UVF Give up but keep the Guns

[SammyG]

anyway
I find this hard to imagine that you are denying the existance of all this

For the umpteenth time, I'm not denying anything. I'm not aware of apartheid in NI and have never heard anybody else mention it. You keep mentioning it but won't tell me how it happened, when it happened, what form it took etc. Instead you go of on a rant about some unrelated topic. If you want to discuss housing or jobs or paramilitarism or collusion or whatever then fine but can we do that after we've finished the apartheid discussion.

jobs
health
state sponsored oppression (leading to the state sponsored collusion death squads mentioned previously that you dont want to talk about - wonder why)
voting constituencies

maybe you should start to read some of the many books and indeed commissioned reports that detail this kind of thing

or do you deny that any such thing has happened?

am I completely wrong
was NI always a lovely safe peaceful place to live in?  

Lynchbhoy

I'm well aware of all the things you mentioned and have read loads of books and reports and studies etc. I'm also happy to discuss them, if you want to. NOT ONE of them mentions apartheid in any way shape or form and your list of things doesn't include apartheid.

We're going round in circles, can you either give me some details about this alledged apartheid or admit that you're talking bollix and just using the word for effect?

[his holiness nb]

Lynchboy EG, Sammy and MW are here purely to annoy.

I've said it before, then induldged them a little.

No doubt they will seek written proof of this!!

Shit stirrers of the highest degree, but skilled debaters (well EG and Sammy)

And yes, BIGOTS!

And I have explained why on previous threads so dont even ask 

I would like to say I wont induldge them any further but no doubt they tempt me back by either patronising me, insulting me, or poking fun at me.

I have no intentions on wasting any more of my time speaking to their kind (and no I dont mean unionist, or protestant so dont bother getting on your high horses)

[lynchbhoy]

anyway
I find this hard to imagine that you are denying the existance of all this

For the umpteenth time, I'm not denying anything. I'm not aware of apartheid in NI and have never heard anybody else mention it. You keep mentioning it but won't tell me how it happened, when it happened, what form it took etc. Instead you go of on a rant about some unrelated topic. If you want to discuss housing or jobs or paramilitarism or collusion or whatever then fine but can we do that after we've finished the apartheid discussion.

jobs
health
state sponsored oppression (leading to the state sponsored collusion death squads mentioned previously that you dont want to talk about - wonder why)
voting constituencies

maybe you should start to read some of the many books and indeed commissioned reports that detail this kind of thing

or do you deny that any such thing has happened?

am I completely wrong
was NI always a lovely safe peaceful place to live in?  

Lynchbhoy

I'm well aware of all the things you mentioned and have read loads of books and reports and studies etc. I'm also happy to discuss them, if you want to. NOT ONE of them mentions apartheid in any way shape or form and your list of things doesn't include apartheid.

We're going round in circles, can you either give me some details about this alledged apartheid or admit that you're talking bollix and just using the word for effect?

they all have apartheid connoctations
obv you do not want this to be true and so are denying it - unbelieveably

ok
ensuring the voting boundaries are kept in a certain way to maintain that nationalists do not gain control of any particular place - eg Derry city
where the maj is massive yet the seats were apportioned almost equally
how so?
Accident? hmmmm

jobs /education
nationalists were not accepted in most professional jobs up until the 80's. Token taigs (I think they are called) were let in to 'prove' this was not the case, but the stats do not stack up 80-90% in professional jobs were prot yet the population were 60/40%.
Now I know that unionists/loyalists wanted to tell all and sundry that nationalists were basically thick and couldnt get those jobs, but as more and more managed to surmount the barriers of educational disadvantage, its hard to see how this was the case

so denying freedom of work, associating with other people and disallowing them from doing so - would that not be in the apartheid bracket ?
Most def this goes beyone oppression.

But feel free to endorse what your predecessors did. By default backing up the old establishment and its apartheid regieme, does this show that a lot of unionist/loyalists as we had feared, have not moved on and are not as moderate as they say they are.
Well the polarity in voting for dup would indicate this is the case.

yez are a disgrace

[SammyG]

Lynchboy EG, Sammy and MW are here purely to annoy.

I've said it before, then induldged them a little.

No doubt they will seek written proof of this!!

Shit stirrers of the highest degree, but skilled debaters (well EG and Sammy)

And yes, BIGOTS!

And I have explained why on previous threads so dont even ask 

I would like to say I wont induldge them any further but no doubt they tempt me back by either patronising me, insulting me, or poking fun at me.

I have no intentions on wasting any more of my time speaking to their kind (and no I dont mean unionist, or protestant so dont bother getting on your high horses)

You're 100% correct. LB talks bollix and then tries to change the subject. I pull him up about it, and it's me who's shit-stirring.   You can't beat that sort of logic.

[SammyG]

Lynchbhoy

As you're obviously not going to tell me when apartheid happened in NI, I'll try a different question. Can you tell what you think apartheid is?

[his holiness nb]

Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.

[SammyG]

Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.

He's wasting his time by talking bollix and refusing to back it up. If he can give me an example of apartheid then I'll happily discuss it. He has refused for 18 months and is still refusing. How in the name of fcuk can that be my fault?

[his holiness nb]

Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.

He's wasting his time by talking bollix and refusing to back it up. If he can give me an example of apartheid then I'll happily discuss it. He has refused for 18 months and is still refusing. How in the name of fcuk can that be my fault?

He already has, you just dont want to see it.
I'm off for a beer!

[lynchbhoy]

Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.

I know I give  a few examples of it and they refuse to acknowledge  
I mean attacking the civil rights march was not an act of apartheid...though similar attacks on south african and american civil rights marches are acknowledged worldwide and historically as being pard of an apartheid regieme - so obv the two in denial will go to the history books and start to claim that ther was no such thing as apartheid in South africa or america either!  

shortly these two bastions of loyalism will be pronouncing how the nationalists dreamt bloody sunday up and the six counties never had any problems until the bad old IRA for the heck of it decided to go after innocent woment and children and eat their dying bodies etc
true loyalist revisionism !
Its part of their mentality  - the same one apartheid/opressive/bullying mindest that proved to be their downfall!

[SammyG]

Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.

I know I give  a few examples of it and they refuse to acknowledge  
I mean attacking the civil rights march was not an act of apartheid...though similar attacks on south african and american civil rights marches are acknowledged worldwide and historically as being pard of an apartheid regieme - so obv the two in denial will go to the history books and start to claim that ther was no such thing as apartheid in South africa or america either!  

Are you some sort of mentalist or are you just on a wind-up. The attacks on civil rights marches (and the denial of civil rights in the first place) were 100% wrong/disgraceful/sickening/whatever word you want to use but they were in NO WAY connected to apartheid. I suggest that you get one of the many books on apartheid and then come back once you know what you're talking about.

shortly these two bastions of loyalism will be pronouncing how the nationalists dreamt bloody sunday up

You really are a fcukwit, I condemn bloody Sunday (and always have). I think the paras should have been tried for murder and I'm not a Loyalist in any way shape or form. But apart from that your sentence was perfect. Just because you can't back up your bollix about apartheid, you start throwing allegations about instead.

[lynchbhoy]

Thanks for backing up my previous post Sammy, Lynchboy, you are wasting your time.

I know I give  a few examples of it and they refuse to acknowledge  
I mean attacking the civil rights march was not an act of apartheid...though similar attacks on south african and american civil rights marches are acknowledged worldwide and historically as being pard of an apartheid regieme - so obv the two in denial will go to the history books and start to claim that ther was no such thing as apartheid in South africa or america either!  

Are you some sort of mentalist or are you just on a wind-up. The attacks on civil rights marches (and the denial of civil rights in the first place) were 100% wrong/disgraceful/sickening/whatever word you want to use but they were in NO WAY connected to apartheid. I suggest that you get one of the many books on apartheid and then come back once you know what you're talking about.

shortly these two bastions of loyalism will be pronouncing how the nationalists dreamt bloody sunday up

You really are a fcukwit, I condemn bloody Sunday (and always have). I think the paras should have been tried for murder and I'm not a Loyalist in any way shape or form. But apart from that your sentence was perfect. Just because you can't back up your bollix about apartheid, you start throwing allegations about instead.

it wasnt part of apartheid - why because it was one of the first acknowledged acts ? 
well one of the first recorded in history

good lad
yer just a wee daftie - the kind of mentality that I expected from you.
Ostriches/badgers etc etc your only crime was loyalty alright !

[SammyG]

it wasnt part of apartheid - why because it was one of the first acknowledged acts ? 
well one of the first recorded in history

It wasn't apartheid because it had f**k all to do with apartheid. I'll ask again, do you know what apartheid is?

good lad
yer just a wee daftie - the kind of mentality that I expected from you.

So condemning the event is what you expected, excellent now we're getting somewhere.

Ostriches/badgers etc etc your only crime was loyalty alright !

WTF am I supposed to be 'loyal' to?

[his holiness nb]

Few pints at lunchtime Sammy? 

[SammyG]

Few pints at lunchtime Sammy? 

Unfortunately not. I had an operation, last week, so I can't drink. 

[his holiness nb]

Bummer Sammy, all debating aside, get well soon eh!