clearly Jack Kevorkian meets Samuel Beckett. Were they trying to kill the queen? It's a good thing the northern crew said "no thanks." That poor old woman was walked and talked to death, and then in a moment worthy of absurdist theatre, she was led out into a huge but empty field and told to look at a TV about 75 yards away. Apparently "cead mile failte" means "For sure her heart'll fail."
Anyway, back to EG. Given all that the GAA has endured at the hands of her majesty's forces over the last 100 years (Aidan McAnespie, Crossmaglen, etc. etc. ) to expect a latter-day Damascene conversion would be the essence of hypocrisy on their part, a total sell-out, as likely as a stampede of Wullie-de-beest galloping across the border proclaiming, "Oh, take us back, take us back. We'll be good." The truth is, over the last couple of years the northern GAA has taken colossal steps to dissociate itself from its misrepresentation as "The IRA at play." You can't seriously chastise Ulster GAA people for declining the invite when you saw Mickey Harte and a massive number of Tyrone gaels who attended and participated in the funeral of Ronan Kerr. Times have changed. That never would have happened a few years back, and is far, far more significant than a handful of county reps attending a state visit by a glorified tourist attraction.
Could gurgle on here like a clogged sink, so I'll say "cheerio." It's funny, though, that I'm not particularly offended by EG's flapping flag but wince at the sight of "tyrones own" tricour, associated as it is with such right wing effluvia.
That's a great post. There's hope for this board yet.
FWIW I agree with you about Evil Genius. I don't think he's evil, or a genius, but he's articulate and while staunch in his views appears to be fair in his consideration. That's all you can ask of any man.
In fairness, I think there's a fair few that would oppose EG that are of the same ilk.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AM
EG, quick question - you mentioned that that you were uneasy about the visit to the Garden of Remembrance.
Initially, yes (though as much "unsure" as "uneasy").
In the event, however, I can see the value of it and so have no objection.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AMWould you be equally as uneasy if she was to visiti the quivalent memorials in other former parts of the Empire, both in and out of the Commonwealth?! I have no idea, but I imagine she's probably visited the Washington monument before.
Sometimes yes, but more often not.
What you've got to remember is that Irish Republican Freedom Fighters/Terrorists (delete as preferred) are a great deal more personal to someone like me than, say, American Republican Freedom Fighters/Terrorists.
And as well as the personal element, you also have to consider the context. With the American War of Independence, it was over 200 years ago, whereas the Irish equivalent was within living memory (just).
Or, with say Germany or Japan, the fact that our wars with them are rather more recent must be outweighed by the fact that both countries are now firm allies, with whom we have been living entirely peacefully for over half a century.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AMYou can criticise the attitude of people or the GAA for "sham" attempts to reach out to Unionists, but that kind of opinion speaks volumes about how some Unionists still feel about the loss of the 26 counties. Shameful.
As I mentioned earlier, I am sure that the people who are doing cross-community work in NI for the GAA are entirely committed and sincere - in my experience, the people drawn to that sort of work invariably are.
But if you still cannot see how they were undermined by their bosses consciously determining to snub the Queen etc, and what that says about the priorities of those who lead the GAA in Ulster, then there probably isn't any more I can say on the subject.
P.S. If you can't see that last point, then I'd term it a "shame". However, if you wilfully
refuse to see it, then I'd call it "shameful". Take your pick.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 05:27:25 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AM
EG, quick question - you mentioned that that you were uneasy about the visit to the Garden of Remembrance.
Initially, yes (though as much "unsure" as "uneasy").
In the event, however, I can see the value of it and so have no objection.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AMWould you be equally as uneasy if she was to visiti the quivalent memorials in other former parts of the Empire, both in and out of the Commonwealth?! I have no idea, but I imagine she's probably visited the Washington monument before.
Sometimes yes, but more often not.
What you've got to remember is that Irish Republican Freedom Fighters/Terrorists (delete as preferred) are a great deal more personal to someone like me than, say, American Republican Freedom Fighters/Terrorists.
And as well as the personal element, you also have to consider the context. With the American War of Independence, it was over 200 years ago, whereas the Irish equivalent was within living memory (just).
Or, with say Germany or Japan, the fact that our wars with them are rather more recent must be outweighed by the fact that both countries are now firm allies, with whom we have been living entirely peacefully for over half a century.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AMYou can criticise the attitude of people or the GAA for "sham" attempts to reach out to Unionists, but that kind of opinion speaks volumes about how some Unionists still feel about the loss of the 26 counties. Shameful.
As I mentioned earlier, I am sure that the people who are doing cross-community work in NI for the GAA are entirely committed and sincere - in my experience, the people drawn to that sort of work invariably are.
But if you still cannot see how they were undermined by their bosses consciously determining to snub the Queen etc, and what that says about the priorities of those who lead the GAA in Ulster, then there probably isn't any more I can say on the subject.
P.S. If you can't see that last point, then I'd term it a "shame". However, if you wilfully refuse to see it, then I'd call it "shameful". Take your pick.
Imo the future leads to concessions, isnt it fair to say republicans have gone alot further than unionism in its reaching out? Even our silence publicly about this queens visit is another big concession imo. What exactly has unionism done to meet us halfway or a fifth of the way would be more accurate?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 19, 2011, 05:25:57 PM
FWIW I agree with you about Evil Genius. I don't think he's evil, or a genius, but he's articulate and while staunch in his views appears to be fair in his consideration. That's all you can ask of any man.
He's no nifan though! Seriously, you're right. He plays the ball and not the man.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 19, 2011, 05:25:57 PM
That's a great post. There's hope for this board yet.
FWIW I agree with you about Evil Genius. I don't think he's evil, or a genius, but he's articulate and while staunch in his views appears to be fair in his consideration. That's all you can ask of any man.
In fairness, I think there's a fair few that would oppose EG that are of the same ilk.
GROUP HUG!!(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l3tX4lhZohw/TT1vaeW5-vI/AAAAAAAAAWE/UfUDEGsoX1Q/s1600/group_hug.jpg)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 05:27:25 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AM
EG, quick question - you mentioned that that you were uneasy about the visit to the Garden of Remembrance.
Initially, yes (though as much "unsure" as "uneasy").
In the event, however, I can see the value of it and so have no objection.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AMWould you be equally as uneasy if she was to visiti the quivalent memorials in other former parts of the Empire, both in and out of the Commonwealth?! I have no idea, but I imagine she's probably visited the Washington monument before.
Sometimes yes, but more often not.
What you've got to remember is that Irish Republican Freedom Fighters/Terrorists (delete as preferred) are a great deal more personal to someone like me than, say, American Republican Freedom Fighters/Terrorists.
And as well as the personal element, you also have to consider the context. With the American War of Independence, it was over 200 years ago, whereas the Irish equivalent was within living memory (just).
Or, with say Germany or Japan, the fact that our wars with them are rather more recent must be outweighed by the fact that both countries are now firm allies, with whom we have been living entirely peacefully for over half a century.
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2011, 09:08:27 AMYou can criticise the attitude of people or the GAA for "sham" attempts to reach out to Unionists, but that kind of opinion speaks volumes about how some Unionists still feel about the loss of the 26 counties. Shameful.
As I mentioned earlier, I am sure that the people who are doing cross-community work in NI for the GAA are entirely committed and sincere - in my experience, the people drawn to that sort of work invariably are.
But if you still cannot see how they were undermined by their bosses consciously determining to snub the Queen etc, and what that says about the priorities of those who lead the GAA in Ulster, then there probably isn't any more I can say on the subject.
P.S. If you can't see that last point, then I'd term it a "shame". However, if you wilfully refuse to see it, then I'd call it "shameful". Take your pick.
I didn't actually express an opinion one way or the other about the attendance of GAA representatives, I was too busy being shocked at the fact that you implied pining for the days where the 26 counties were firmly under the royal boot is quite a regular occurrence even in the fairly liberal strand of Unionism you yourself appear to follow.
Quote from: AQMP on May 19, 2011, 10:20:45 AM
Can't do this multiple quote thing EG, but after a great post about the presence of Jackie McDonlad and his mates at Island Bridge (I think the media have decided this should be glossed over as it doesn't support the "aren't we all great mates" message of the visit), in several other posts you state (perhpas not verbatim) "I think Unionists will feel" "Unionists will view" etc and in other posts occasionally "we" and "us". Then in response to Ziggy's question on how Unionists view the visit you say that you can't speak for all Unionists as ussuns aren't all the same which appears to be a dig at Ziggy who I don't think for one minute suggested in his question that "yous'uns" are all the same.
Now you can't have it both ways.
Let me try to make myself clear.
I do not speak for anyone but myself. Occasionally I will offer the
opinion (key term) that my views may be in accord with many, or sometimes even most, other Unionists. And once in a while, I will offer an opinion that I confidently believe will reflect Unionist thinking in general. (E.g, "Unionists know Gerry Adams to be lying through his teeth when he denies ever having been in the IRA").
In all cases, I try to use language which accurately reflects which of the above applies, but evidently I don't always succeed.
That's it, really.
P.S. I didn't intend to give the impression I was having a dig at Ziggy, aplogies if it appeared that way.
Quote from: AQMP on May 19, 2011, 10:20:45 AMYou are confident that you know how Unionists will view the decision of some counties not to send a representative to HQ yesterday and how they feel on other issues yet on some issues (when there is no obvious stick with which to beat the GAA?) it's "Hey we're not all the same (as yous'uns always view us)" From reading all your posts of the last couple of days, I think this visit and its perceived "success" (so far) has thrown you a bit, until you found an alleged stick, with which to beat, yesterday.
That [
bold] was not how I intended my posts to come across.
Generally, I have been encouraged by the Visit, which has gone better than I might have expected. Indeed, taken in the round, I think it is proving a success, which will be beneficial for all the people of Ireland and Britain.
However, in the midst of it all, two things jarred for me, the presence of Jackie McDonald, and (when I heard it) the absence of the Ulster GAA Reps.
Imo it would have been better had he been absent and they been present.
Quote from: AQMP on May 19, 2011, 10:20:45 AMHowever my main point was your assertion that "many (Unionists) will go further and conclude that the GAA's stated aim of wanting to reach out to all Irish people is a sham (in Ulster, at least).
Now here I admit you don't claim to speak for all Unionists, just "many". How many, 10, 1,000, 99%? How do you know this?
I don't know
this.
It was merely my opinion and by "many" I mean more than "a few", but less than "all".
Quote from: AQMP on May 19, 2011, 10:20:45 AMAs relevant is my straw poll of three Unionists (all of whom live in NI ;)) at work. Now two of these (66%) knew the Queen was at Croke Pk yesterday but didn't know that some counties were not represented and had no strong views on the fact that, for instance, my own county was not there. One of these (33%) actually said "Well it's good if most of them were there" The third (33%) knew that some counties were not represented but said he could understand this position and he also understood the position the Shinners had taken in relation to the visit (and let's just say this person has been directly affected by Republican violence, albeit a long time ago and isn't time he moved on?)
Fine.
You must set my posts against the conversations you had with your three work colleagues and form your own conclusion.
However, I would counsel that those who are willing to talk openly with you about such matters face-to-face may well not be reflect the more hardline elements within Unionism, who will more likely decline to "open up" (if nothing else for the sake of avoiding an argument).
Quote from: AQMP on May 19, 2011, 10:20:45 AMLastly I can assure you that outreach work being undertaken by the GAA, in Antrim at least, is anything but a sham. Get out from behind your computer screen and ask some of the Unionists who have experienced this (or are there not that many in Hampstead or Barnsley)?
As I said earlier, I have no doubt that the outreach people on the ground are committed, sincere and doing good work, for which I would commend them.
However, if yesterday's Croke Park snub is anything to go by, their job is being made harder by their bosses.
In the end, the "proof of the pudding is in the eating".
In which respect, I would ask how many people, of all ages, from the Unionist community in Antrim regularly participate in GAA? 10? 1,000? 99%? ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 06:13:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on May 19, 2011, 10:20:45 AM
In which respect, I would ask how many people, of all ages, from the Unionist community in Antrim regularly participate in GAA? 10? 1,000? 99%? ;)
More than a few...less (fewer??) than all ;)
Will have to do this as a separate post, fecking computer screen jumps all over the place when I try to quote.
The number of people from the Unionist community in Co Antrim who regularly participate in GAA activities (apart from drinking in the club) is very low. In fact I'd go as far as to say that 5 years ago the baseline figure would have been somewhere between 0 and 25 (an "educated" guess). In certain areas it might be less than zero :P. However I would say that the number of Unionists who have an interest in Gaelic games would be a lot bigger than that. Can I include yourself in that as you spend a good few hours on this board ;) As you say it remains to be seen whether the presence of Jackie McDonald discourages GAA people from engaging with the Unionist community or whether the absence of a county board man from Antrim dissuades Unionist youngsters from engaging with the GAA. At this juncture I simply don't know. But my guess is neither will be significant.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 05:06:10 PM
And if I were a devotee of Irish (and I greatly respect those who study and speak it for genuine reasons), I expect I would be dismayed to see my Language hijacked, exploited and (apparently) often spoken badly by the Shinners, for purely petty, partisan and political reasons.
I'm actually with you on that point, it shouldn't be used as a means of sticking it to the unionists. But the fact that some republicans use the language should not be any reason for your crowd to block all attempts to promote the language, particularly since HM doesn't have a problem speaking it, wouldn't you say?
Quote
You clearly don't see the irony in the fact that the Queen can visit Croke Park, but the GAA's Ulster Counties can't (Down excepted)!
There you go again. Never mind the 27 counties who attended. Never mind the fact that she was there at the invitation of the GAA leadership. Never mind that the GAA's official "party line" is that she was very warmly welcome. Never mind that representatives from London and New York attended. Never mind the Ulster Council's unionist outreach initiatives. Never mind Knock Presbyterian church and their hurling team. Never mind the protestant children playing hurling all over the north in the various CuChullain programs. Just dig in there deeply enough to find something you can pick holes in and focus on that. Ignore the vast majority of the GAA and the positive work they do. Your hatred of the GAA just blinds you to the positives and your hate-filled mind is just incapable of processing anything that would indicate that this is a positive development.
Only you and your ilk could interpret this historic diplomatic breakthrough as the GAA "snubbing" the Queen when in fact it is the exact opposite.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 03:49:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 19, 2011, 12:15:01 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 19, 2011, 12:11:15 AM
The other half is, of course, that the Queen went to Croke, to meet the GAA.
...at the GAA's invitation.
And in the spirit in which it was made, the Queen had the courtesy to accept the invitation.
Meanwhile, 5 (8?) of the Ulster Reps did not have the same courtesy to accept their Invitation... ::)
Read my lips, EG. Listen very carefully because this bears repeating.
The Queen visited Croke Park at the GAA's invitation.
The Queen visited Croke Park at the GAA's invitation.
The Queen visited Croke Park at the GAA's invitation.
The Queen visited Croke Park at the GAA's invitation.
The Queen visited Croke Park at the GAA's invitation.
Am I getting through here or am I talking to the wall?
You know what this is like? This is like the Rule 21 issue. Most normal people would have interpreted the abolition of Rule 21 as a breakthrough. But critics of the GAA were only interested in the minority of counties which voted to retain the rule. Never mind that they were in the minority and the organisation overwhelmingly supported the abolition of the rule. Just focus on the ones who disagreed and use that as proof that the GAA is some sort of sectarian organisation even though such views are in the minority in the association.
QuoteThe Irish Times - Thursday, May 19, 2011
GAA playing some lovely hurling in NI peace game
The association is not simply keeping pace with the peace process but is now driving it forward, writes DAVID ADAMS
IN ITS impressive statement confirming this week's visit by Queen Elizabeth to Croke Park, the GAA said: "We are confident that this historic visit to Croke Park will be welcomed by those who play, administer and support our games, at home and abroad, including of course throughout Britain. We hope also that it will encourage a greater interest and participation in our games by our fellow Irishmen and women of the unionist tradition."
Fellow unionists of mine who, in reciprocal spirit, want to witness the GAA at its sporting best should do as I did last week and attend a hurling match.
My friend Terry, a Dublin man, was emphatic when I mooted the idea of going to a GAA game, "Don't bother with the football. The hurling is where the real skill is."
When I mentioned this to another friend, Dave – a Wexford native, who just happened at the time to be celebrating the county's U21 football side winning the Leinster championship – he set about scanning the fixture list for a suitable game. And so it was a week ago that Dave and I, along with a hundred or so other spectators, were leaning on a rail at Pairc Uí Mhurchú in south Dublin, watching Ballyboden St Enda's playing Cuala in the Dublin senior hurling championship.
Ranged along the touchline was a variety of men, women, children and young adults, many of the last two categories carrying their own hurleys.
At half-time they swarmed on to the pitch to practise their skills, creating an interval-long staccato sound of ash cracking on leather. Cliched or not, one couldn't help thinking that youngsters could be doing an awful lot worse things with their free time than supporting their local GAA club.
Similarly, unionists could do an awful lot worse than support the GAA's outreach efforts, and reciprocate the hand of friendship that it is extending.
For far too long on this island, particularly in Northern Ireland, we have lived as much of our lives as possible in hermetically sealed, tribal boxes. Such social interaction as exists between the two main traditions comes in the main from necessity rather than choice.
In the past, organisations rooted in one camp or the other have played it safe, careful not to offend the loudmouth, lowest common denominators in their midst. Is it any wonder that neither tradition knows much about its opposite number, relying instead on exaggerated stereotypes?
Recently I read a report of a political meeting in this newspaper in which – wholly innocently – the reporter remarked on how struck a student audience in Dublin had been by the affability and good humour of a Northern unionist panellist. I cringed to think what they expected a unionist to be like – Jim Allister maybe, or a pre-Damascene Rev Ian Paisley?
To the GAA's great credit, it has kept pace with the peace process, deliberately breaking a hermetic seal to reach out to its unionist neighbours – not least by gradually introducing itself to the state school system in Northern Ireland.
It gave unequivocal support to the Belfast Agreement, dropped the Rule 21 ban on Northern police and British military members, opened Croke Park up to other sporting disciplines, and encouraged and supported its members in joining the PSNI.
As Noel Whelan intimated in a column here last month, few photographs have been as symbolically powerful as that of GAA and PSNI members forming a joint guard of honour at the funeral of Constable Ronan Kerr, while senior police officers and GAA officials together carried the coffin.
As further evidenced by its wholehearted welcome to the Queen, and the warmth of its invite to "fellow Irishmen and women of the unionist tradition", the GAA is no longer just keeping pace with the peace process, it is driving it forward. The association's near equivalent (minus the sporting element) within unionism should take note – we cannot forever allow tails to wag dogs.
As for the match, Terry was right of course. Hurling is not, as I had always vaguely imagined it to be (in my own stereotyping ignorance), a sort of hockey-like free-for-all with a bit of legalised violence thrown in. Although not a game for the faint hearted, it is strictly refereed and indeed highly skilful.
I witnessed ground shots that would put most golfers to shame, aerial catches of feline grace, passes and shots of sublime accuracy, excellent player movement and a display of hurley and sliotar co-ordination that left me – admittedly someone with the hand-eye co-ordination of a newborn – hugely impressed.
At one point in the second half, the Cuala 'keeper dived full-length to save a shot driven from so close a range that he had no right to see the sliotar, never mind catch it. A tight match, Ballyboden eventually won 1-20 to Cuala's 0-14.
I have been informed by Terry and Dave that there is no greater spectacle than a hurling final at Croke Park. So that'll be the next of it: following (almost) in the footsteps of the Queen and her entourage.
The least Davy could have done would have been to go to the Antrim Laois game...or is he a Down man?? ;)
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 11:14:02 AM
Lads, on this board and on all the tv reports we are being fed the line that those protesting are vandals and unemployed lowlifes. There were many many peaceful protests across dublin which have been roundly ignored. Better to portray opponants to the visit as the minset of neatderthal thugs isn't it?
Surely with 'new media' someone has covered at least some of these many many peaceful protests?
The days when mainstream media was the only channel of communication are long gone.
Can you give some details on these peaceful protests?
Quote from: seafoid on May 19, 2011, 11:46:49 AM
This was sublime
Madam, – Now that "Éirigí" members have staged a sitdown protest in O'Connell Street, should the group be referred to as "Suígí"? Éirigí féin, b'fhéidir. – Yours, etc,
ALAN DOYLE,
Bóthar Belgrave,
An Charraig Dubh,
Baile Átha Cliath
:D
Quote from: Hardy on May 19, 2011, 03:40:42 PM
See - what chance had it got?
Ah, willl ya get away to f**k outa that!
Sure, if Paid O'Donoghue and his mates hadn't got pissed on that Protestant whiskey on Tara Hill, the capital would have been right there, up behind them., ;D
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 09:40:35 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 08:08:02 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
O'Snodaigh was embarrassing last night. Bumbling his words... couldnt look anyone in the eye.... and managed to stray past the point so much that Brown tied him up in knots.
He was also noticable that he was the only panel member who was challenged on his opinion, which backs up the point in my last post that in the 26 counties, there is no room/tolerance for anyone who voices an opinion which strays from a certain viewpoint on this visit.
Being the only one challenged should have given him a chance to make his point clearly instead of wandering in to GFA where Browne nailed him. I actually agree with him that she didnt go far enough in her statement but he was a pathetic representative of that side of the argument.
How well he performed is one aspect but I think he was clearly under most pressure as he was the only panel member who it seemed acceptable to challenge. It was reminiscent of Inda's plea for people not to protest and embarass the country, and of Christy Cooney's instruction for no discussion on his Croke Park invitation. No room or tolerance for anyone who might dare to feel uncomfortable about or opposed to the visit, and who are opposed to this seemingly agreed version of how this visit should be viewed.
I just watched it back. He was pretty bad. Surely with the number of TDs now available SF can put up someone who's a bit more articulate than that? And David CamerOON? What was all that about?
Agree with you on the protest issue though. I think everyone should be entitled to peaceful protest and that right shouldn't be gagged. The NUI guy on the panel spoke well and was much more articulate than O'Snodaigh.
Should a minority have the right to do as they please?
IMHO yes, unless it impedes on the wishes of the majority in which case the principles of democracy should apply. In this case I would argue that peaceful protests are fine, the rest should be locked up.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 07:50:33 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 11:14:02 AM
Lads, on this board and on all the tv reports we are being fed the line that those protesting are vandals and unemployed lowlifes. There were many many peaceful protests across dublin which have been roundly ignored. Better to portray opponants to the visit as the minset of neatderthal thugs isn't it?
Surely with 'new media' someone has covered at least some of these many many peaceful protests?
The days when mainstream media was the only channel of communication are long gone.
Can you give some details on these peaceful protests?
I haven't much details because as I say, there has been very little coverage so I can only report on the protests I have heard about, which include numerous ones from Sinn Féin, one by The Anti-War Movement and by the Irish Communist Party, though from speaking to a relation in Dublin, there were many more than that engaged in peaceful protest. My initial point is that coverage of protests (at least in mainstream media, and seemingly on forums like this one), would give you the impression that the only people protesting were violent thugs, and as yer man last night on Vincent Brown implied, there seems to be some sort of class based snobbery when referring to protesters going about. As far as new media goes, facebook is as far as I venture into it. Twitter holds no attraction to me and I don't pretend to understand the lingo of it! As an interesting aside, the one group which is being linked to most of the trouble, Éirígí, according to The Irish Examiner, was the best behaved out of the "dissident" republican groups, and seemed to have praise for Éirígí chairman Brian Leeson, saying:
"Repeatedly, when there were any signs of control loosening, Mr Leeson and the stewards got people to sit down.
This even happened when some of the crowd tried to stand up and sing the national anthem.
There were occasions when the stewards appeared to remove some protestors.
There was only one brief moment, at 3.30pm, that the tension got edgy and a solitary wooden pole was thrown into the air towards gardaí manning the barricades. This was followed by a couple of plastic bottles which landed harmlessly.
Mr Leeson could be seen remonstrating with a number of protestors while stewards returned some control."
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 09:40:35 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 08:08:02 AM
Quote from: ross matt on May 19, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Yer man on vincent brown who reviews the tweets made the point that there seems to have been a general acceptance of how the people are expected to view this visit and that and anyone who deviates from that is put down and told they are backward and that this is an oppressive idea of political maturity. How true. It's typified by a couple of recent posts here which suggest that the only apparent reason anyone could disagree with this visit is because such people.are just incapable of moving on. It's an arrogant and condescending argument.
Can't get TV3 myself, but O'Snodaigh has Sinn Fein trending on Twitter. And not for the right reasons.
O'Snodaigh was embarrassing last night. Bumbling his words... couldnt look anyone in the eye.... and managed to stray past the point so much that Brown tied him up in knots.
He was also noticable that he was the only panel member who was challenged on his opinion, which backs up the point in my last post that in the 26 counties, there is no room/tolerance for anyone who voices an opinion which strays from a certain viewpoint on this visit.
Being the only one challenged should have given him a chance to make his point clearly instead of wandering in to GFA where Browne nailed him. I actually agree with him that she didnt go far enough in her statement but he was a pathetic representative of that side of the argument.
How well he performed is one aspect but I think he was clearly under most pressure as he was the only panel member who it seemed acceptable to challenge. It was reminiscent of Inda's plea for people not to protest and embarass the country, and of Christy Cooney's instruction for no discussion on his Croke Park invitation. No room or tolerance for anyone who might dare to feel uncomfortable about or opposed to the visit, and who are opposed to this seemingly agreed version of how this visit should be viewed.
I just watched it back. He was pretty bad. Surely with the number of TDs now available SF can put up someone who's a bit more articulate than that? And David CamerOON? What was all that about?
Agree with you on the protest issue though. I think everyone should be entitled to peaceful protest and that right shouldn't be gagged. The NUI guy on the panel spoke well and was much more articulate than O'Snodaigh.
I suspect that Mary Lou has been given plenty of airtime on the issue from SF and they put forward another high profile Dublin TD for the show. As for the Cameroon bit, I noticed that myself! Though I still maintain that it was typical of the way this visit is being treated that O'Snodaigh was seemingly the only person who it was acceptable to challenge in the studio and was therefor under the most pressure.
As for the NUI fella, there could be no doubt he was the stand out contributor. A voice of reason and logic more than anybody else there.
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2011, 08:09:18 PM
Should a minority have the right to do as they please?
IMHO yes, unless it impedes on the wishes of the majority in which case the principles of democracy should apply. In this case I would argue that peaceful protests are fine, the rest should be locked up.
No, I disagree. They should have their social allowances taken off them. There is no reason they should be allowed riot on the streets and expect to receive allowances from the state. Peaceful protests I've nothing against.
First time I've logged on in months...basically to see what people thought of the Queens visit. Personally I have no problem with it....I see EG'S still spouting the same crap....Would put me right off...See you again when the Pope visits to see what he thinks of that...And what sort of reception he get's in the North...Wonder will Tom Elliott shake his hand!!
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on May 19, 2011, 09:01:36 PM
First time I've logged on in months...basically to see what people thought of the Queens visit. Personally I have no problem with it....I see EG'S still spouting the same crap....Would put me right off...See you again when the Pope visits to see what he thinks of that...And what sort of reception he get's in the North...Wonder will Tom Elliott shake his hand!!
Having read that I reckon that's what will be next!
Well see then when all the representatives from the Loyal Orders get their invites how many will take them up...ffs they won't even go in to a chapel...Hypocrites the lot of them!!
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 19, 2011, 08:10:47 PM
the best behaved out of the "dissident" republican groups
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
The Pope in Ireland? Now there's a real cause for protest. Like the Queen o Blighty, oul Benny maybe wasn't about when the worst of the atrocities were committed but he's still the present figurehead of a sickly elongated chapter of the history of Ireland. His crowd, like Liz's, systematically abused the young people of Ireland and turned a blind eye to the protestations of those affected. His predecessors encouraged British influence on Irish soil. Come to think about it, Liz and her shower weren't so bad after all.
Did ye see fcukbag O'Reilly's wife nearly went down on both knees when she met Mrs Windsor in the horsy set get together in Kildare today?
I hope she ( Reilly's bag) is not Irish with that disgraceful display of homage . >:( >:( >:(
Thought it was a great occasion myself...pomp overdose of course... but interesting and welcome all the same
I hope they enjoy it, and the remainder of it.
The cynical bastids among us would think that the British government are using such an occasion to promote a "we are peacemakers" propaganda in light of their latest attempt to "convert" the Libyans,,,not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
I doubt if there will be expressions of sympathy over the death and destruction there
Gay Byrne yarning the Queen on RTE
Mary Byrne giving Liz a bit of Bono.
Where's Johnny Logan?
Jedwould if johnny wouldnt
Quote from: ONeill on May 19, 2011, 10:34:06 PM
Mary Byrne giving Liz a bit of Bono.
i hear young Mary asked the queen if she watched x factor....response seemed a frank no
Quote from: Rossfan on May 19, 2011, 09:47:29 PM
Did ye see fcukbag O'Reilly's wife nearly went down on both knees when she met Mrs Windsor in the horsy set get together in Kildare today?
I hope she ( Reilly's bag) is not Irish with that disgraceful display of homage . >:( >:( >:(
Christ is that what that was, I thought it was a mare.
Quote from: Fishbat on May 19, 2011, 10:47:39 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 19, 2011, 10:34:06 PM
Mary Byrne giving Liz a bit of Bono.
i hear young Mary asked the queen if she watched x factor....response seemed a frank no
I'm with Liz on that.
Whilst it is easy for many to castigate Sinn Fein Reps for speaking in Irish first as a political gesture...and that may be the case with some, could it not be that they have taken a decision to do that as a means of promoting the language? After all the GAA also encourages all clubs and members to promote the language and use some words at meetings, presentations etc. I think that this is only right. Irrespective of SF it is a fact that many though not all Unionists still abhor all expressions of Irish culture and language. While I am fully supportive of the visit of the Queen and any means of out reach we as an organisation can do with minority communities on this Island, we should not lose sight of the original objective of the GAA to promote all things Irish, language, culture, sport and nationhood.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 20, 2011, 09:55:10 AM
Whilst it is easy for many to castigate Sinn Fein Reps for speaking in Irish first as a political gesture...and that may be the case with some, could it not be that they have taken a decision to do that as a means of promoting the language? After all the GAA also encourages all clubs and members to promote the language and use some words at meetings, presentations etc. I think that this is only right. Irrespective of SF it is a fact that many though not all Unionists still abhor all expressions of Irish culture and language. While I am fully supportive of the visit of the Queen and any means of out reach we as an organisation can do with minority communities on this Island, we should not lose sight of the original objective of the GAA to promote all things Irish, language, culture, sport and nationhood.
I agree, better a few words of stuttering, un-grammatical Irish than silence.
All that guff about politicising the language is just a feeble bluff to disguise Unionist bigotry. To my memory P O'Neill issued most of his statements as Béarla and the unionists didn't do to much yapping about that.
Quote from: Ulick on May 20, 2011, 10:27:14 AM
All that guff about politicising the language is just a feeble bluff to disguise Unionist bigotry. To my memory P O'Neill issued most of his statements as Béarla and the unionists didn't do to much yapping about that.
Come on, you know fine well there are plenty out there who continue to politicise the language and use it to antagonise Prods. If you are in the company of people who, in their entirety, can speak English would it not then be common courtesy to speak English when you're able to do so?
Stuff like this annoys me about the shinners. Ourselves alone and beggar the cost.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: Ulick on May 20, 2011, 10:27:14 AM
All that guff about politicising the language is just a feeble bluff to disguise Unionist bigotry. To my memory P O'Neill issued most of his statements as Béarla and the unionists didn't do to much yapping about that.
Come on, you know fine well there are plenty out there who continue to politicise the language and use it to antagonise Prods. If you are in the company of people who, in their entirety, can speak English would it not then be common courtesy to speak English when you're able to do so?
Stuff like this annoys me about the shinners. We ourselves and beggar the cost.
Fixed that for you there, Tony ;)
Quote from: AQMP on May 20, 2011, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: Ulick on May 20, 2011, 10:27:14 AM
All that guff about politicising the language is just a feeble bluff to disguise Unionist bigotry. To my memory P O'Neill issued most of his statements as Béarla and the unionists didn't do to much yapping about that.
Come on, you know fine well there are plenty out there who continue to politicise the language and use it to antagonise Prods. If you are in the company of people who, in their entirety, can speak English would it not then be common courtesy to speak English when you're able to do so?
Stuff like this annoys me about the shinners. We ourselves and beggar the cost.
Fixed that for you there, Tony ;)
Ha ha, I wasn't even playing on the Sinn Fein thing, but yours is better! :D
Quote from: AQMP on May 20, 2011, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: Ulick on May 20, 2011, 10:27:14 AM
All that guff about politicising the language is just a feeble bluff to disguise Unionist bigotry. To my memory P O'Neill issued most of his statements as Béarla and the unionists didn't do to much yapping about that.
Come on, you know fine well there are plenty out there who continue to politicise the language and use it to antagonise Prods. If you are in the company of people who, in their entirety, can speak English would it not then be common courtesy to speak English when you're able to do so?
Stuff like this annoys me about the shinners. We ourselves and beggar the cost.
Fixed that for you there, Tony ;)
Actually which is it as I'm sure there is a SF ourselves alone poster up somewhere in the Glens. Having said that some of the boys up there would be doing well to get the S and F the right way around!
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Come on, you know fine well there are plenty out there who continue to politicise the language and use it to antagonise Prods. If you are in the company of people who, in their entirety, can speak English would it not then be common courtesy to speak English when you're able to do so?
Stuff like this annoys me about the shinners. Ourselves alone and beggar the cost.
Of course, but banging out a few words and phrases is not the same as excluding someone from a conversation. All Irish politicians except the unionists and the SDLP do it.
Did Brid Rodgers not often talk in Irish?
QuoteAll Irish politicians except the unionists
I am pretty sure the SDLP throw in the odd cúpla focal from time to time and you are behind the times on the unionists, Ulick. Now that Alliance crowd, I wouldn't be sure about them.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/dup-first-minister-peter-robinson-speaks-irish-16002311.html
Quote from: Ulick on May 20, 2011, 10:49:25 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Come on, you know fine well there are plenty out there who continue to politicise the language and use it to antagonise Prods. If you are in the company of people who, in their entirety, can speak English would it not then be common courtesy to speak English when you're able to do so?
Stuff like this annoys me about the shinners. Ourselves alone and beggar the cost.
Of course, but banging out a few words and phrases is not the same as excluding someone from a conversation. All Irish politicians except the unionists and the SDLP do it.
On a technical point, are there those wee translator earpieces in Stormont etc that you see in the UN etc.
Have you ever seen security like this for a visit by a foreign dignitary. Was it all really necessary? They shut Dublin city centre down for a few days so that this old yoke wouldn't have to face any traffic. I didn't think anyone would really care.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 10:57:35 AM
Quote from: Ulick on May 20, 2011, 10:49:25 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 10:36:37 AM
Come on, you know fine well there are plenty out there who continue to politicise the language and use it to antagonise Prods. If you are in the company of people who, in their entirety, can speak English would it not then be common courtesy to speak English when you're able to do so?
Stuff like this annoys me about the shinners. Ourselves alone and beggar the cost.
Of course, but banging out a few words and phrases is not the same as excluding someone from a conversation. All Irish politicians except the unionists and the SDLP do it.
On a technical point, are there those wee translator earpieces in Stormont etc that you see in the UN etc.
Yes but they just play white noise whenever anyone speaks Irish...or when Jim Allister makes a speech
QuoteHave you ever seen security like this for a visit by a foreign dignitary. Was it all really necessary? They shut Dublin city centre down for a few days so that this old yoke wouldn't have to face any traffic. I didn't think anyone would really care.
It was necessary. If people will kill a GAA player in Tyrone then they would be more than happy to end the reign of QEII.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 20, 2011, 10:56:01 AM
QuoteAll Irish politicians except the unionists
I am pretty sure the SDLP throw in the odd cúpla focal from time to time and you are behind the times on the unionists, Ulick. Now that Alliance crowd, I wouldn't be sure about them.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/dup-first-minister-peter-robinson-speaks-irish-16002311.html
f**king Peter Robinson, if he keeps this up my wife is going to end up voting DUP!
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on May 20, 2011, 10:54:48 AM
Did Brid Rodgers not often talk in Irish?
She is from Gaoth Dobhair so she has a fabulous
blas
It has emerged that the Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel, Cllr Michael Brown, shook Queen Elizabeth II's hand during her visit to the town today.
The pair also enjoyed a brief conversation as the British monarch and her husband, Prince Phillip, toured the Rock of Cashel landmark.
The royals will be visiting Cork city this afternoon, where hundreds of well-wishers have already gathered to greet them.
Cllr Michael Brown was elected to Cashel Town Council in 1985. He lost it in 1999, before regaining it in 2004.
Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-mayor-shakes-queens-hand-on-cashel-visit-505779.html#ixzz1MtfWkA7I (http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-mayor-shakes-queens-hand-on-cashel-visit-505779.html#ixzz1MtfWkA7I)
Hope Willie Brennan's ghost doesnt get him ;D
The 'real' capital is also laying claim to the Jackeens title, which one is Reillers?
(http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/302375914.jpg)
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/ (http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/)
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 20, 2011, 02:06:25 PM
The 'real' capital is also laying claim to the Jackeens title, which one is Reillers?
(http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/302375914.jpg)
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/ (http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/)
Please God make they be English people visiting Cork.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2011, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 20, 2011, 02:06:25 PM
The 'real' capital is also laying claim to the Jackeens title, which one is Reillers?
(http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/302375914.jpg)
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/ (http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/)
Please God make they be English people visiting Cork.
After nineteen years here, I'm just beginning to get a feel for Corkery, Corkonianism and Corkocity and these lads are not Corkies. For a start, Cork people don't wear sunglasses.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 20, 2011, 02:06:25 PM
(http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/302375914.jpg)
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/ (http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/)
Vincent Browne and Eamon Dunphy wait for the Queen in Cork
Quote from: Hardy on May 20, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2011, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 20, 2011, 02:06:25 PM
The 'real' capital is also laying claim to the Jackeens title, which one is Reillers?
(http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/302375914.jpg)
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/ (http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/)
Please God make they be English people visiting Cork.
After nineteen years here, I'm just beginning to get a feel for Corkery, Corkonianism and Corkocity and these lads are not Corkies. For a start, Cork people don't wear sunglasses.
I only know 1 Royal-ist on Cork!!!!!!
And I go to the English Market every week and nobody makes any fuss.
Quote from: Hardy on May 20, 2011, 03:02:57 PM
And I go to the English Market every week and nobody makes any fuss.
Do you wear Meath colours like herself?
Not so much wear as flaunt.
She's gone. Phew
Dobbo really struggling there at the end.
"Behind her plane we see an Aer Lingus plane, with its distinctive shamrock. And behind that a Ryanair......"
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on May 20, 2011, 04:23:35 PM
She's gone. Phew
Dobbo really struggling there at the end.
"Behind her plane we see an Aer Lingus plane, with its distinctive shamrock. And behind that a Ryanair......"
Now, on to Obama's visit!
And before that we have the state funeral for Garret Fitzgerald. What a week for Mary Mc and Enda...
QuoteDo you wear Meath colours like herself?
I have been in there a few times with a Kerry jersey on me and had rotten fish flung at me once or twice !!
Quote from: Kerry Mike on May 20, 2011, 05:47:23 PM
QuoteDo you wear Meath colours like herself?
I have been in there a few times with a Kerry jersey on me and had rotten fish flung at me once or twice !!
I bet you caught it and stuck it in the net!
Quote from: Tubberman on May 20, 2011, 01:57:39 PM
It has emerged that the Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel, Cllr Michael Brown, shook Queen Elizabeth II's hand during her visit to the town today.
The pair also enjoyed a brief conversation as the British monarch and her husband, Prince Phillip, toured the Rock of Cashel landmark.
The royals will be visiting Cork city this afternoon, where hundreds of well-wishers have already gathered to greet them.
Cllr Michael Brown was elected to Cashel Town Council in 1985. He lost it in 1999, before regaining it in 2004.
Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-mayor-shakes-queens-hand-on-cashel-visit-505779.html#ixzz1MtfWkA7I (http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-mayor-shakes-queens-hand-on-cashel-visit-505779.html#ixzz1MtfWkA7I)
No one going to comment on this? Ulick? Nally? Lawnseed?
It's a fairly significant deviation from party policy. And good to see.
Then there's Gerry Adams' comments...
Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams has praised Queen Elizabeth's "sincere expression of sympathy" for those affected by conflict between Britain and Ireland.
Mr Adams said: "I hope some good will come from this visit and I particularly was taken by Queen Elizabeth's sincere expression of sympathy to all those who had suffered in the course of the conflict."
He hoped the visit would pave the way for greater co-operation between the two nations, saying: "If there is to be more benefit out of this, it will be if it moves beyond these important gestures and remarks."
He added: "It's another step in the journey. It was the conditions created by the peace process which allowed this to happen.
"It's a page in a book - and we need to write the next page and the next page and keep moving the process on."
Mr Adams claimed many nationalists in Northern Ireland were disappointed the Queen failed to apologise for Britain's past in Ireland, but he said: "I never expected that."http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/gerry-adams-hails-queens-message-16002447.html#ixzz1Muj4FkeE
Jesus, EG, this is really going to screw with your head now, isn't it? Even Peter Punt is getting in on the act!
QuoteDUP First Minister Peter Robinson speaks Irish
Friday, 20 May 2011
First Minister Peter Robinson followed in the Queen's footsteps yesterday — by speaking Irish.
After Her Majesty opened her ground-breaking Dublin Castle speech in Irish, the DUP leader yesterday jokingly followed suit.
At a Press conference after the first Executive meeting since the Assembly election, he said 'Sine' — Irish for 'that's it'.
Irish President Mary McAleese mouthed "wow" after the Queen opened in Irish on Wednesday night.
In the same room where Queen Victoria dined more than a century ago, her successor said: "A hUachtarain agus a chairde" which means "President and friends".
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 20, 2011, 02:27:42 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 20, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2011, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 20, 2011, 02:06:25 PM
The 'real' capital is also laying claim to the Jackeens title, which one is Reillers?
(http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/302375914.jpg)
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/ (http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/20/live-from-the-rebel-county/)
Please God make they be English people visiting Cork.
After nineteen years here, I'm just beginning to get a feel for Corkery, Corkonianism and Corkocity and these lads are not Corkies. For a start, Cork people don't wear sunglasses.
I only know 1 Royal-ist on Cork!!!!!!
Sure they probably Brits living here, not is if the Irish in Britain aren't known for getting out their tricolours when the occasion arises.
Quote from: Kerry Mike on May 20, 2011, 05:47:23 PM
QuoteDo you wear Meath colours like herself?
I have been in there a few times with a Kerry jersey on me and had rotten fish flung at me once or twice !!
Now you can't totaly blame that on Cork folk, it could happen in all the other 32 counties. :D
If yez remember 'mccarthys bar' sure there's a whole raft of English settlers in various wee areas all round cork - Esp kinsale!
As for the sf guy shaking the queens hand - fair play to him. Party policy if that exists for not being courteous shouldn't come into it for meeting foreign officials. I'd not agree with sf's stance though anyway.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 20, 2011, 10:05:37 PM
If yez remember 'mccarthys bar' sure there's a whole raft of English settlers in various wee areas all round cork - Esp kinsale!
As for the sf guy shaking the queens hand - fair play to him. Party policy if that exists for not being courteous shouldn't come into it for meeting foreign officials. I'd not agree with sf's stance though anyway.
Well the decendants of the English lads who settled in Baltimore, County Cork are probably getting the shit bombed out of them by the RAF in Tripoli right now.
Isn't Bandon a Little England?
Was it Cork or Waterford that Sir Walter Raleigh had a few acres.
TBF Connacht is the only Irish province ;)
A fella in work was in Kinsale a while back and said nearly every restaurant he went into was owned by someone from England, France and Germany.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 20, 2011, 11:05:50 PM
A fella in work was in Kinsale a while back and said nearly every restaurant he went into was owned by someone from England, France and Germany.
The Infamous Senior Bondholders perhaps!
QuoteGet ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming
as long as its not the flag of your country (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=player_embedded)
Quote from: gerry on May 20, 2011, 11:13:14 PM
QuoteGet ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming
as long as its not the flag of your country (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=player_embedded)
This one has been doing the rounds. The Garda clearly corrected herself - she was referring to the flag pole and not the flag.
But two questions - why was this person filming themselves going through the checkpoint? And what is the story with her accent? She's not even Irish by the sound of things.
Tell me I'm confused is Cork now the Royal County and if so where does that leave Meath?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2011, 06:20:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 20, 2011, 01:57:39 PM
It has emerged that the Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel, Cllr Michael Brown, shook Queen Elizabeth II's hand during her visit to the town
No one going to comment on this? Ulick? Nally? Lawnseed?
Still no comment? Has no one put paper in the fax machine?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 12:39:08 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2011, 06:20:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 20, 2011, 01:57:39 PM
It has emerged that the Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel, Cllr Michael Brown, shook Queen Elizabeth II's hand during her visit to the town
No one going to comment on this? Ulick? Nally? Lawnseed?
Still no comment? Has no one put paper in the fax machine?
Why are you asking this?
Do you think they'll feel betrayed/embarrassed? Will that give you a kick?
I'm interested to know whether they think he was right or wrong to do what he did. And I'd be interested in hearing their opinion before we have an official party line.
Quote from: gerry on May 20, 2011, 11:13:14 PM
QuoteGet ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming
as long as its not the flag of your country (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=player_embedded)
My younger brother, he must have been 11 at the time, had his Mayo flag pole broke in two by a Garda and told to remove the pole from the flag on the way into the 1996 All-Ireland Final (first game). The Garda had a big durty Meath accent on him. Still angers me to this day.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 21, 2011, 12:36:29 AM
Tell me I'm confused is Cork now the Royal County and if so where does that leave Meath?
Well the Rebels the Cork folk always proclaim themselves to be, the original ones were not Nationalist, Republican or even Irish Royalty Rebels. The Rebels were actually the losing side in one of the many British Royal disputes. The original Cork Rebels were Royalists.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 12:54:38 AM
I'm interested to know whether they think he was right or wrong to do what he did. And I'd be interested in hearing their opinion before we have an official party line.
As Mayor he probably felt obliged to represent the town. I wouldn't have done it, but I'm not Mayor of Cashel. I'd say he'll get a bit of ribbing at the next Ard Fheis, sin é.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 01:09:52 AM
My younger brother, he must have been 11 at the time, had his Mayo flag pole broke in two by a Garda and told to remove the pole from the flag on the way into the 1996 All-Ireland Final (first game). The Garda had a big durty Meath accent on him. Still angers me to this day.
A broken flag pole angers you? Indeed...
How about 10 men going through the most horrible and horrific death imaginable to prove they weren't criminals, then to have some west Brit, west coast cretin to suggest they committed suicide? Would that anger you?
Quote from: Ulick on May 21, 2011, 01:25:53 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 01:09:52 AM
My younger brother, he must have been 11 at the time, had his Mayo flag pole broke in two by a Garda and told to remove the pole from the flag on the way into the 1996 All-Ireland Final (first game). The Garda had a big durty Meath accent on him. Still angers me to this day.
A broken flag pole angers you? Indeed...
How about 10 men going through the most horrible and horrific death imaginable to prove they weren't criminals, then to have some west Brit, west coast cretin to suggest they committed suicide? Would that anger you?
Cretinism
1. Diseases of the nervous system: A Text-book of Neurology and Psychiatry by Smith Ely Jelliffe, William Alanson White (1917)
"cretinism.—This is a broad, general term applied to a combination of physical ... Such a loss may occur sporadically, sporadic cretinism, from causes to be ..."
2. The American Journal of Insanity by New York (State). State Lunatic Asylum (1905)
"In perusing the various text-books and monographs upon cretinism, an interest in the subject having recently been aroused by two cases of sporadic cretinism ..."
3. Special pathology and therapeutics of the diseases of domestic animals v. 2 by Ferenc Hutyra (1913)
"Enzootic cretinism in Animals. In regions where endemic cretinism occurs in man (especially in the enclosed valleys of the Alps, Pyrenees, in Franconia and ..."
4. The Diseases of children by James Frederic Goodhart (1899)
"The most important feature of the morbid anatomy of cretinism is absence or some ... The diagnosis of cretinism is usually easy, but it is not difficult to ..."
5. The Diseases of infancy and childhood by Henry Koplik (1918)
"cretinism.—cretinism is a chronic affection which is characterized by a defective ... Endemic cretinism.—Endemic cretinism occurs in certain districts >f ..."
6. Thyroid and Thymus by André Crotti (1918)
"FLUCTUATIONS OF cretinism. Endemic cretinism is subject to the same fluctuations as goiter. Ewald states that in the German Black Forest, ..."
7. Medical Communications of the Massachusetts Medical Society by Massachusetts Medical Society (1901)
"OSLER defines cretinism as " a chronic disease of nutrition due to loss or impairment of function of the thyroid gland. It causes a retardation of ..."
So I am a West Brit now am I? (Typical retort of your ilk, the Blood Lust Nationalist Irishman or your a Brit attitude) When the Revolution comes, will you brand people with your bigoted imagined labels and put them against the wall to be shot? You don't want a United Ireland of equals. You wanted a bigoted, vengeful, hate-ridden, dicatatorship.
What would you call it when someone takes their own life?
I always thought they were convicted paramilitary prisoners, or criminals by another name.
I am Proud to come from the West Coast.
Quote from: Ulick on May 21, 2011, 01:19:26 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 12:54:38 AM
I'm interested to know whether they think he was right or wrong to do what he did. And I'd be interested in hearing their opinion before we have an official party line.
As Mayor he probably felt obliged to represent the town. I wouldn't have done it, but I'm not Mayor of Cashel. I'd say he'll get a bit of ribbing at the next Ard Fheis, sin é.
Maybe he wanted to do it, plenty of other members of the council who could have deputised for him. Maybe being a Munsterman he has less of a chip on his shoulder.
I would like to think he wouldn't have to Google the word "cretin" you shameful disgrace of an Irishman.
Quote from: Ulick on May 21, 2011, 02:25:33 AM
I would like to think he wouldn't have to Google the word "cretin" you shameful disgrace of an Irishman.
Is that right? Maybe he shouldn't have used the word, as he clearly did not understand its meaning. You shameful disgrace of an Irishman.
Cork.......The Rebel County.....so much for that Terence MacSwiney would be turning in his grave. The whole occasion has been hugely disrespectful to Irish/(6 counties inparticluar) nationalists/republicans, appease the brits at all costs, am sure the old doll was looking grand in her green but it wasnt long ago she was putting medals on Brit para troopers who killed innocent Irish men on the streets of Derry...., no harm but grow a set. DISGRACE
TAKE IT DOWN FROM THE MAST.........................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paoXAB16x8M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnvjoHdOtLE&NR=1
Nothing but b******
Will she be putting medals on 'SOLDIERS' who have been murdering innocent middle eastern's?
Yet again blinkered by the media, wake the f*** up.
She stands for Oppression/murder/Collusion/...but sure shes just looking at salmon at the english market
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
I have no time for dissidents, and i 'accept' the shiners but trusting the brit establishment in terms of media is a fools game
Quote from: DoireGael on May 21, 2011, 04:36:14 AM
She stands for Oppression/murder/Collusion/
Jesus wept! ::)
Quote from: Ulick on May 21, 2011, 01:25:53 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 01:09:52 AM
My younger brother, he must have been 11 at the time, had his Mayo flag pole broke in two by a Garda and told to remove the pole from the flag on the way into the 1996 All-Ireland Final (first game). The Garda had a big durty Meath accent on him. Still angers me to this day.
A broken flag pole angers you? Indeed...
How about 10 men going through the most horrible and horrific death imaginable to prove they weren't criminals, then to have some west Brit, west coast cretin to suggest they committed suicide? Would that anger you?
Who said that and where?
Though I was largely indifferent to the Queen's visit, the media reaction, as one poster put it rather succintly, is beginning to "sicken my hole". I had to turn that arse Tubridy off last night before the part of the programme where they were to discuss the "momentous week it has been for our country". I would have preferred to hear a lot more about Garret Fitzgerald whom Bowman described as "not having a partionist bone in his body".
A number of posters have taken offence at my occasional use of the term "Free State". Normally this is done tongue in cheek and (honestly) is not done to offend anyone. But I am left with the impression from this week that "Official" Ireland feels it now can consider itself a real nation just because the Queen has been to a stud farm in Kildare and a fish market in Cork. Media types and politicians now seem to be (metaphorically) walking around with the chest puffed out and with a smug "we're playing senior hurling now boys" attitude. Maybe deep down all along they considered themselves just part of a Free State and were waiting for George V's grand-daughter to confer nationhood upon them.
In the week that saw the passing of a man who had not a partitionist bone in his body the Queen's visit seems to have introduced a new partition in Ireland. That between a state and its citizens. :(
Quote from: hardstation on May 21, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 09:18:21 AM
Quote from: Ulick on May 21, 2011, 01:25:53 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 01:09:52 AM
My younger brother, he must have been 11 at the time, had his Mayo flag pole broke in two by a Garda and told to remove the pole from the flag on the way into the 1996 All-Ireland Final (first game). The Garda had a big durty Meath accent on him. Still angers me to this day.
A broken flag pole angers you? Indeed...
How about 10 men going through the most horrible and horrific death imaginable to prove they weren't criminals, then to have some west Brit, west coast cretin to suggest they committed suicide? Would that anger you?
Who said that and where?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 20, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 20, 2011, 01:37:34 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 20, 2011, 12:27:14 PM
RIP Garret. The fact that the SF cabal here can't find it in themselves to exhibit a little generosity of spirit even on the occasion of his wake, in defiance of the best Irish tradition, says a lot about them and indeed about him.
I would give him the same respect he gave the Hunger strikers.
There was more than enough food for them to eat, they committed suicide.
Oh dear...cue another 20 pages...
Quote from: DoireGael on May 21, 2011, 04:36:14 AM
Cork.......The Rebel County.....so much for that Terence MacSwiney would be turning in his grave. The whole occasion has been hugely disrespectful to Irish/(6 counties inparticluar) nationalists/republicans, appease the brits at all costs, am sure the old doll was looking grand in her green but it wasnt long ago she was putting medals on Brit para troopers who killed innocent Irish men on the streets of Derry...., no harm but grow a set. DISGRACE
TAKE IT DOWN FROM THE MAST.........................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paoXAB16x8M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnvjoHdOtLE&NR=1
Nothing but b******
Will she be putting medals on 'SOLDIERS' who have been murdering innocent middle eastern's?
Yet again blinkered by the media, wake the f*** up.
She stands for Oppression/murder/Collusion/...but sure shes just looking at salmon at the english market
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
I have no time for dissidents, and i 'accept' the shiners but trusting the brit establishment in terms of media is a fools game
That's a powerful rant, me oul' friend and I think it's good to let off steam once in a while.I bet you feel a lot better now.
But, before you rev up for another one, I think you went off the track in your opening statement.
Cork was known as The Rebel County long before the time of Terence McSwiney.
That name goes back a bit further; The Langers picked up the neame because of the stand they took in the Confederate Wars.
They were fought in 1642.
Just thought that might interest you.
For God's sake Lar, don't mention moving on from 1642.
Mayogodhelpus - That comment was right out of the gutter. You could educate yourself a bit and read the book "ten men dead" and ask yourself whether you would be able to make such a sacrifice for anything. You have a chance now to retract that which you should cos I think everything you post from now on will be tainted otherwise.
I'm just ashamed to be from the same county as mayogodhelpus now, also Enda Kenny for inviting the oul hoor back to visit these shores again. However, I'm not ashamed of anything else my county men have done, and before ye all start posting up clips of youtube videos of us getting hammered in Croker, frig it we'll win the damn thing some day, whether I'm dead or alive!!!
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 21, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
I'm just ashamed to be from the same county as mayogodhelpus now, also Enda Kenny for inviting the oul hoor back to visit these shores again. However, I'm not ashamed of anything else my county men have done, and before ye all start posting up clips of youtube videos of us getting hammered in Croker, frig it we'll win the damn thing some day, whether I'm dead or alive!!!
The invitation came from Mary McAleese.
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 10:34:33 AM
the Queen's visit seems to have introduced a new partition in Ireland. That between a state and its citizens. :(
Not sure where you're getting that from. The general public consensus seems to have been very much in line with that of the politicians - even to the extent that a SF Mayor felt obliged to meet her on behalf of those citizens he represents.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 10:34:33 AM
the Queen's visit seems to have introduced a new partition in Ireland. That between a state and its citizens. :(
Not sure where you're getting that from. The general public consensus seems to have been very much in line with that of the politicians - even to the extent that a SF Mayor felt obliged to meet her on behalf of those citizens he represents.
In your opinion or are you privy to information held at a town meeting in Cashel?
Quote from: ballinaman on May 21, 2011, 11:50:02 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 10:34:33 AM
the Queen's visit seems to have introduced a new partition in Ireland. That between a state and its citizens. :(
Not sure where you're getting that from. The general public consensus seems to have been very much in line with that of the politicians - even to the extent that a SF Mayor felt obliged to meet her on behalf of those citizens he represents.
In your opinion or are you privy to information held at a town meeting in Cashel?
Not my opinion at all - based on a post on politics.ie:
"The Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel has shown enormous physical and mental courage by defying his life threatening illness to tell Cashel Town Council he would welcome the Queen of England to the town if that is what the majority of the people want.
Mayor of Cashel, Cllr Michael Browne, who has bravely battled cancer for the past few months, told Cashel Town Council on Monday evening that he would welcome the Queen to the historic town despite a recent letter to the local media by Tipperary Sinn Fein Councillors condemning the visit.
Welcoming the Mayor into the Chamber, Cllr Sean McCarthy said there had been some "adverse publicity" in the media regarding the visit, with the prospect of "possible protests." Cllr McCarthy wished Mayor Browne good health and asked him what his "precise position" was on the upcoming state visit, given that it could be a "great boost to tourism and and strengthen our morale" and "international relations."
"I am delighted to be back here," said Mayor Browne, who has been unable to attend Council meetings due to his grave illness. Cllr Browne said he was elected by the people on June 11th 2009. Within a fortnight, there was an agreement made in Cashel that Cllr Browne would be made Mayor.
"Unfortunately, my health is not as good as I would like it to be. I was elected as a representative of the people unanimously. I feel that I have no other option only to go along (with the visit)."
Cllr Browne said that he now accepted that the vast majority of people in Cashel are welcoming the Queen of England to the Cashel. "Ian Paisley said 'No' for 40 years," he said. Referring to the conflict in Northern Ireland, Cllr Browne said it takes a brave man, such as a certain fellow Sinn Fein member, to overcome the past, and lay a wreath at the Cenotaph.
Up to about 10 minutes before the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, there were Sinn Fein members who held out. "I will go along with the wishes of the people of Cashel," said Cllr Browne, adding that some of the money recently spent on improving infrastructure around the town, would not have been spent were it nor for the Queen's visit.
Cashel's economy "will benefit and accrue, in the near and far future." "I think and I hope that the biggest beneficiary will be the Tidy Towns people. I hope that everybody gets behind the Tidy Towns committee next June," said Mayor Browne.
Cllr Sean McCarthy complimented the Mayor on his "honest and straightforward" answer. "You are truly a representative of the people of Cashel."
Cllr McCarthy said he would call on his colleague, Tidy Towns Chairperson Paddy Downey, and Denis Heffernan, from the award-winning village of Emly, to help Cashel. "It would put the icing on the cake."
Cllr PJ Quinlan said it was a credit to the Mayor that he was willing to endorse the Queen's visit. "A Céad Míle Failte is crucial."
Cllr Maribel Wood said she was delighted to hear the "nice words" of Cllr Browne. "You have put the town first. I know Cllr Browne is very honest and loves the town. (You're) putting the town first, ahead of party politics."
Separately, the Chamber heard that security arrangements regarding the Queen's visit will be made public this week. Town Clerk Marie McGivern, responding to Cllr PJ Quinlan, said the gardai have not made any detailed public announcments yet, but are expected to do so this week.
Such a statement from a man who's county gave us men like Frank Stagg and Michael Gaughan. Mayogodhelpus, You're an asshole of the very highest order.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 21, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
I'm just ashamed to be from the same county as mayogodhelpus now, also Enda Kenny for inviting the oul hoor back to visit these shores again. However, I'm not ashamed of anything else my county men have done, and before ye all start posting up clips of youtube videos of us getting hammered in Croker, frig it we'll win the damn thing some day, whether I'm dead or alive!!!
The invitation came from Mary McAleese.
And was issued during the lifetime of the last government.
Quote from: Tubberman on May 21, 2011, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 21, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
I'm just ashamed to be from the same county as mayogodhelpus now, also Enda Kenny for inviting the oul hoor back to visit these shores again. However, I'm not ashamed of anything else my county men have done, and before ye all start posting up clips of youtube videos of us getting hammered in Croker, frig it we'll win the damn thing some day, whether I'm dead or alive!!!
The invitation came from Mary McAleese.
And was issued during the lifetime of the last government.
She was invited back before coming in the first place??
Quote from: Tubberman on May 21, 2011, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 21, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
I'm just ashamed to be from the same county as mayogodhelpus now, also Enda Kenny for inviting the oul hoor back to visit these shores again. However, I'm not ashamed of anything else my county men have done, and before ye all start posting up clips of youtube videos of us getting hammered in Croker, frig it we'll win the damn thing some day, whether I'm dead or alive!!!
The invitation came from Mary McAleese.
And was issued during the lifetime of the last government.
Farrandeelin is talking about Enda's little goodbye kiss with Liz at Cork Airport. He asked her if she'd like to come again. She said yes, and Enda nearly ran back to the RTE radio studio to tell everyone.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 21, 2011, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 21, 2011, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 21, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
I'm just ashamed to be from the same county as mayogodhelpus now, also Enda Kenny for inviting the oul hoor back to visit these shores again. However, I'm not ashamed of anything else my county men have done, and before ye all start posting up clips of youtube videos of us getting hammered in Croker, frig it we'll win the damn thing some day, whether I'm dead or alive!!!
The invitation came from Mary McAleese.
And was issued during the lifetime of the last government.
Farrandeelin is talking about Enda's little goodbye kiss with Liz at Cork Airport. He asked her if she'd like to come again. She said yes, and Enda nearly ran back to the RTE radio studio to tell everyone.
Sorry, read it too fast - thought he was on about the original invitation.
I don't see much a problem with inviting her back myself... certainly nothing to be ashamed about.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 21, 2011, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 21, 2011, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 21, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
I'm just ashamed to be from the same county as mayogodhelpus now, also Enda Kenny for inviting the oul hoor back to visit these shores again. However, I'm not ashamed of anything else my county men have done, and before ye all start posting up clips of youtube videos of us getting hammered in Croker, frig it we'll win the damn thing some day, whether I'm dead or alive!!!
The invitation came from Mary McAleese.
And was issued during the lifetime of the last government.
Farrandeelin is talking about Enda's little goodbye kiss with Liz at Cork Airport. He asked her if she'd like to come again. She said yes, and Enda nearly ran back to the RTE radio studio to tell everyone.
Ah right. I thought he was referring to the current visit. She has afterall been to these shores before.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 10:34:33 AM
the Queen's visit seems to have introduced a new partition in Ireland. That between a state and its citizens. :(
Not sure where you're getting that from. The general public consensus seems to have been very much in line with that of the politicians - even to the extent that a SF Mayor felt obliged to meet her on behalf of those citizens he represents.
IMHO, the consensus on Tuesday was one of benign indifference to the visit (even Kevin Myers was of this opinion). However the media/state love-in (Wow!) was constantly hammering home the message like the two boys who were in Reggie Perrin "Great, super". It has had some success.
BTW on a seperate note, one of the biggest myths of this visit was the massive boost to tourism that will accrue. I used to work in the tourism industry and know that that is a load of shite!
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 12:49:36 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2011, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 10:34:33 AM
the Queen's visit seems to have introduced a new partition in Ireland. That between a state and its citizens. :(
Not sure where you're getting that from. The general public consensus seems to have been very much in line with that of the politicians - even to the extent that a SF Mayor felt obliged to meet her on behalf of those citizens he represents.
IMHO, the consensus on Tuesday was one of benign indifference to the visit (even Kevin Myers was of this opinion). However the media/state love-in (Wow!) was constantly hammering home the message like the two boys who were in Reggie Perrin "Great, super". It has had some success.
BTW on a seperate note, one of the biggest myths of this visit was the massive boost to tourism that will accrue. I used to work in the tourism industry and know that that is a load of shite!
Yeah, the media reaction has definitely been OTT - they are detatched from reality most of the time. They only seem to talk to other media types.
I do think it will probably boost tourist numbers, but not in a hugely noticeable way. It's certainly not going to lead to a shortage of hotel rooms!
But despite that, I think the visit was a good thing, and I'm glad it has happened. I was at best indifferent about the visit before it happened. Then immediately pior to it, I began to worry that she could actually be murdered while she was here.
Then we'd really be in the shit - a complete basket case of a country, that would be an end to FDI, and god knows what other grief would come our way.
I thought the Queen made some very important and welcome gestures and acknoledgements. Granted, on their own they don't mean a huge amount without similar actions, and obviously they can't change the past.
But as an indication as to how the relationship between the two islands can be in the future, I thought it was very positive and welcome.
Tubberman, mostly agree. I was never opposed to the visit but looking back after the event, taken as a whole it probably was a good thing. But nowhere near as significant as some have suggested.
I look forward to Enda and Mary greeting the Pope on the Falls Rd before Xmas!! ;)
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Tubberman, mostly agree. I was never opposed to the visit but looking back after the event, taken as a whole it probably was a good thing. But nowhere near as significant as some have suggested.
I look forward to Enda and Mary greeting the Pope on the Falls Rd before Xmas!! ;)
:D Keep that argument for another day!!
I think the Pope would nearly have as much opposition down south as he would up north...
Quote from: Tubberman on May 21, 2011, 01:07:41 PM
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Tubberman, mostly agree. I was never opposed to the visit but looking back after the event, taken as a whole it probably was a good thing. But nowhere near as significant as some have suggested.
I look forward to Enda and Mary greeting the Pope on the Falls Rd before Xmas!! ;)
:D Keep that argument for another day!!
I think the Pope would nearly have as much opposition down south as he would up north...
True...but I thought since we're all into opening the country up to Germans... ;D
The recent visit of our neighbouring Head of State was nothing more than a formal formailisation of the good relations between the 2 governments ( who really run the 2 States) that have existed since 1985.
Despite the media and some establishment people plus the usual Westbrit eejits gushing bullshit and the various people who feel they cannot welcome this oul lassies visit it was for the silent majority another media circus non event.
It made no difference to my life nor I suspect 5,999,900 other people who live in Ireland.
Also I cannot see 5m Brits waiting every year to see where their Queen goes to visit before booking their Holidays.
For the record I am opposed to all remnants of Medieval Feudalism like Kings,lords,Barons etc of whatever Nationality.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 21, 2011, 01:48:29 PM
Also I cannot see 5m Brits waiting every year to see where their Queen goes to visit before booking their Holidays.
Neither can I. But I don't think that's the angle of the tourism argument. It's just about the exposure the visit got, not just in Britain, but globally. And such exposure would have cost the likes of Discover Ireland many millions to buy.
Now to what extent we would ever be able to reliably measure any benefit is questionable. I'm not sure how we could ever know the extent to which any increase in tourist numbers could be attributed to this visit, or Obama's. Although it would be interesting to see if there is any noticable differences in numbers to specific locations, such as Cashel, the English Market or Moneygall.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 11:15:34 AM
Mayogodhelpus - That comment was right out of the gutter. You could educate yourself a bit and read the book "ten men dead" and ask yourself whether you would be able to make such a sacrifice for anything. You have a chance now to retract that which you should cos I think everything you post from now on will be tainted otherwise.
Please tell me why they seem to be so many of your heroes?
Were they convicted paramilitary prisoners?
Did they refuse food and other nutriton knowing full well the consequences?
Did they die as a result of those informed decisions?
Actually they anger me more not because of their politics, but because their actions resulted in both ill-health and death among them.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 12:10:21 PM
Such a statement from a man who's county gave us men like Frank Stagg and Michael Gaughan. Mayogodhelpus, You're an asshole of the very highest order.
Nally do you want us all to take up a gun and march on City Hall in Belfast or Stormant perhaps?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 11:15:34 AM
Mayogodhelpus - That comment was right out of the gutter. You could educate yourself a bit and read the book "ten men dead" and ask yourself whether you would be able to make such a sacrifice for anything. You have a chance now to retract that which you should cos I think everything you post from now on will be tainted otherwise.
Please tell me why they seem to be so many of your heroes?
Were they convicted paramilitary prisoners?
Did they refuse food and other nutriton knowing full well the consequences?
Did they die as a result of those informed decisions?
Actually they anger me more not because of their politics, but because their actions resulted in both ill-health and death among them.
Ok, you've cemented your place in the sewer with mike Sheehy and his ilk. Do you think that of other Irish hunger strikers from the tan war etc.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 11:15:34 AM
Mayogodhelpus - That comment was right out of the gutter. You could educate yourself a bit and read the book "ten men dead" and ask yourself whether you would be able to make such a sacrifice for anything. You have a chance now to retract that which you should cos I think everything you post from now on will be tainted otherwise.
Please tell me why they seem to be so many of your heroes?
Were they convicted paramilitary prisoners?
Did they refuse food and other nutriton knowing full well the consequences?
Did they die as a result of those informed decisions?
Actually they anger me more not because of their politics, but because their actions resulted in both ill-health and death among them.
Ok, you've cemented your place in the sewer with mike Sheehy and his ilk. Do you think that of other Irish hunger strikers from the tan war etc.
O fck sake, because I don't approve of the hunger strikers actions (I also disapprove of the U.K. governments reaction). Is it a current law that I should approve and revere them? Why is it a must that I should support the "blood sacrifice"?
Why did they have a right to special status? They were not combatants serving any country?
Quote from: Tubberman on May 21, 2011, 01:07:41 PM
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Tubberman, mostly agree. I was never opposed to the visit but looking back after the event, taken as a whole it probably was a good thing. But nowhere near as significant as some have suggested.
I look forward to Enda and Mary greeting the Pope on the Falls Rd before Xmas!! ;)
:D Keep that argument for another day!!
I think the Pope would nearly have as much opposition down south as he would up north...
Wonder if this ever happens will Nally Stand and the likes be out in force on the board to let the leader of the Vatican know they can go run and jump after the interference and hurt they have brought to our Island. ::)
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 21, 2011, 01:07:41 PM
Quote from: AQMP on May 21, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Tubberman, mostly agree. I was never opposed to the visit but looking back after the event, taken as a whole it probably was a good thing. But nowhere near as significant as some have suggested.
I look forward to Enda and Mary greeting the Pope on the Falls Rd before Xmas!! ;)
:D Keep that argument for another day!!
I think the Pope would nearly have as much opposition down south as he would up north...
True...but I thought since we're all into opening the country up to Germans... ;D
Well isn't the Windsor house just like Europe right now, an unemployed Greek living off a rich German.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 11:15:34 AM
Mayogodhelpus - That comment was right out of the gutter. You could educate yourself a bit and read the book "ten men dead" and ask yourself whether you would be able to make such a sacrifice for anything. You have a chance now to retract that which you should cos I think everything you post from now on will be tainted otherwise.
Please tell me why they seem to be so many of your heroes?
Were they convicted paramilitary prisoners?
Did they refuse food and other nutriton knowing full well the consequences?
Did they die as a result of those informed decisions?
Actually they anger me more not because of their politics, but because their actions resulted in both ill-health and death among them.
Ok, you've cemented your place in the sewer with mike Sheehy and his ilk. Do you think that of other Irish hunger strikers from the tan war etc.
O fck sake, because I don't approve of the hunger strikers actions (I also disapprove of the U.K. governments reaction). Is it a current law that I should approve and revere them? Why is it a must that I should support the "blood sacrifice"?
Why did they have a right to special status? They were not combatants serving any country?
They had the status, it was taken away. They were political prisoners, ie not on jail for normal crime. You clearly don't know what your talking about so I will argue with you no more.
You're as well to add mayogodhelpus to your list of people you're going to ignore myles! :D
Define a normal crime.
Bobby Sands for example was a member of the Provisional I.R.A. an illegal organisation.
These were not just internees they were convicted criminals.
The men who died on hungerstrike were in prison for a list of offenses which included, murder, manslaughter, posession of illegal firearms, theft of firearms, possession of grenades, hijacking, punishment beatings, and involvement in bombings.
MGHU, If Michael Collins had been arrested by the Brits back in the 20s, what would they have charged him with? Would it have looked a lot similar to the rap sheet you've just listed?
I see that Peter Robinson attended the state dinner in Dublin Castle.
I wonder did he eat the meal on offer or did he send home to Belfast for an Ulster fry. ;D
Aye and they grew up in a totally normal society just like you and had no political motivations and were in no way fighting back against a state which was abusive of them and their community. Take your head out of your f**king ass mayo you self-righteous hypocrite.
Bobby Sands was arrested by the RUC. I suppose the fact that the RUC were not "declared illegal" makes them beyond criticism in your black and white world then. Was Michael Collins not regarded as a criminal in his time by britain too? But that's different I suppose because he wasn't a nordie ::)
Mike Sheehy wouldn't be in it.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 03:39:14 PM
Define a normal crime.
Bobby Sands for example was a member of the Provisional I.R.A. an illegal organisation.
These were not just internees they were convicted criminals.
The men who died on hungerstrike were in prison for a list of offenses which included, murder, manslaughter, posession of illegal firearms, theft of firearms, possession of grenades, hijacking, punishment beatings, and involvement in bombings.
I'm going to make it real simple so you can understand. The prisoners were recognised as being "special" within the prison system as their "crimes" were politically motivated . The brits then tried to change this regime to criminalise the prisoners and they met with this protest. Now that you are finally allowing the blue shirt mask slip completely we can finally see what you are made of. To think you had the cheek to declare FF traitors - as bad as they are/were, what does that make you?
Sure wasn't Michael Collins a member of an 'illegal organisation' too when it was first set up mghu?
mayogodhelpus, you are going nowwhere with this one, unless your ambition is to stir up trouble (quite likely). According to your logic the holocaust was justifiable as it was legal.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 03:39:14 PM
Define a normal crime.
Bobby Sands for example was a member of the Provisional I.R.A. an illegal organisation.
These were not just internees they were convicted criminals.
The men who died on hungerstrike were in prison for a list of offenses which included, murder, manslaughter, posession of illegal firearms, theft of firearms, possession of grenades, hijacking, punishment beatings, and involvement in bombings.
I'm going to make it real simple so you can understand. The prisoners were recognised as being "special" within the prison system as their "crimes" were politically motivated . The brits then tried to change this regime to criminalise the prisoners and they met with this protest. Now that you are finally allowing the blue shirt mask slip completely we can finally see what you are made of. To think you had the cheek to declare FF traitors - as bad as they are/were, what does that make you?
I am not a facist, I have never been or ever will be a member of a facist organisation. I despise Eoin O'Duffy as one of the most hateful Irishmen of the 20'th century.
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government. I am very sorry if I cannot see things from your viewpoint on this point, which seems wrong to me in every way on the most instintive and basic intitutuve way. I am a proud Irish Nationalist, a proud Irish Republican and a proud Irish Democrat, no matter what you say to me can make me feel less so. Sorry if I don't love your beloved Provisional I.R.A.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 21, 2011, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 03:39:14 PM
Define a normal crime.
Bobby Sands for example was a member of the Provisional I.R.A. an illegal organisation.
These were not just internees they were convicted criminals.
The men who died on hungerstrike were in prison for a list of offenses which included, murder, manslaughter, posession of illegal firearms, theft of firearms, possession of grenades, hijacking, punishment beatings, and involvement in bombings.
I'm going to make it real simple so you can understand. The prisoners were recognised as being "special" within the prison system as their "crimes" were politically motivated . The brits then tried to change this regime to criminalise the prisoners and they met with this protest. Now that you are finally allowing the blue shirt mask slip completely we can finally see what you are made of. To think you had the cheek to declare FF traitors - as bad as they are/were, what does that make you?
I am not a facist, I have never been or ever will be a member of a facist organisation. I despise Eoin O'Duffy as one of the most hateful Irishmen of the 20'th century.
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government. I am very sorry if I cannot see things from your viewpoint on this point, which seems wrong to me in every way on the most instintive and basic intitutuve way. I am a proud Irish Nationalist, a proud Irish Republican and a proud Irish Democrat, no matter what you say to me can make me feel less so. Sorry if I don't love your beloved Provisional I.R.A.
So was Michael Collins and co then...
Please answer the question about Michael Collins MGHU. We're all waiting to see how you differentiate between the two.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 07:51:21 PM
I'm sorry but to me they were thugs.
The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government. . I am a proud Irish Nationalist, a proud Irish Republican and a proud Irish Democrat,
So was Michael Collins and co then...
[/quote]
The Gardai and the Irish Defence Forces werent much use to Northern Nationalists seeing as they didnt operate in the 6 Cos.
Michael Collins "squad" were not the sort of people to fall out with .I think Kerry republicans would call them a lot worse than thugs !!
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
So the guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances,
who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
And the men of 1916 (collins included)....Criminals too? Free state hypocrite.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
And the men of 1916 (collins included)....Criminals too? Free state hypocrite.
YAWN
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
And the men of 1916 (collins included)....Criminals too? Free state hypocrite.
YAWN
Yawn as right, answer the question
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
How often have you ever heard me evoke the memory of 1916???????????????????????????????????????????????????
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
How often have you ever heard me evoke the memory of 1916???????????????????????????????????????????????????
That wasn't the question, where the men of 1916 criminals in your eyes, yes or no. It's very simple.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
How often have you ever heard me evoke the memory of 1916???????????????????????????????????????????????????
So I assume that you regard Michael Collins of pre 1918 as a murdering criminal thug then?
Quote from: hardstation on May 21, 2011, 08:34:57 PM
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTvOgHdCew5J9QTJfjqM9m9o1ah_z_jG326LSFwVkrkXkv_4DSPg)
No need to bring Gerry Adams into things.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
How often have you ever heard me evoke the memory of 1916???????????????????????????????????????????????????
So I assume that you regard Michael Collins of pre 1918 as a murdering criminal thug then?
Yes?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
How often have you ever heard me evoke the memory of 1916???????????????????????????????????????????????????
So I assume that you regard Michael Collins of pre 1918 was a murdering criminal thug then?
I will admit to having very lukewarm feelings towards bith the men of 1916 & the Irishmen fighting in France and Belgium. I would have preferred Irishmen not to take up either cause and stay at home and force the Brits to let us go by the ballot box.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:36:26 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
How often have you ever heard me evoke the memory of 1916???????????????????????????????????????????????????
So I assume that you regard Michael Collins of pre 1918 as a murdering criminal thug then?
Yes?
f**k sake, now your answering your own questions, I went to the fridge for a beer.
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Micheal Collins was given his authority by the 1918 cabinet, reafirmed in 1922. Simple really. Right I'm off to get drunk and celebrate the Irish victory today in the Heineken Cup Final (there was some miserable Scottish soccer shite on before, but thankfully it didn't ruin the mood).
The 1918 cabinet had no authority but that aside, Collins didn't start killing in 1918 you know...who give him authority to kill (or do his best to kill) in the easter rising?
How often have you ever heard me evoke the memory of 1916???????????????????????????????????????????????????
So I assume that you regard Michael Collins of pre 1918 was a murdering criminal thug then?
I will admit to having very lukewarm feelings towards bith the men of 1916 & the Irishmen fighting in France and Belgium. I would have preferred Irishmen not to take up either cause and stay at home and force the Brits to let us go by the ballot box.
Well you still havent answered it. Was he a murdering criminal thug pre 1918 considering he was carrying out murders without the backing of the law?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
Pretty weak MGHU. Pretty weak.
Oh, and Nally Stand, what's this 'Free State Hypocrite' malarky? Are everyone south of Drogheda free state hypocrites? Why the need for the 'Free State' bit?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
You do know more innocent civillans where killed in 1916 than British forces don't you?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
Aye hard to beat sweeping generalisations isn't it. You are a condescending hypocrite. And you never answered my qiestion about Francis Hughes and your Irish Army/Gardai nonsense.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
You do know more innocent civillans where killed in 1916 than British forces don't you?
Yes I do, however it wasn't 30 years+ of hate flled genocide like the Provisional IRA campaign. Again I never boasted about 1916.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
Can I politely suggest that you go out for a rake of pints and leave the iPhone/iPad/laptop till monday.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:48:52 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
Aye hard to beat sweeping generalisations isn't it. You are a condescending hypocrite. And you never answered my qiestion about Francis Hughes and your Irish Army/Gardai nonsense.
Nally Stand, you don't have me tied to a chair preparing me for my punishment beating now. I am going to the off-licence if you don't mind herr fuhrer.
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2011, 08:50:49 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
Can I politely suggest that you go out for a rake of pints and leave the iPhone/iPad/laptop till monday.
I second that motion. Seeing as how it's the week that's in it, I'll borrow a phrase from blighty. You're on a sticky wicket old chap.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 21, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
Pretty weak MGHU. Pretty weak.
Oh, and Nally Stand, what's this 'Free State Hypocrite' malarky? Are everyone south of Drogheda free state hypocrites? Why the need for the 'Free State' bit?
Apologies but I direct it only towards the mayogodhelpus/mike sheeys of the world who are the epitomy of free stateism.
Nally, for once cut the Free State shite out, you lower your own (and eveybody else's) argument by throwing that out there. There are many on this thread from south of the border who agree with you.
MGHU, it is not a question of what you boasted about at all. You initially started out by saying the fate of the hungerstrikers was their own fault, then you told us they were common criminals and thugs. When it was put to you that they were in the exact same position as Michael Collins (and other republicans of that era) you tried to squirm out of it by talking about 1918 when you knew you reference was to the Easter Rising. Then you refused to give a definitive response. You are a hypocrite of the highest order. An embarrassment of an Irishman who picks through and talks history as and when he pleases and ignores the rest.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:51:20 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:48:52 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
Aye hard to beat sweeping generalisations isn't it. You are a condescending hypocrite. And you never answered my qiestion about Francis Hughes and your Irish Army/Gardai nonsense.
Nally Stand, you don't have me tied to a chair preparing me for my punishment beating now. I am going to the off-licence if you don't mind herr fuhrer.
Whatever....could you maybe answer the question now?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:49:23 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
You do know more innocent civillans where killed in 1916 than British forces don't you?
Yes I do, however it wasn't 30 years+ of hate flled genocide like the Provisional IRA campaign. Again I never boasted about 1916.
Who said you boasted about anything? I'm trying to understand your views...
So far we have - PIRA - murdering thugs
Collins - after 1918 - He's ok because he was given authority by some people like him who classed themselves as the government of Ireland yet who weren't recognised by any government in the world. And this from someone who is constantly talking about the legitimacy of the "republic".
Collins and co - before 1916 - you have a "luke warm" attitude to them because they should have tried to get the Brits to surrender via the ballot box (they couldn't even get home rule from the ballot box never mind independence you know) - btw, why didn't the cabinet of 1918 stick to the ballot box? Why was it ok for them to decide to pick up arms but not ok for Connolly and co to do the same?
(http://findreallove.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/shooting-fish-in-a-barrel.jpg?w=200&h=156)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 09:12:34 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:49:23 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
You do know more innocent civillans where killed in 1916 than British forces don't you?
Yes I do, however it wasn't 30 years+ of hate flled genocide like the Provisional IRA campaign. Again I never boasted about 1916.
Who said you boasted about anything? I'm trying to understand your views...
So far we have - PIRA - murdering thugs
Collins - after 1918 - He's ok because he was given authority by some people like him who classed themselves as the government of Ireland yet who weren't recognised by any government in the world. And this from someone who is constantly talking about the legitimacy of the "republic".
Collins and co - before 1916 - you have a "luke warm" attitude to them because they should have tried to get the Brits to surrender via the ballot box (they couldn't even get home rule from the ballot box never mind independence you know) - btw, why didn't the cabinet of 1918 stick to the ballot box? Why was it ok for them to decide to pick up arms but not ok for Connolly and co to do the same?
Good post, pints.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
I repeat:
The guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances,
who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
EDIT:
How sad that this discussion is taking place on the 30th Anniversary of the deaths of two of the hunger strikers, Ray McCreesh & Patsy O'Hara, who both died after 61 days on the protest.
"My brother is not a criminal" (Fr Brian McCreesh)
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
I repeat:
The guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances, who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
EDIT:
How sad that this discussion is taking place on the 30th Anniversary of the deaths of two of the hunger strikers, Ray McCreesh & Patsy O'Hara, who both died after 61 days on the protest.
"My brother is not a criminal" (Fr Brian McCreesh)
Would there be a better day for the discussion or do you just not like anyone disagreeing with you?
Quote from: Rav67 on May 21, 2011, 11:45:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
I repeat:
The guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances, who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
EDIT:
How sad that this discussion is taking place on the 30th Anniversary of the deaths of two of the hunger strikers, Ray McCreesh & Patsy O'Hara, who both died after 61 days on the protest.
"My brother is not a criminal" (Fr Brian McCreesh)
Would there be a better day for the discussion or do you just not like anyone disagreeing with you?
Agreed. While poignant, the date is irrelevant.
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2011, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Rav67 on May 21, 2011, 11:45:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
I repeat:
The guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances, who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
EDIT:
How sad that this discussion is taking place on the 30th Anniversary of the deaths of two of the hunger strikers, Ray McCreesh & Patsy O'Hara, who both died after 61 days on the protest.
"My brother is not a criminal" (Fr Brian McCreesh)
Would there be a better day for the discussion or do you just not like anyone disagreeing with you?
Agreed. While poignant, the date is irrelevant.
I didn't say the date
had to be sad
for everyone. The date might be irrelevant to you lads, but it isn't for everyone.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 12:41:04 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2011, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Rav67 on May 21, 2011, 11:45:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
I repeat:
The guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances, who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
EDIT:
How sad that this discussion is taking place on the 30th Anniversary of the deaths of two of the hunger strikers, Ray McCreesh & Patsy O'Hara, who both died after 61 days on the protest.
"My brother is not a criminal" (Fr Brian McCreesh)
Would there be a better day for the discussion or do you just not like anyone disagreeing with you?
Agreed. While poignant, the date is irrelevant.
I didn't say the date had to be sad for everyone. The date might be irrelevant to you lads, but it isn't for everyone.
To the extent that it should have an impact on this debate, it is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2011, 03:44:32 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 12:41:04 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2011, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Rav67 on May 21, 2011, 11:45:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
I repeat:
The guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances, who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
EDIT:
How sad that this discussion is taking place on the 30th Anniversary of the deaths of two of the hunger strikers, Ray McCreesh & Patsy O'Hara, who both died after 61 days on the protest.
"My brother is not a criminal" (Fr Brian McCreesh)
Would there be a better day for the discussion or do you just not like anyone disagreeing with you?
Agreed. While poignant, the date is irrelevant.
I didn't say the date had to be sad for everyone. The date might be irrelevant to you lads, but it isn't for everyone.
To the extent that it should have an impact on this debate, it is completely irrelevant.
By the way I did not know the significance (or not) of this date. It does not change any argument, but it was not my intention to focus on this subject especially on a particular day.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 22, 2011, 04:47:30 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2011, 03:44:32 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 12:41:04 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2011, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Rav67 on May 21, 2011, 11:45:54 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 07:38:49 PM
Their "special" status is bullshit in my opinion, I'm sorry but to me they were thugs. I can pretend to think of these folk as freedom fighters if you like, but to me they were not. The guardians of peace and defence for me are the Irish Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána and the security services of the Irish Government.
I repeat:
The guardians of the peace for you were the gardai and the irish army? I assume thats why you disagree with the hunger strikers then? So when Francis Hughes was a normal young lad trying to have a normal life, was recieving regular beatings from the "police" when going to dances, who should he have turned to? The irish army? Are you seriously that thick?
EDIT:
How sad that this discussion is taking place on the 30th Anniversary of the deaths of two of the hunger strikers, Ray McCreesh & Patsy O'Hara, who both died after 61 days on the protest.
"My brother is not a criminal" (Fr Brian McCreesh)
Would there be a better day for the discussion or do you just not like anyone disagreeing with you?
Agreed. While poignant, the date is irrelevant.
I didn't say the date had to be sad for everyone. The date might be irrelevant to you lads, but it isn't for everyone.
To the extent that it should have an impact on this debate, it is completely irrelevant.
By the way I did not know the significance (or not) of this date. It does not change any argument, but it was not my intention to focus on this subject especially on a particular day.
You need to get a new hobby MGHU. This isn't healthy...
I know most people (if not all) on this board have a healthy disregard for the Sindo, but today is worse than normal.
I just went on to the website and these are the headlines. What gushing, nauseating shite:
A new path to a Common Wealth
Poll shows how Queen was taken to Irish hearts
Dashing Army captain who left all of us ladies green with envy
Paddy has passed a milestone on the long road to adulthood
Old enemy has turned out to be our most valued and trusted ally
Friends and equals don't need to ask for apologies
Her head bowed and 'the whole of Ireland missed a heartbeat'
Footprint of monarchy stamped on our history
Mayo, Post #963 - any chance of an answer?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:41:21 AM
Mayo, Post #963 - any chance of an answer?
I'd leave it nally. He has talked himself into a corner and will now ignore direct questions and hope everyone forgets his stupidity on this issue.
As for todays Sunday indo, what a shit heap of a paper.
MGHU i reckon a name change is in order. I don't think I've ever seen someone so wrapped up in circles on this board!! It'll save you having to answer that question!!
Quote from: Tubberman on May 22, 2011, 09:41:54 AM
I know most people (if not all) on this board have a healthy disregard for the Sindo, but today is worse than normal.
I just went on to the website and these are the headlines. What gushing, nauseating shite:
A new path to a Common Wealth
Poll shows how Queen was taken to Irish hearts
Dashing Army captain who left all of us ladies green with envy
Paddy has passed a milestone on the long road to adulthood
Old enemy has turned out to be our most valued and trusted ally
Friends and equals don't need to ask for apologies
Her head bowed and 'the whole of Ireland missed a heartbeat'
Footprint of monarchy stamped on our history
Heard a sneak preview of the headlines on the radio this morning. When I heard 'New path to Common Wealth' I couldn't believe it. From any rag even the Sindo...
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 22, 2011, 10:54:02 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:41:21 AM
Mayo, Post #963 - any chance of an answer?
I'd leave it nally. He has talked himself into a corner and will now ignore direct questions and hope everyone forgets his stupidity on this issue.
As for todays Sunday indo, what a shit heap of a paper.
agree with that, what a complete tube he is, spouting all this nonsense for months and months and when challenged to explain his views he is found wanting. As I said before he's like the drunk in the corner of the bar shouting about nonsense that everyone ignores.
As for the Sindo, give me a bucket.
QuoteA new path to a Common Wealth
It better be about sharing the Corrib Gas!
Quote from: Tubberman on May 22, 2011, 09:41:54 AM
I know most people (if not all) on this board have a healthy disregard for the Sindo, but today is worse than normal.
I just went on to the website and these are the headlines. What gushing, nauseating shite:
A new path to a Common Wealth
Poll shows how Queen was taken to Irish hearts
Dashing Army captain who left all of us ladies green with envy
Paddy has passed a milestone on the long road to adulthood
Old enemy has turned out to be our most valued and trusted ally
Friends and equals don't need to ask for apologies
Her head bowed and 'the whole of Ireland missed a heartbeat'
Footprint of monarchy stamped on our history
You beat me to it, was about to post that. Pertectly sums up the propagandist bullshit that the whole country has been subjected to on all week.
Quote from: haze on May 22, 2011, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 22, 2011, 09:41:54 AM
I know most people (if not all) on this board have a healthy disregard for the Sindo, but today is worse than normal.
I just went on to the website and these are the headlines. What gushing, nauseating shite:
A new path to a Common Wealth
Poll shows how Queen was taken to Irish hearts
Dashing Army captain who left all of us ladies green with envy
Paddy has passed a milestone on the long road to adulthood
Old enemy has turned out to be our most valued and trusted ally
Friends and equals don't need to ask for apologies
Her head bowed and 'the whole of Ireland missed a heartbeat'
Footprint of monarchy stamped on our history
You beat me to it, was about to post that. Pertectly sums up the propagandist bullshit that the whole country has been subjected to on all week.
+1.
What a shitbag of a rag
I am happy with my answers, I don't have to justify myself any further at people who shout and demand I answer their questions. I gave answers if your not happy with them, well tough.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 22, 2011, 02:50:23 PM
Quote from: haze on May 22, 2011, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 22, 2011, 09:41:54 AM
I know most people (if not all) on this board have a healthy disregard for the Sindo, but today is worse than normal.
I just went on to the website and these are the headlines. What gushing, nauseating shite:
A new path to a Common Wealth
Poll shows how Queen was taken to Irish hearts
Dashing Army captain who left all of us ladies green with envy
Paddy has passed a milestone on the long road to adulthood
Old enemy has turned out to be our most valued and trusted ally
Friends and equals don't need to ask for apologies
Her head bowed and 'the whole of Ireland missed a heartbeat'
Footprint of monarchy stamped on our history
You beat me to it, was about to post that. Pertectly sums up the propagandist bullshit that the whole country has been subjected to on all week.
+1.
What a shitbag of a rag
Agreed, but we always knew that.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 09:12:34 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:49:23 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 21, 2011, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2011, 08:41:39 PM
MGHU - it's a simple question, do you view the men of 1916 (inc Collins) the same way you do the Provisional IRA? i.e. Criminal Murdering Thugs.
NO, the Provisional I.R.A. went far beyond the Pale when they started bombing pubs, city streets full of civilian, murdering Gardaí and punishment beatings, robbing banks and disappearances of innocents.
You do know more innocent civillans where killed in 1916 than British forces don't you?
Yes I do, however it wasn't 30 years+ of hate flled genocide like the Provisional IRA campaign. Again I never boasted about 1916.
Who said you boasted about anything? I'm trying to understand your views...
So far we have - PIRA - murdering thugs Yes in my opinion they are/were. They became thugs when they went from the intial defence of the Nationalist community to the outright terror campagin. If I had been around at the time I probably would have supported their earlier defensive actions but not their bombings, punishment beatings and shootings. Put it into the context of Libya, while the rebels are defending themselves I support their action, when terrorist bombs start going off in Tripoli they will lose my support. (The U.N. bombings and the importance of my support are different issues).
Collins - after 1918 - He's ok because he was given authority by some people like him who classed themselves as the government of Ireland yet who weren't recognised by any government in the world. And this from someone who is constantly talking about the legitimacy of the "republic". They had the 1918 electorate behind them. Also, the promises of Home Rule were never realised.
Collins and co - before 1916 - you have a "luke warm" attitude to them because they should have tried to get the Brits to surrender via the ballot box (they couldn't even get home rule from the ballot box never mind independence you know) - btw, why didn't the cabinet of 1918 stick to the ballot box? Why was it ok for them to decide to pick up arms but not ok for Connolly and co to do the same? Same answer as above
You've no shame...
Quote
Yes in my opinion they are/were. They became thugs when they went from the intial defence of the Nationalist community to the outright terror campagin. If I had been around at the time I probably would have supported their earlier defensive actions but not their bombings, punishment beatings and shootings. Put it into the context of Libya, while the rebels are defending themselves I support their action, when terrorist bombs start going off in Tripoli they will lose my support. (The U.N. bombings and the importance of my support are different issues).
The War of Independence or 1916 or any rebellion before then wasn't about defending anyone. They were offensive actions. So again, I fail to understand the differences. The men of that era robbed, shot informers, shot fellow Irishmen working for the crown, blew up people etc just like the PIRA.
Btw, the punishment beatings? You have no idea what it's like to live in a community where there is no police force therefore someone had to police things.
As for the war of independence and 1916...
For such a self proclaimed proud Irish man I'm shocked that you would have a "luke warm" attitude to the men and women of 1916 (which included your heroes Mick Collins and Richard Mulcahy) because without 1916 there would have been no Sinn Fein landslide in 1918, no war of independence and I wonder how things would have worked out for Ireland.
The cabinet of 1918 had no legitimacy and no right to declare war on England...but that was your argument last night, now you suggest that because they had the electorate behind them they could do what they want, no doubt that now Sinn Fein have the electorate in the North behind them the PIRA could start killing people again with your approval? Or maybe the Scottish Independence Party could start shooting
G men police men as they now have their electorate behind them....
You're a bit confused.
and why don't you answer nallystand's question, what help would Francis Hughes have got from the garda or Irish Army??
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 22, 2011, 03:50:22 PM
You've no shame...Quote
Yes in my opinion they are/were. They became thugs when they went from the intial defence of the Nationalist community to the outright terror campagin. If I had been around at the time I probably would have supported their earlier defensive actions but not their bombings, punishment beatings and shootings. Put it into the context of Libya, while the rebels are defending themselves I support their action, when terrorist bombs start going off in Tripoli they will lose my support. (The U.N. bombings and the importance of my support are different issues).
The War of Independence or 1916 or any rebellion before then wasn't about defending anyone. They were offensive actions. So again, I fail to understand the differences. The men of that era robbed, shot informers, shot fellow Irishmen working for the crown, blew up people etc just like the PIRA.
Btw, the punishment beatings? You have no idea what it's like to live in a community where there is no police force therefore someone had to police things.
As for the war of independence and 1916...
For such a self proclaimed proud Irish man I'm shocked that you would have a "luke warm" attitude to the men and women of 1916 (which included your heroes Mick Collins and Richard Mulcahy) because without 1916 there would have been no Sinn Fein landslide in 1918, no war of independence and I wonder how things would have worked out for Ireland.
The cabinet of 1918 had no legitimacy and no right to declare war on England...but that was your argument last night, now you suggest that because they had the electorate behind them they could do what they want, no doubt that now Sinn Fein have the electorate in the North behind them the PIRA could start killing people again with your approval? Or maybe the Scottish Independence Party could start shooting G men police men as they now have their electorate behind them....
You're a bit confused.
and why don't you answer nallystand's question, what help would Francis Hughes have got from the garda or Irish Army??
f**k sake, either way you have your mind made up. First I will get to your last point, when I made comment about the Gardai and the Irish Army I was talking about the 26 counties, yet the Provos for a long time never recognised them and openly attacked them.
Punishment beatings are not right, simple as. I don't need to live in a particular type of community to understand that.
I am a proud Irishman, you don't define what an Irishman or a Proud Irishman is any bit more than me.
We have the GFA. I know this will get people screaming down at me, but there is an element of historical timing, does not make it right but it is the way it is.
I know you and alot of people on here don't like me or most of my posts and having a great time with the oulde lynch mob right now. I am a proud Irishmand, a Republican and an Nationalist. I am happy with my opinion of what those are for me (I have explained more than enough times).
I'm sorry if it offends you or others if I don't have any time for the hunger strikers and believe their actions could have been avoided (again this has been talked to death). It is my opinion and I have a funny feeling with you Pints an opinion is only valid if it agrees with your world view.
I would like to ask all those posters who regularly label me a West Brit, Free Stater, Unionist, Traitor, Paritionist etc. what gives them the right to do so. I am none of those. I don't throw around the equivalent slanders or insults which have been directed by others at the people living or from the 6 counties. My posts testify to this.
Why are people from the 6 counties allowed to give their opinion no matter how unpalatable it may be on what happens in the Republic, its history and its governance. Yet views from the 26 counties are only acceptable if they rubberstamp an SF agenda, otherwise its the old "you weren't there" or "you wouldn't understand" line, and we must accept that as fact.
Rule 17a - when your views are unacceptable to the majority, they may call you whatever they like. The personal abuse rule has been abused with impunity in this thread. Obviously very few believe in the principle "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it".
Interesting article in the papers over here about the visit to Croke Park.
They actually did a really good background article on the significance of historical events in Croke park and Lizzie's need to respect it.
They continued on with a great article about GAA in general.
Then talked about how forward looking the GAA is as they have recently lifted the ban on Protestants and British armed forces playing the sports.
Part of the last sentence really miffed me.
Quote from: ardal on May 22, 2011, 09:27:08 PM
Interesting article in the papers over here about the visit to Croke Park.
They actually did a really good background article on the significance of historical events in Croke park and Lizzie's need to respect it.
They continued on with a great article about GAA in general.
Then talked about how forward looking the GAA is as they have recently lifted the ban on Protestants and British armed forces playing the sports.
Part of the last sentence really miffed me.
What's that now???
I'm presuming your comment was tongue in cheek, unless my own stupidity even surpasses what my mother thinks >:(
It was indeed.
So Mayo, Francis Hughes was a young lad trying to live a normal life. When going to dances, he was regularly stopped and beaten by the "police". He decided to fight back in the belief that nobody should have to live in fear from the state they live in. Who do you believe he should have turned to after regularly being assaulted by the RUC as a young lad? The RUC? The Irish Army? Who?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:35:11 PM
So Mayo, Francis Hughes was a young lad trying to live a normal life. When going to dances, he was regularly stopped and beaten by the "police". He decided to fight back in the belief that nobody should have to live in fear from the state they live in. Who do you believe he should have turned to after regularly being assaulted by the RUC as a young lad? The RUC? The Irish Army? Who?
Why do you feel the need to seek enlightenment from someone you regard as a "free state hypocrite", "thick", a "self-righteous hypocrite" and "an asshole of the very highest order"?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2011, 08:55:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 21, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
Pretty weak MGHU. Pretty weak.
Oh, and Nally Stand, what's this 'Free State Hypocrite' malarky? Are everyone south of Drogheda free state hypocrites? Why the need for the 'Free State' bit?
Apologies but I direct it only towards the mayogodhelpus/mike sheeys of the world who are the epitomy of free stateism.
Did you just insult me ?
Quote from: Hardy on May 23, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:35:11 PM
So Mayo, Francis Hughes was a young lad trying to live a normal life. When going to dances, he was regularly stopped and beaten by the "police". He decided to fight back in the belief that nobody should have to live in fear from the state they live in. Who do you believe he should have turned to after regularly being assaulted by the RUC as a young lad? The RUC? The Irish Army? Who?
Why do you feel the need to seek enlightenment from someone you regard as a "free state hypocrite", "thick", a "self-righteous hypocrite" and "an asshole of the very highest order"?
I am asking him a question. This is a discussion forum. Hope that's ok with you?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 22, 2011, 04:11:50 PM
Why are people from the 6 counties allowed to give their opinion no matter how unpalatable it may be on what happens in the Republic, its history and its governance. Yet views from the 26 counties are only acceptable if they rubberstamp an SF agenda, otherwise its the old "you weren't there" or "you wouldn't understand" line, and we must accept that as fact.
Spot on. I also find it interesting that in the last week the opinions of "nordies" have suddenly become so important and worth listening to. And any "nordies" who don't sound like a resurrected T-Rex are labelled as grovelling bootlickers.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 23, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 23, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:35:11 PM
So Mayo, Francis Hughes was a young lad trying to live a normal life. When going to dances, he was regularly stopped and beaten by the "police". He decided to fight back in the belief that nobody should have to live in fear from the state they live in. Who do you believe he should have turned to after regularly being assaulted by the RUC as a young lad? The RUC? The Irish Army? Who?
Why do you feel the need to seek enlightenment from someone you regard as a "free state hypocrite", "thick", a "self-righteous hypocrite" and "an asshole of the very highest order"?
I am asking him a question. This is a discussion forum. Hope that's ok with you?
Francis Hughes did not report his attackers to the police, instead he went straight to the Official IRA. He was not happy with there ceasefire and joined the Provisional IRA. He was not involved in defending Catholic, Nationalist, Republican, Irish or any other neighbourhoods, areas or people, he was involved in bombings and open offensive attacks.
Before anyone starts trying to talk about unrelated events (because thats what you do), I can post pictures of bombed out pubs in England, shot up Gardaí cars, diggers in Louth, newspaper articles of families in greif.
Quote from: on May 23, 2011, 03:37:27 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 22, 2011, 04:11:50 PM
Why are people from the 6 counties allowed to give their opinion no matter how unpalatable it may be on what happens in the Republic, its history and its governance. Yet views from the 26 counties are only acceptable if they rubberstamp an SF agenda, otherwise its the old "you weren't there" or "you wouldn't understand" line, and we must accept that as fact.
Spot on. I also find it interesting that in the last week the opinions of "nordies" have suddenly become so important and worth listening to. And any "nordies" who don't sound like a resurrected T-Rex are labelled as grovelling bootlickers.
Well I would just like to distance myself from the "N" word, we all know how much it can offend.
But as being from that clan yourself Eamonnca1, I'm sure its your choice to use it or not.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 23, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 23, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:35:11 PM
So Mayo, Francis Hughes was a young lad trying to live a normal life. When going to dances, he was regularly stopped and beaten by the "police". He decided to fight back in the belief that nobody should have to live in fear from the state they live in. Who do you believe he should have turned to after regularly being assaulted by the RUC as a young lad? The RUC? The Irish Army? Who?
Why do you feel the need to seek enlightenment from someone you regard as a "free state hypocrite", "thick", a "self-righteous hypocrite" and "an asshole of the very highest order"?
I am asking him a question demanded my answer. This is a discussion forum shouting match. Hope that's That better be ok with you?
Fixed that for you Nally Stand.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 23, 2011, 08:00:47 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 23, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 23, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:35:11 PM
So Mayo, Francis Hughes was a young lad trying to live a normal life. When going to dances, he was regularly stopped and beaten by the "police". He decided to fight back in the belief that nobody should have to live in fear from the state they live in. Who do you believe he should have turned to after regularly being assaulted by the RUC as a young lad? The RUC? The Irish Army? Who?
Why do you feel the need to seek enlightenment from someone you regard as a "free state hypocrite", "thick", a "self-righteous hypocrite" and "an asshole of the very highest order"?
I am asking him a question. This is a discussion forum. Hope that's ok with you?
Francis Hughes did not report his attackers to the police, instead he went straight to the Official IRA. He was not happy with there ceasefire and joined the Provisional IRA. He was not involved in defending Catholic, Nationalist, Republican, Irish or any other neighbourhoods, areas or people, he was involved in bombings and open offensive attacks.
Before anyone starts trying to talk about unrelated events (because thats what you do), I can post pictures of bombed out pubs in England, shot up Gardaí cars, diggers in Louth, newspaper articles of families in greif.
Francis Hughes should have reported the police/army beating him up to the police?
My God why didn't we think of that!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 23, 2011, 03:37:27 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 22, 2011, 04:11:50 PM
Why are people from the 6 counties allowed to give their opinion no matter how unpalatable it may be on what happens in the Republic, its history and its governance. Yet views from the 26 counties are only acceptable if they rubberstamp an SF agenda, otherwise its the old "you weren't there" or "you wouldn't understand" line, and we must accept that as fact.
Spot on. I also find it interesting that in the last week the opinions of "nordies" have suddenly become so important and worth listening to. And any "nordies" who don't sound like a resurrected T-Rex are labelled as grovelling bootlickers.
and as I said to you in another thread (and didn't answer) any who aren't grovelling bootlickers are resurrected T-Rex...
My Nordie eyes hurt.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 23, 2011, 08:00:47 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 23, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 23, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2011, 10:35:11 PM
So Mayo, Francis Hughes was a young lad trying to live a normal life. When going to dances, he was regularly stopped and beaten by the "police". He decided to fight back in the belief that nobody should have to live in fear from the state they live in. Who do you believe he should have turned to after regularly being assaulted by the RUC as a young lad? The RUC? The Irish Army? Who?
Why do you feel the need to seek enlightenment from someone you regard as a "free state hypocrite", "thick", a "self-righteous hypocrite" and "an asshole of the very highest order"?
I am asking him a question. This is a discussion forum. Hope that's ok with you?
Francis Hughes did not report his attackers to the police
:D :D :D :D
Did I not mention the fact that his regular attackers
WERE the police?! FFS sake maybe he could have saved the bother of even going to the barracks and reported it to the officers who had just finished assaulting him! You're a GENIUS Mayo! Why didn't the wider nationalist/republican community think of that (because as we all know, the RUC were completely trustworthy and only had a few "bad apples" isn't that right?) ::)
EDIT: Rosemary Nelson received death threats from the RUC, Mayo. She
did report them to the RUC.
And to various Human Rights Organisations.
And to the a US Congressional Committee. We'll hear more about that in the news today though won't we.
If this had exploded on a bus full of Irish people ...... it would certainly have shown that English Queen where to get off.
"A Longford man resident appeared in court in connection with the viable device found on a bus from Longford to Dublin on the night before the Queen's visit to Ireland.
60 year old Donal Billings of St Bridget's Court, Drumlish in Co Longford was arrested at the Battery Road yesterday.
He was charged with the unlawful possession of an improvised explosive device at Longford railway station car park on the 16 May.
Gardai in Longford received a call alerting them to the bomb on board the bus as it made its way to Dublin.
It was stopped in Maynooth just after 9 o clock, where army bomb disposal experts made it safe.
At a special sitting of the Special Criminal Court in Dublin last night, Dectvie Inspector Pat Finlay gave evidence that when charged, Mr Billings replied ''Ní hea''.
He was remanded in custody until Thursday when an application for bail is expected to be heard"
Quote from: Rossfan on May 23, 2011, 09:55:54 AM
If this had exploded on a bus full of Irish people ...... it would certainly have shown that English Queen where to get off.
"A Longford man resident appeared in court in connection with the viable device found on a bus from Longford to Dublin on the night before the Queen's visit to Ireland.
60 year old Donal Billings of St Bridget's Court, Drumlish in Co Longford was arrested at the Battery Road yesterday.
He was charged with the unlawful possession of an improvised explosive device at Longford railway station car park on the 16 May.
Gardai in Longford received a call alerting them to the bomb on board the bus as it made its way to Dublin.
It was stopped in Maynooth just after 9 o clock, where army bomb disposal experts made it safe.
At a special sitting of the Special Criminal Court in Dublin last night, Dectvie Inspector Pat Finlay gave evidence that when charged, Mr Billings replied ''Ní hea''.
He was remanded in custody until Thursday when an application for bail is expected to be heard"
hopefully this clown will spend the rest of his days in a cell. These idiots have no place in our society. These are the same crooks that threw a bomb in to the santander bank in Derry on saturday.
No regard for life, but some idiots still support them.
A united ireland will not come about through violence. And if there was a vote on it in the morning the vast majority would vote against it. It would not suit the vast majority of people who care more about having a roof over their heads and affording to educate and feed their children to enter a bankrupt country.
Thats just a fact.
Quote from: snoopdog on May 23, 2011, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 23, 2011, 09:55:54 AM
If this had exploded on a bus full of Irish people ...... it would certainly have shown that English Queen where to get off.
"A Longford man resident appeared in court in connection with the viable device found on a bus from Longford to Dublin on the night before the Queen's visit to Ireland.
60 year old Donal Billings of St Bridget's Court, Drumlish in Co Longford was arrested at the Battery Road yesterday.
He was charged with the unlawful possession of an improvised explosive device at Longford railway station car park on the 16 May.
Gardai in Longford received a call alerting them to the bomb on board the bus as it made its way to Dublin.
It was stopped in Maynooth just after 9 o clock, where army bomb disposal experts made it safe.
At a special sitting of the Special Criminal Court in Dublin last night, Dectvie Inspector Pat Finlay gave evidence that when charged, Mr Billings replied ''Ní hea''.
He was remanded in custody until Thursday when an application for bail is expected to be heard"
hopefully this clown will spend the rest of his days in a cell. These idiots have no place in our society. These are the same crooks that threw a bomb in to the santander bank in Derry on saturday.
No regard for life, but some idiots still support them.
A united ireland will not come about through violence. And if there was a vote on it in the morning the vast majority would vote against it. It would not suit the vast majority of people who care more about having a roof over their heads and affording to educate and feed their children to enter a bankrupt country.
Thats just a fact.
I don't think he had done his homework. Liz would have been more likely to be on the Castlebar bus not the Ballina one.
Quote from: muppet on May 23, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Quote from: snoopdog on May 23, 2011, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 23, 2011, 09:55:54 AM
If this had exploded on a bus full of Irish people ...... it would certainly have shown that English Queen where to get off.
"A Longford man resident appeared in court in connection with the viable device found on a bus from Longford to Dublin on the night before the Queen's visit to Ireland.
60 year old Donal Billings of St Bridget's Court, Drumlish in Co Longford was arrested at the Battery Road yesterday.
He was charged with the unlawful possession of an improvised explosive device at Longford railway station car park on the 16 May.
Gardai in Longford received a call alerting them to the bomb on board the bus as it made its way to Dublin.
It was stopped in Maynooth just after 9 o clock, where army bomb disposal experts made it safe.
At a special sitting of the Special Criminal Court in Dublin last night, Dectvie Inspector Pat Finlay gave evidence that when charged, Mr Billings replied ''Ní hea''.
He was remanded in custody until Thursday when an application for bail is expected to be heard"
hopefully this clown will spend the rest of his days in a cell. These idiots have no place in our society. These are the same crooks that threw a bomb in to the santander bank in Derry on saturday.
No regard for life, but some idiots still support them.
A united ireland will not come about through violence. And if there was a vote on it in the morning the vast majority would vote against it. It would not suit the vast majority of people who care more about having a roof over their heads and affording to educate and feed their children to enter a bankrupt country.
Thats just a fact.
I don't think he had done his homework. Liz would have been more likely to be on the Castlebar bus not the Ballina one.
Do the UK pensioners free bus passes get you on CIE buses?
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 03:49:42 PM
EG as you ignored my post I can only assume that like a well organised residents group you are going out of your way to take offence.
Assuming you mean post #772, I can honestly say I was not "ignoring" it, out of a desire to take offence or for any other reason. Rather, you will see that I had been trying to respond to other posters in turn, before first, I got overwhelmed by the volume and second, the thread veered way off course.
However, if you really want an answer, here it is.
"EG the Ulster Council is the body which is responsible for outreach and was represented by it's President who shook the Queens hand. Because some County Boards opted out should not be taken as representative of the views of the majority of members. As a life long Gael I don't really care wether Tom Elliott wants to go to matches or not, his recent comments show exactly where he stands. I welcome the Queens visit as a symbolic gesture to our shared history and as a Gael have no issue with it. However I do understand that some events from the recent troubles are still raw for some members e.g. Aiden McAnespie, Crossmaglen's ground, Sean Brown etc... In the same way Unionist victims still hurt. These view points must be respected you can't force healing. But yesterday was a small step along the way. The Irish ethos of the GAA is going to be an impediment to most Unionists embracing it in the short term, but in the long term who knows. Progress though could be heard in the sounds of silence from Sinn Fein and these Countys who did not fully endorse the visit. In the past there would have been significant protest."In that I am a soccer fan, I am in one sense rather glad to observe the GAA's (frankly abject) failure to appeal to the Unionist community in NI. But leaving aside selfish interests, as a bit of a fan of all sports and someone who wants to see better uinderstanding between people, I wish it were otherwise.
So, considering it is the GAA's stated aim to be open to all in Ireland, how are they doing so far? You clearly see the glass as being "half full". I consider it to be "half empty" (if that). In support of your contention, you point to the progress whicyh has been made so far, which you believe all the more significant because of the context of McAnespie/Crossmaglen/Brown etc.
But without wishing to appear callous, such grievances have no great significance to, or impact upon, the people whom the GAA professes its anxiety to influence (ordinary Unionists), since as you acknowledge, they/we have hurts and grievances of our own to look to.
And in any case, if the logjam of mistrust, ignorance and misunderstanding etc is to be broken, the first* move
must surely come from the GAA, since it is no great loss to Unionists if that doesn't happen? In which context, the conscious and deliberate snub by the northern GAA Reps at Croke constitutes, imo, a step
backwards rather than forward, since Unionists may reasonably ask if eg the Queen may go to the Garden of Remembrance and bow her head to the people comemorated there, why cannot those Reps then go to Croke Park and shake her hand?
Would the sky really have fallen in over Clones? ::)
P.S. It is not the "Irish ethos" of the GAA to which Unionists (may reasonably) object, but rather its
Nationalist ethos.
* - Of course, if the GAA were to extend their hand in friendship and Unionists still refused to reciprocate, then they (GAA) would be justified in concluding that there was no more they could or should reasonably do. However, even if a minority insisted on standing apart, I would not expect that from the generality of Unionists.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 05:38:00 PM
* - Of course, if the GAA were to extend their hand in friendship and Unionists still refused to reciprocate, then they (GAA) would be justified in concluding that there was no more they could or should reasonably do. However, even if a minority insisted on standing apart, I would not expect that from the generality of Unionists.
The GAA offered the Northern Ireland Soccer team the use of Croke Park, the Unionist soccer team (Northern Ireland) was unwilling to take up the GAA's most gracious and generous offer.
Martina Anderson was on Nolan this morning talking about the bomb at the bank in Derry. A caller, who said he was a member of SF, talked about how only a United Ireland would ensure an end to such violence and "bring dissidents on Board".
He then went on about how "the Unionists can come along with us" (i.e. into a United Ireland) and then he said... wait for it... "they can see the welcome the Queen got in the Republic last week".
You couldn't make it up! SF was opposed to the visit. They didn't welcome the Queen. But now this guy reckons the warm welcome should show Unionists that the Republic is not a cold house for them. Which is true. But if that is the case, this caller could only logically conclude that Sinn Féin made a mistake in not joining in that welcome. And that such decisions by Sinn Féin's are counter-productive to their goal. Although that has been obvious to many for some time.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 03:49:42 PM
EG as you ignored my post I can only assume that like a well organised residents group you are going out of your way to take offence.
Assuming you mean post #772, I can honestly say I was not "ignoring" it, out of a desire to take offence or for any other reason. Rather, you will see that I had been trying to respond to other posters in turn, before first, I got overwhelmed by the volume and second, the thread veered way off course.
However, if you really want an answer, here it is.
"EG the Ulster Council is the body which is responsible for outreach and was represented by it's President who shook the Queens hand. Because some County Boards opted out should not be taken as representative of the views of the majority of members. As a life long Gael I don't really care wether Tom Elliott wants to go to matches or not, his recent comments show exactly where he stands. I welcome the Queens visit as a symbolic gesture to our shared history and as a Gael have no issue with it. However I do understand that some events from the recent troubles are still raw for some members e.g. Aiden McAnespie, Crossmaglen's ground, Sean Brown etc... In the same way Unionist victims still hurt. These view points must be respected you can't force healing. But yesterday was a small step along the way. The Irish ethos of the GAA is going to be an impediment to most Unionists embracing it in the short term, but in the long term who knows. Progress though could be heard in the sounds of silence from Sinn Fein and these Countys who did not fully endorse the visit. In the past there would have been significant protest."
In that I am a soccer fan, I am in one sense rather glad to observe the GAA's (frankly abject) failure to appeal to the Unionist community in NI. But leaving aside selfish interests, as a bit of a fan of all sports and someone who wants to see better uinderstanding between people, I wish it were otherwise.
So, considering it is the GAA's stated aim to be open to all in Ireland, how are they doing so far? You clearly see the glass as being "half full". I consider it to be "half empty" (if that). In support of your contention, you point to the progress whicyh has been made so far, which you believe all the more significant because of the context of McAnespie/Crossmaglen/Brown etc.
But without wishing to appear callous, such grievances have no great significance to, or impact upon, the people whom the GAA professes its anxiety to influence (ordinary Unionists), since as you acknowledge, they/we have hurts and grievances of our own to look to.
And in any case, if the logjam of mistrust, ignorance and misunderstanding etc is to be broken, the first* move must surely come from the GAA, since it is no great loss to Unionists if that doesn't happen? In which context, the conscious and deliberate snub by the northern GAA Reps at Croke constitutes, imo, a step backwards rather than forward, since Unionists may reasonably ask if eg the Queen may go to the Garden of Remembrance and bow her head to the people comemorated there, why cannot those Reps then go to Croke Park and shake her hand?
Would the sky really have fallen in over Clones? ::)
P.S. It is not the "Irish ethos" of the GAA to which Unionists (may reasonably) object, but rather its Nationalist ethos.
* - Of course, if the GAA were to extend their hand in friendship and Unionists still refused to reciprocate, then they (GAA) would be justified in concluding that there was no more they could or should reasonably do. However, even if a minority insisted on standing apart, I would not expect that from the generality of Unionists.
You know eg I was born in ulster, 7 miles south if the border and I played gaa with protestants on almost every team. We use to have slagging from both sides about Celtic and rangers and training being on after mass. On the pitch we would be in for the row if any of our team mates was in bother. I would say tthat these protestants, many with relatives north of the border, were bemused with the anti gaa rants from northern unionist politicians. I reckon it is the old divide and conquer up there, make sure to classify gaa as something tge catholics do and I think your unionist fear mongering politicians have been the biggest barrier to unionists playing gaa and while I welcome the gaa still trying to reach out I wonder when will a well known unionist make the big step and tog out for a gaa team.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 23, 2011, 06:57:10 PM
Martina Anderson was on Nolan this morning talking about the bomb at the bank in Derry. A caller, who said he was a member of SF, talked about how only a United Ireland would ensure an end to such violence and "bring dissidents on Board".
He then went on about how "the Unionists can come along with us" (i.e. into a United Ireland) and then he said... wait for it... "they can see the welcome the Queen got in the Republic last week".
You couldn't make it up! SF was opposed to the visit. They didn't welcome the Queen. But now this guy reckons the warm welcome should show Unionists that the Republic is not a cold house for them. Which is true. But if that is the case, this caller could only logically conclude that Sinn Féin made a mistake in not joining in that welcome. And that such decisions by Sinn Féin's are counter-productive to their goal. Although that has been obvious to many for some time.
I wouldnt have agreed with sf's stance on the queens visit - but maybe they thought they had to 'object' to it to appease a lot of their voters.
Apart from this (the sf aspect), it sounds like what the caller said was pretty spot on though !
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 03:49:42 PM
EG as you ignored my post I can only assume that like a well organised residents group you are going out of your way to take offence.
Assuming you mean post #772, I can honestly say I was not "ignoring" it, out of a desire to take offence or for any other reason. Rather, you will see that I had been trying to respond to other posters in turn, before first, I got overwhelmed by the volume and second, the thread veered way off course.
However, if you really want an answer, here it is.
"EG the Ulster Council is the body which is responsible for outreach and was represented by it's President who shook the Queens hand. Because some County Boards opted out should not be taken as representative of the views of the majority of members. As a life long Gael I don't really care wether Tom Elliott wants to go to matches or not, his recent comments show exactly where he stands. I welcome the Queens visit as a symbolic gesture to our shared history and as a Gael have no issue with it. However I do understand that some events from the recent troubles are still raw for some members e.g. Aiden McAnespie, Crossmaglen's ground, Sean Brown etc... In the same way Unionist victims still hurt. These view points must be respected you can't force healing. But yesterday was a small step along the way. The Irish ethos of the GAA is going to be an impediment to most Unionists embracing it in the short term, but in the long term who knows. Progress though could be heard in the sounds of silence from Sinn Fein and these Countys who did not fully endorse the visit. In the past there would have been significant protest."
In that I am a soccer fan, I am in one sense rather glad to observe the GAA's (frankly abject) failure to appeal to the Unionist community in NI. But leaving aside selfish interests, as a bit of a fan of all sports and someone who wants to see better uinderstanding between people, I wish it were otherwise.
So, considering it is the GAA's stated aim to be open to all in Ireland, how are they doing so far? You clearly see the glass as being "half full". I consider it to be "half empty" (if that). In support of your contention, you point to the progress whicyh has been made so far, which you believe all the more significant because of the context of McAnespie/Crossmaglen/Brown etc.
But without wishing to appear callous, such grievances have no great significance to, or impact upon, the people whom the GAA professes its anxiety to influence (ordinary Unionists), since as you acknowledge, they/we have hurts and grievances of our own to look to.
And in any case, if the logjam of mistrust, ignorance and misunderstanding etc is to be broken, the first* move must surely come from the GAA, since it is no great loss to Unionists if that doesn't happen? In which context, the conscious and deliberate snub by the northern GAA Reps at Croke constitutes, imo, a step backwards rather than forward, since Unionists may reasonably ask if eg the Queen may go to the Garden of Remembrance and bow her head to the people comemorated there, why cannot those Reps then go to Croke Park and shake her hand?
Would the sky really have fallen in over Clones? ::)
P.S. It is not the "Irish ethos" of the GAA to which Unionists (may reasonably) object, but rather its Nationalist ethos.
* - Of course, if the GAA were to extend their hand in friendship and Unionists still refused to reciprocate, then they (GAA) would be justified in concluding that there was no more they could or should reasonably do. However, even if a minority insisted on standing apart, I would not expect that from the generality of Unionists.
EG you have hit the nail on the head because to many GAA members in Ulster its is of no real consequence whether Unionists wish to engage or not and that is sad. The GAA is an organisation founded to promote Nationalist ethos and Irish culture and that again is a problem for Unionists but it can't take away from the efforts of the Ulster Council. I don't believe you understand the Nationalist view point, especially here in the North or if you do you couldn't give a fig for it. As a community from partition we have been used to giving due consideration to the feelings of or Unionist neighbours who in turn have been used to being the "majority" and that still colours attitudes of many Unionists including your good self. It's in the Psyche.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 19, 2011, 03:49:42 PM
EG as you ignored my post I can only assume that like a well organised residents group you are going out of your way to take offence.
Assuming you mean post #772, I can honestly say I was not "ignoring" it, out of a desire to take offence or for any other reason. Rather, you will see that I had been trying to respond to other posters in turn, before first, I got overwhelmed by the volume and second, the thread veered way off course.
However, if you really want an answer, here it is.
"EG the Ulster Council is the body which is responsible for outreach and was represented by it's President who shook the Queens hand. Because some County Boards opted out should not be taken as representative of the views of the majority of members. As a life long Gael I don't really care wether Tom Elliott wants to go to matches or not, his recent comments show exactly where he stands. I welcome the Queens visit as a symbolic gesture to our shared history and as a Gael have no issue with it. However I do understand that some events from the recent troubles are still raw for some members e.g. Aiden McAnespie, Crossmaglen's ground, Sean Brown etc... In the same way Unionist victims still hurt. These view points must be respected you can't force healing. But yesterday was a small step along the way. The Irish ethos of the GAA is going to be an impediment to most Unionists embracing it in the short term, but in the long term who knows. Progress though could be heard in the sounds of silence from Sinn Fein and these Countys who did not fully endorse the visit. In the past there would have been significant protest."
In that I am a soccer fan, I am in one sense rather glad to observe the GAA's (frankly abject) failure to appeal to the Unionist community in NI. But leaving aside selfish interests, as a bit of a fan of all sports and someone who wants to see better uinderstanding between people, I wish it were otherwise.
So, considering it is the GAA's stated aim to be open to all in Ireland, how are they doing so far? You clearly see the glass as being "half full". I consider it to be "half empty" (if that). In support of your contention, you point to the progress whicyh has been made so far, which you believe all the more significant because of the context of McAnespie/Crossmaglen/Brown etc.
But without wishing to appear callous, such grievances have no great significance to, or impact upon, the people whom the GAA professes its anxiety to influence (ordinary Unionists), since as you acknowledge, they/we have hurts and grievances of our own to look to.
And in any case, if the logjam of mistrust, ignorance and misunderstanding etc is to be broken, the first* move must surely come from the GAA, since it is no great loss to Unionists if that doesn't happen? In which context, the conscious and deliberate snub by the northern GAA Reps at Croke constitutes, imo, a step backwards rather than forward, since Unionists may reasonably ask if eg the Queen may go to the Garden of Remembrance and bow her head to the people comemorated there, why cannot those Reps then go to Croke Park and shake her hand?
Would the sky really have fallen in over Clones? ::)
P.S. It is not the "Irish ethos" of the GAA to which Unionists (may reasonably) object, but rather its Nationalist ethos.
* - Of course, if the GAA were to extend their hand in friendship and Unionists still refused to reciprocate, then they (GAA) would be justified in concluding that there was no more they could or should reasonably do. However, even if a minority insisted on standing apart, I would not expect that from the generality of Unionists.
:D :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 05:38:00 PM
Of course, if the GAA were to extend their hand in friendship and Unionists still refused to reciprocate, then they (GAA) would be justified in concluding that there was no more they could or should reasonably do.
What's with the 'if'? The GAA has reached out with the hand of friendship. Your reaction has been to piss on it.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2011, 05:38:00 PM
You clearly see the glass as being "half full". I consider it to be "half empty" (if that).
Correction: It's 95% full, you can only see the 5% that's missing.
Good to see her visit has enhanced the process of developing good relations, just like we were told it would ::)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0524/bombings.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0524/bombings.html)
Quote from: stephenite on June 27, 2010, 02:04:50 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on June 27, 2010, 01:57:15 AM
lads lads you have to see the big picture here. while I'm am vehemently opposed to the queen of england coming to Dublin we must look at where the 26 counties find themselves, 1. the government since the foundation of the state have been rotten and corrupt passing their power from generation to generation like royalty. 2. these selfish b**tards have sunk the Irish people into debts that it will take 100years to clear if ever. 3. what we are seeing is large blocks of power emerging who are divvying up the worlds dwindling resources and basically ireland is aligning itself with Britain and America.(hence the use of Shannon etc) while trying to keep in with the Europeans. 4. the rise in the strenght of stirling makes ireland more attractive to Brit holiday makers whose numbers have fallen 15% since last year the ash cloud stuff also makes ireland attractive and if the queen has a nice time all the better.(they need their £££'s) 5. paisley has just been wined and dined all round Dublin visits like this paved the way for what we all strive for-- a peaceful and inclusive country.. theres no easy way to get rid of 900,000 prods. people will notice if they start disappearing, we must accommodate them and truthfully there are alot of them who have been everywhere and never been south. 6. this move by cowen should finally get the idea out of our heads that the freestaters give a flying fuk what we think here in the 6 counties. we are in this crap on our own and we always have been. 7. as for protests anyone protesting will be portrayed as knuckle trailing trouble makers and the state police will have no hesitation in beating the living sh1te out of them, and the state broadcaster will make sure that only drunken hippy types are shown (badly dressed) getting whacked, whereas only nice people will meet Liz. 8. the English monarchy still own a huge amount of property here eg lord Shirley carrickmacross, lord caledon caledon and on and on.. they still own areas of Dublin newry Belfast cork limerick on and on.. buildings that the people in them cant even find out who owns them because they are handled by agents. eg donegal square in Belfast has nothing to do with donegal the county, the land there is owned by lord donegal, these lands were awarded to the lords by the royals and remain the gift of the monarchy. while Liz will not see all her property rest assured she will be among friends and relations when she makes it to Dublin.
Finally this whole thing will go down well cause Irish people are stupid- they take it up the arse. it doesn't matter whether its the queen, the Irish chieftains, the politicians, the clergy, the bankers, the landlords, the Brits, the yanks etc etc we've been doing it since the vikings, a boat load or two of guys wearing horns on their heads landed here and gave a whole country a kicking and took all our good looking women away back to Scandinavia and left us with the mullingar heifers we have now. :) >:( ::) and what did we do? NOTHING! its what we do best >:(
After a bad morning, that has cheered me up no end - that piece in bold in particular is up there with the best that's been written on this board
;)
Lawnseeds grasp of irish history is fascinating.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 23, 2012, 07:07:46 PM
Lawnseeds grasp of irish history is fascinating.
It certainly is... The Vikings never, ever wore big horns in their helmets, more likely in their trousers as they contemplated ravishing our womenfolk as their longships cruised up our waterways
we do nothing it what we do best....... bend over paddy
Quote from: lawnseed on June 23, 2012, 09:37:51 PM
we do nothing it what we do best....... bend over paddy
What you and Paddy get up to is nobody's business but your own.
I've been mulling over lawnseeds ideas and I think he is right. f**k this lying down and taking it up the ass. Time for action. We need a bunch of farmers (feel free to volunteer) to get down to westmeath, round up all them feckin Viking heifers and March them to dublin port. We need a big boat in Dublin and a crew of mad bastards wearing helmets with horns (again don't be shy lads). We sail for Sweden with our heifers. When we get there we will have a feed of magic mushrooms and charge into the cities, grabbing all the irish beauties them bastards took while releasing the heifers into the streets to cause confusion. We might burn a few monasteries for the craic too. Away we will go with our women and back to westmeath to acclimatise them. Who's with me?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 24, 2012, 10:37:41 AM
I've been mulling over lawnseeds ideas and I think he is right. f**k this lying down and taking it up the ass. Time for action. We need a bunch of farmers (feel free to volunteer) to get down to westmeath, round up all them feckin Viking heifers and March them to dublin port. We need a big boat in Dublin and a crew of mad b**tards wearing helmets with horns (again don't be shy lads). We sail for Sweden with our heifers. When we get there we will have a feed of magic mushrooms and charge into the cities, grabbing all the irish beauties them b**tards took while releasing the heifers into the streets to cause confusion. We might burn a few monasteries for the craic too. Away we will go with our women and back to westmeath to acclimatise them. Who's with me?
The farmers will need to know what the pay is and whether or not it will affect their Single Farm Payments.
Plenty of Nordies taking it up the arse at the moment.
They are welcomed back aris.
This didnt surprise me as it once would have believe it or not.
Accessibility links
Accessibility Help
Sign in
bbc.co.uk navigation
News
Sport
Weather
iPlayer
TV
More
BBC News
Sections
Easter Rising centenary: Royal Family and UK government to get invite
7 September 2013 Last updated at 20:12
Quote from: theticklemister on September 09, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
They are welcomed back aris.
This didnt surprise me as it once would have believe it or not.
Accessibility links
Accessibility Help
Sign in
bbc.co.uk navigation
News
Sport
Weather
iPlayer
TV
More
BBC News
Sections
Easter Rising centenary: Royal Family and UK government to get invite
7 September 2013 Last updated at 20:12
she must have a few more mares she wants covered for free
At least the bollix who invited her won't be in power in 2016.
Could have been worse,an invite could have been extended to One Direction.
Quote from: lawnseed on September 09, 2013, 07:29:04 AM
Quote from: theticklemister on September 09, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
They are welcomed back aris.
This didnt surprise me as it once would have believe it or not.
Accessibility links
Accessibility Help
Sign in
bbc.co.uk navigation
News
Sport
Weather
iPlayer
TV
More
BBC News
Sections
Easter Rising centenary: Royal Family and UK government to get invite
7 September 2013 Last updated at 20:12
she must have a few more mares she wants covered for free
Ooopppssss. Well ye all know the craic anyway.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 09, 2013, 07:42:03 AM
At least the bollix who invited her won't be in power in 2016.
Gilmore? Sure he won't even be in charge of his own party by then...
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 09, 2013, 07:42:03 AM
At least the bollix who invited her won't be in power in 2016.
McAleese?
Bit harsh calling her a bollix.
Cork out in force to welcome Charlie and horsehead;
(https://i.imgur.com/tAAFkRh.jpg)
C'mon de ribbils ;D
You'd get more crowd at an Irish league match.
I think most of them are actually waiting for a bus.
My Mrs is meeting them today. I'll report back.
Quote from: BennyCake on June 14, 2018, 04:24:56 PM
You'd get more crowd at an Irish league match.
I think most of them are actually waiting for a bus.
They're just trying to cross the road!
RTÉ news gave 7 or 8 minutes to this nonsense while the storms and power outages etc got about a minute and a half.
Who cares. Sure they used to own the country. Its like selling a house you lived in for years. You like to drive by every now and again to see the new owners havent destroyed the place.