The Battle for Fermanagh and South Tyrone

[Nally Stand]

NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last -  no spin, no whinging.

Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?

This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!

Ok Ok I'll answer the question at long long last....go to the top of page 14 where I already answered it. I hate to stoop to your level by starting with the personal insults but it seems that you are the embarassment.

[gallsman]

NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last -  no spin, no whinging.

Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?

This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!

Ok Ok I'll answer the question at long long last....go to the top of page 14 where I already answered it. I hate to stoop to your level by starting with the personal insults but it seems that you are the embarassment.

Oh you're a witty one. If you consider your response on page 14 as an answer to the question, then you've shown yourself to be exactly the bigot you claim not to be. You have no credibility whatsoever.

[Nally Stand]

Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?

Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party  which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis

Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn  Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is  the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.

Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?

If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support  McKinney and problem is solved.
You seem to care alot about Nationalists. You must therefore have been totally disgusted when Sinn Fein supported the IRA whenever they subjected Nationalists to intimidation, hijackings, threats, blowing up their homes while blowing up police stations, house takeovers etc

Well, are you disgusted, Nally Stand?

How about you make an attempt to answer my post properly and then I'll address your post? If you say SF are not interested in looking after the needs of the nationalist community, what do my list of examples say about the sdlp's track record in westminster??

[Nally Stand]

NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last -  no spin, no whinging.

Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?

This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!

Ok Ok I'll answer the question at long long last....go to the top of page 14 where I already answered it. I hate to stoop to your level by starting with the personal insults but it seems that you are the embarassment.

Oh you're a witty one. If you consider your response on page 14 as an answer to the question, then you've shown yourself to be exactly the bigot you claim not to be. You have no credibility whatsoever.

More personal abuse instead of addressing the actual issue

SHOCK

[gallsman]

What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!

Is that one offensive as well?

[Zapatista]

i'd have thought the DUP would have jumped at P&J considering the baggage it entails.

In a normal administration you'd say finance would normally be the biggie but things are a little bit different here.

NEVER!!!!


The purse strings are always number 1

[Nally Stand]

What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!

Is that one offensive as well?

Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.

But no, not coming from you.

And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.

[gallsman]

What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!

Is that one offensive as well?

Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.

But no, not coming from you.

And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.

Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.

[Nally Stand]

What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!

Is that one offensive as well?

Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.

But no, not coming from you.

And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.

Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.

[gallsman]

What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!

Is that one offensive as well?

Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.

But no, not coming from you.

And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.

Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.

Apologies, I completely forgot about your inability to read.

[Nally Stand]

What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!

Is that one offensive as well?

Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.

But no, not coming from you.

And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.

Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.

Apologies, I completely forgot about your inability to read.

How intellectual

[armagho9]

ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it. 

You mean this one?

I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?

I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.

That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian

It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland).  Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do.  If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty.  (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)

Was it common sense or sectarian when unionists did it ?

common sense on their behalf, surely it makes more sense to get someone into a seat that is closer in opinion than someone who is off the total opposite opinion.  (that is if your own party are unlikely to win it).  There are pacts between parties all the time in every government around the world.

[ardmhachaabu]

Zap, with respect, that's rubbish.  Seeking votes along green/orange lines is sectarian whether it's unionism or the shinners at it.  Sectarianism isn't a one way street.  If unionists are at it you can't say the shinners aren't in the same breath.

The key element you're leaving out is the OO. I'm basing my opinion on theory and giving the reason SF justify this. It can be argued that it's accurate but i'll admit it isn't conclusive. You aslo seem to be dividing Green and Orange as Protestant and Catholic (which in itself could be defined as sectarian) and if that is your default view I will never be able to convince you otherwise.

Is there another way of explaining the situation?  If there is, I for one would love to hear it

[ardmhachaabu]

ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it. 

You mean this one?

I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?

I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.

That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian

It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland).  Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do.  If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty.  (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)

Was it common sense or sectarian when unionists did it ?

common sense on their behalf, surely it makes more sense to get someone into a seat that is closer in opinion than someone who is off the total opposite opinion.  (that is if your own party are unlikely to win it).  There are pacts between parties all the time in every government around the world.

I give up, it's hard to debate with people who don't understand the concepts which you are debating

[Zapatista]

Zap, with respect, that's rubbish.  Seeking votes along green/orange lines is sectarian whether it's unionism or the shinners at it.  Sectarianism isn't a one way street.  If unionists are at it you can't say the shinners aren't in the same breath.

The key element you're leaving out is the OO. I'm basing my opinion on theory and giving the reason SF justify this. It can be argued that it's accurate but i'll admit it isn't conclusive. You aslo seem to be dividing Green and Orange as Protestant and Catholic (which in itself could be defined as sectarian) and if that is your default view I will never be able to convince you otherwise.

Is there another way of explaining the situation?  If there is, I for one would love to hear it

Republican and Unionsit? Where have you been?

I think you get the gist of were I'm coming from regarding the theme of the thread. Please counter that or don't. Please don't pass off stupid questions as replies that add nothing to the debate. We will end up with 30 pages of needless clarification while the main points are ignored..