Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Northern Protestants

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Camelot wrote: »
    Agreed, I have noticed it too ............

    Read the last sentence in the link you posted in the recent thread you started. Here is the link.


  • Options
    #63
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    I presume you refer to the 'trite & vacuous' Sinn Fein retort to the First Ministers annoyance "It would suit Mr Robinson better if he used his time engaging in the process of intensive dialogue he committed his party to in June to sort out serious issues instead of wasting time playing petty internal unionist politics."

    I which case I say to you Guinnessdrinker, read closely paragraphs four & five of said article!

    Seems like Mr Murphy had time to kill (excuse the pun) :D while making the 150 amendments.

    Touche.


  • Options
    #64
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Camelot wrote: »
    I presume you refer to the 'trite & vacuous' Sinn Fein retort to the First Ministers annoyance "It would suit Mr Robinson better if he used his time engaging in the process of intensive dialogue he committed his party to in June to sort out serious issues instead of wasting time playing petty internal unionist politics."

    I which case I say to you Guinnessdrinker, read closely paragraphs four & five of said article!

    Seems like Mr Murphy had time to kill (excuse the pun) :D while making the 150 amendments.

    Touche.

    No, I was referring to you noticing SF doing away with the term "Unionist" when the last sentence in the article you linked to quoted an SF MLA using the term Unionist!


  • Options
    #65
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Ah, pardon me.


  • Options
    #66
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    you have completely missed my point. it is age old piece of legislation that has not needed to be addressed. when it does it will be in a logical manner. The future King is married to a divorcee, that was once not allowed but it is now acceptable. the same future King has also stated that he sees the monarchs role as defender of faith, not defender of "The" faith. there is a vast difference there.

    it is difficult to compare it to the head of the Irish state because it is an elected position, not one that is a birth rite. Only allowing Catholics to run for election would be undemocratic, whereas the nature of a royal holding the head of state is in itself undemocratic, it is, however, backed up by a democratic system that, in real terms, is the operational head of government making the Queens role in effect ceremonial. you are also comparing a constitution that is only a few decades old compared to one that has evolved over nearly one thousand years.

    Anyway, there is a British Empire thread somewhere for you to vent your anti British crap.

    :rolleyes: here we go agin, if britain's line is that the earth is flat, then it's flat type responce YET AGAIN :rolleyes: It is indeed an " age old piece of legislation ", but since it's clearly a discriminatory peice of legislation, it should be scrapped. For the THIRD time :rolleyes:

    " Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? Would we ever hear the end of it "


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    :rolleyes: here we go agin, if britain's line is that the earth is flat, then it's flat type responce YET AGAIN :rolleyes: It is indeed an " age old piece of legislation ", but since it's clearly a discriminatory peice of legislation, it should be scrapped. For the THIRD time :rolleyes:

    " Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? Would we ever hear the end of it "

    don't you ever get bored of this?

    no one cares, its boring, dull, it doesn't matter. its 2008, not 1920. the rest of the world has moved on, i suggest you do the same.


  • Options
    #68
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    don't you ever get bored of this?

    no one cares, its boring, dull, it doesn't matter. its 2008, not 1920. the rest of the world has moved on, i suggest you do the same.

    :rolleyes: But it would matter if the OIrish were doing it ofcourse :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #69
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    :rolleyes: But it would matter if the OIrish were doing it ofcourse :rolleyes:

    let me type this slowly so you can read it easier.

    NO ONE CARES.

    Better?


  • Options
    #70
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    McArmalite, I really wish you'd stop using Politics threads as excuses to give out about the evil Brits.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement