Is a 'United Ireland' an issue you consider when voting

junder

Elmo wrote: »

Bar in Ireland. We don't do it really all that much. Very few are interested in 1916 (not that we won), 1922, 1949 and other such revolutions that occurred.

The unionist fought for survival please they had the backing of their police force (few if any catholics), industry that refused to employ catholics and divided workers from both sides, prevented catholics from voting with one house rule, B specials etc all lawful but nothing to be proud of in any society.

Wow we had all this in 1698?

T runner

junder wrote: »

"they" have a protestant minister, must be a very busy minister since each state school has it's own board of governors and there must be a few hundred state schools so he must be a very busy minister.

Yes state schools have a Protestant minsiter (one on each board)
That means they are protestant schools not secular schools. Your attempt at pedantics only shows the truth in this. If each stste school has a Protestant minister then why are you insisting they are secular?????

That means that the state has pushed for segregation and apartheid by ensuring that state schools ethos are Protestant and British.

Some schools may have a minister on it's board some don't since it's up to the individual school who is elected to it's board but whoever is on the board, the school still has to teach the same curriculum as other uk schools which generally means

Nearly all state schools have a Protestant minister on their board!

children who go to stare schools end up learning about English history.

Yes they are brought taught as British. Why on earth would an Irish person have their children educated their? Why on earth should your children be educated and not know their own local history. Its ludicrous.

However being state schools means that they are open to anybody to go to regardless of religion. Tell me this, as I already pointed out religion education in state schools is non-denominational is this the same in catholic maintained schools?

They can hardly ban certain religions from state schools can they?
All they can do is make sure teh ethos is Protestant and British, have a minister on teh board and teach the history of the Island next door and not the one youre living on. That will achieve teh exact same thing more or less as a blanket ban on Catholics or "native" Irish.

The power for state schools is in Protestant hands. Make them secular if you really want an end to segregation. If you want segregation (apartheid) to continue: keep them Protestant and British.

Elmo

KeithAFC wrote: »

He is talking about 1688, 1689, Battle of the boyne, battle of aughrim, the siege of Derry.

The Battle of Boyne was 2 English kings fight over who should rule, I don't know that even the Catholics that fought that battle should be overly proud of it. I don't know why you would want to celebrate wars that divided countries and communities and put the rights of the aristocracy ahead of the ordinary person. I am think of celebrating the Battle of Clontarf because I am sure I was on the right side in that one!

Wow we had all this in 1698?

I came to the thread late and I thought you were talking about modern history.

Iwasfrozen

Elmo wrote: »

The Battle of Boyne was to English kings fight over who should rule, I don't know that even the Catholics that fought that battle should be overly proud of it. I don't know why you would want to celebrate wars that divided countries and communities and put the rights of the aristocracy ahead of the ordinary person. I am think of celebrating the Battle of Clontarf because I am sure I was on the right side in that one!

Pfft, damm Muster people. Everyone knows Ulster is the best province.

KeithAFC

Elmo wrote: »

The Battle of Boyne was to English kings fight over who should rule, I don't know that even the Catholics that fought that battle should be overly proud of it. I don't know why you would want to celebrate wars that divided countries and communities and put the rights of the aristocracy ahead of the ordinary person. I am think of celebrating the Battle of Clontarf because I am sure I was on the right side in that one!

A lot of what came out of them battles turned into my culture. The orange traditions and so on. The siege of derry was a very important moment in the history of the Ulster Scots and we have to remember that.

William of Orange wasn't English, he was dutch.

Elmo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh to be fair most countries celebrate their past. Why shouldn't Unionists be allowed the same privilege?

I ment during the Jacobite rising.

Indeed as I now realize. Of course the plantation of Ulster and history should be remembered.

T runner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Dude it's not my list it's wikipedia's. Also I still don't see what your point is here? So what if the British split Ireland up? It's not like they didn't have a reason. Unionists had as much right to self-determination them nationalists.

You quoted that list, now you disown it when it bites you in the ass?

Protestants are not a seperate nation, just a seperate religion so they dont qualify for self determination by UN standards anyway.

The kingdom of Ireland would have been the area in question.

So what? Unionist majority areas should have ben forced into the Irish state regardless of how they felt about it? Doesn't that seem rather "imperial" to you?

How would it be imperial? There is no emperor in Ireland.....

No you must abide by the majority of wishes in your country. 80% of Ireland wanted Independence. That is the fairest way.
Counties fermanagh and Tyrone were forced into NI with Catholic majorities.
20% suceeded by getting teh British army to back them and by threatening to pogrom and murder tehir catholic neighbours should a UI occur.

As I have alraedy explained Unionisst had created apartheid in Ulster.

I'm not defending the gerrymandering, council house placements and general nastiness Unionists engaged in when in power but I don't think it is as black and white as you make it out to be.

The apartheid in NI goes back to teh 17th century. NI was just a predictable continuation of it.

You must remember that the Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland were living in constent fear of having a bullet put in their brain by some sixteen year old brainwashed IRA "volunteer".

But Stormont was gone for teh vast majorityy of the prvisional IRAs campaign? Youre just waffling now arent you?

The two cases aren't even comparable.

Ofcourse they are. The difference was taht the membership of ethnic groups was based on religion not race. The same segregation, the same economic and social dominance of one group.

The only difference is that unionists needed teh backing of a suprenational power to keep their regime.

Iwasfrozen

T runner wrote: »

You quoted that list, now you disown it when it bites you in the ass?

I haven't disowned it. It's a nice list but it still isn't mine.

T runner wrote: »

Protestants are not a seperate nation, just a seperate religion so they dont qualify for self determination by UN standards anyway.

Ireland wasn't a nation either when it was granted self-determination by Britain, did you expect them to then turn around ad deny that right to Unionists? Especially since Unionists were the loyal ones.

T runner wrote: »

The kingdom of Ireland would have been the area in question.

All areas can be split up.

T runner wrote: »

How would it be imperial? There is no emperor in Ireland.....

Forcing other cultures into your own is what empires do.

T runner wrote: »

No you must abide by the majority of wishes in your country. 80% of Ireland wanted Independence. That is the fairest way.
Counties fermanagh and Tyrone were forced into NI with Catholic majorities.

By why make Unionists abide by the wishes of the majority when both could be given what they wanted by partition?

T runner wrote: »

20% suceeded by getting teh British army to back them and by threatening to pogrom and murder tehir catholic neighbours should a UI occur.

I can see the headlines now. Britain using military might to defend her own citizens from being absorbed into another state horror!

T runner wrote: »

But Stormont was gone for teh vast majorityy of the prvisional IRAs campaign? Youre just waffling now arent you?

What's Stormont being gone got to do with anything. Are you under the impression that MPs in London never ever travel home or something?

T runner wrote: »

Ofcourse they are. The difference was taht the membership of ethnic groups was based on religion not race. The same segregation, the same economic and social dominance of one group.

I'm not going to defend the gerrymandering that went on in NI.

DB10

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Orange order is a protestant religious organisation for protestants. Not hard to figure out really.

Back for most racist bile are we.

From the same guy, that has claimed Johnny Adair is a modern Irish hero, the same man that has terrorised Northern Ireland for decades and a leading member of Combat 18 with links to the Nation Front and foreign skinhead nazi groups.

Your views make me sick.

KeithAFC

DB10 wrote: »

Back for most racist bile are we.

From the same guy, that has claimed Johnny Adair is a modern Irish hero, the same man that has terrorised Northern Ireland for decades and a leading member of Combat 18 with links to the Nation Front and foreign skinhead nazi groups.

Your views make me sick.

What are you on about? Johnny adair? What has he got to do with this thread?

What is possibly racist about stating a fact that the Orange Order is a protestant religious organisation for Protestants? Its fact. Get over yourself and stop accusing me of being a racist.

DB10

KeithAFC wrote: »

What are you on about? Johnny adair? What has he got to do with this thread?

What is possibly racist about stating a fact that the Orange Order is a protestant religious organisation for Protestants? Its fact. Get over yourself and stop accusing me of being a racist.

Again denying your previous posts, and stirring **** anytime a SF or united Ireland thread appear.

Why are you even on this forum? Can Stormfront or the BNP forum not satisfy your needs.

Interesting location , again changed just to stir emotion like the troll you are. Do you claim to speak for all of Ulster?

KeithAFC

DB10 wrote: »

Again denying your previous posts, and stirring **** anytime a SF or united Ireland thread appear.

Why are you even on this forum? Can Stormfront or the BNP forum not satisfy your needs.

Interesting location , again changed just to stir emotion like the troll you are. Do you claim to speak for all of Ulster?

You aren't making much sense.

DB10

KeithAFC wrote: »

You aren't making much sense.

Dodge it as you usually do. You're worse than Nick Griffin, and I have no time for your posts about Adair, Ulster or anything inflammatory you ever say about Ireland.

You're sly so you continue to avoid a banning, some day it will come. You won't troll here all your life.

sollar

DB10 wrote: »

Again denying your previous posts, and stirring **** anytime a SF or united Ireland thread appear.

Why are you even on this forum? Can Stormfront or the BNP forum not satisfy your needs.

Interesting location , again changed just to stir emotion like the troll you are. Do you claim to speak for all of Ulster?

Here here, the only time i see your (i.e keith) name appearing its to get into a discussion about the tired old northern problem.

I suppose it must be pretty soul destroying to worship the queen and england only to go over there and be called irish and to know that the majority of the UK population are not bothered if you stay british or not.

KeithAFC

DB10 wrote: »

Dodge it as you usually do. You're worse than Nick Griffin, and I have no time for your posts about Adair, Ulster or anything inflammatory you ever say about Ireland.

You're sly so you continue to avoid a banning, some day it will come. You won't troll here all your life.

Have you got something to add to the dicussion instead of accusing people of being an out and out racist and insulting me?

KeithAFC

sollar wrote: »

Here here, the only time i see your (i.e keith) name appearing its to get into a discussion about the tired old northern problem.

I suppose it must be pretty soul destroying to worship the queen and england only to go over there and be called irish and to know that the majority of the UK population are not bothered if you stay british or not.

I post in the sports section, the gaming section, the politics section, the AH section. I like to take part in discussions regarding politics and Northern Ireland. Like many other people on this forum who like discussing politics and Northern Ireland.

sollar

You first described yourself a unionist then a loyalist. Let me tell you johnny adair is a murdering scumbag and has no redeeming features at all. Anyone who thinks highly of him is on a different planet to me.

KeithAFC

sollar wrote: »

You first described yourself a unionist then a loyalist. Let me tell you johnny adair is a murdering scumbag and has no redeeming features at all. Anyone who thinks highly of him is on a different planet to me.

What about Johnny adair? Who mentioned Johnny adair? It wasn't me.

And yeah, im a unionist and a loyalist. Im loyal to the crown and im in favour of the Union. Something wrong with that?

DB10

sollar wrote: »

Here here, the only time i see your (i.e keith) name appearing its to get into a discussion about the tired old northern problem.

I suppose it must be pretty soul destroying to worship the queen and england only to go over there and be called irish and to know that the majority of the UK population are not bothered if you stay british or not.

Spot on.

No doubt he'll ignore it as usual and rant off about the good old days with Adair.

Fact is people like Keith, Ireland wants nothing to do with him, and you go over the England, they certainly want nothing to do with him and his ilk with supremacist views. Look what to do the the DUP associate BNP.
And the NF and the like.

Or even just ask joebloggs on the street what he thinks of the NI loyalists.

"They rob me on tax, I couldnt give a toss about them"

Is the standard respone. Stuck in the twilight zone, not wanted by anyone and drives him and his ilk on forums like this with the soul intent on slander and causing destruction.

DB10

sollar wrote: »

You first described yourself a unionist then a loyalist. Let me tell you johnny adair is a murdering scumbag and has no redeeming features at all. Anyone who thinks highly of him is on a different planet to me.

Next we'll see him deny it when only days ago, he was comparing him to Irish heros in other sections.

It's sick if you truely believe it about that man Keith.

KeithAFC

Who was talking about adair the other day? Mate, i think you have got the wrong person because i can not remember mentioning Johnny adair in the last few days at all on here. You seem to have me mixed up with a completely different poster.

junder

T runner wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Yes state schools have a Protestant minsiter (one on each board)
That means they are protestant schools not secular schools. Your attempt at pedantics only shows the truth in this. If each stste school has a Protestant minister then why are you insisting they are secular?????

That means that the state has pushed for segregation and apartheid by ensuring that state schools ethos are Protestant and British.





Nearly all state schools have a Protestant minister on their board!



Yes they are brought taught as British. Why on earth would an Irish person have their children educated their? Why on earth should your children be educated and not know their own local history. Its ludicrous.



They can hardly ban certain religions from state schools can they?
All they can do is make sure teh ethos is Protestant and British, have a minister on teh board and teach the history of the Island next door and not the one youre living on. That will achieve teh exact same thing more or less as a blanket ban on Catholics or "native" Irish.

The power for state schools is in Protestant hands. Make them secular if you really want an end to segregation. If you want segregation (apartheid) to continue: keep them Protestant and British.

The only person being pedantic is as usual yourself, some state schools do have ministers on the board so what, alot if catholic schools have priests on thier boards, was not that long ago that they had priests and nuns teaching in catholic schools, by your logic this is done just to maintain a catholic ethos in the school which would prevent Protestants wanting to go there.
The a state school has to be open to anyone Protestant, catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Jew etc etc. The curriculum is decided by central government in england that curriculum is then taught in all British state schools across the uk.

junder

DB10 wrote: »

Spot on.

No doubt he'll ignore it as usual and rant off about the good old days with Adair.

Fact is people like Keith, Ireland wants nothing to do with him, and you go over the England, they certainly want nothing to do with him and his ilk with supremacist views. Look what to do the the DUP associate BNP.
And the NF and the like.

Or even just ask joebloggs on the street what he thinks of the NI loyalists.

"They rob me on tax, I couldnt give a toss about them"

Is the standard respone. Stuck in the twilight zone, not wanted by anyone and drives him and his ilk on forums like this with the soul intent on slander and causing destruction.

If you don't want anything to do with us loyalists why do you want a united Ireland?

Oasis_Dublin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A Unionist is someone who wishes to maintain the United Kingdom, nothing more. I'm sorry but your claim that Unionists are bigots un-founded, small minded, tribal and dare I say bigoted.

P.S I'm not sorry.

Yeah, you're right. Unionists can't be trusted to vote for sensible politicians. Let's tak away their vote in any potential United Ireland. Goodness knows we don't want any DUP ilk swaning around the Dáil.

Really? Even Antrim and Down? That's quite the imagination you have there.

Please do explain. I'm all ears.

It absolutely is not. You should read up on Ulster Unionism. They are the most stubborn people in the world, without a doubt. They would even go against their own beloved state in order to prevent unity with the south because they view the Irish as being so inferior to themselves. It's bigotry and its xenophobia to the absolute maximum degree. (See establishment of the UVF or the Unionist reaction to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985)

What are you talking about here? I never claimed that Unionists should have no say in a United Ireland. Stop inventing statements to create an arguments, it's the height of idiocy.

We've had Protestant Heads of State in the South as well as a whole second chamber of the Oireachtas dedicated to protecting minorities.

Again, using Antrim and Down against the remaining 7 counties shows the extent of your ignorance.

None of those examples are in any way relevant to Northern Ireland and you know full well they aren't. God help you if you cannot recognise that.

Oasis_Dublin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My bigotry?! Coming from you I'll take that as a complement.

So you've accepted that I didn't say "all" then? At least this lie has been admitted, thank you.

Oasis_Dublin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Cop yourself on. You said 'Unionists are horrible bigots' - you didn't qualify it by saying 'extremist unionists' or 'some unionists' - your statement literally meant 'all unionists' - how could the rest of us think you meant anything else?

I would have said Loyalists had I meant "extreme unionists." The only one generalising here is you.

Oasis_Dublin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ireland wasn't a nation either when it was granted self-determination by Britain, did you expect them to then turn around ad deny that right to Unionists? Especially since Unionists were the loyal ones.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read on the internet, bar none. Ireland wasn't a nation before 1922? Are you actually serious or has all this been a joke? If it was a joke, fair play, you certainly had me going for a while!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I would have said Loyalists had I meant "extreme unionists." The only one generalising here is you.

Please explain how 'unionists are horrible bigots' means anything other than 'all unionists are horrible bigots'

If someone said 'the Irish are horrible Paedos' would you not have some objection?

KeithAFC

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

It absolutely is not. You should read up on Ulster Unionism. They are the most stubborn people in the world, without a doubt. They would even go against their own beloved state in order to prevent unity with the south because they view the Irish as being so inferior to themselves. It's bigotry and its xenophobia to the absolute maximum degree. (See establishment of the UVF or the Unionist reaction to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985)

What are you talking about here? I never claimed that Unionists should have no say in a United Ireland. Stop inventing statements to create an arguments, it's the height of idiocy.

We've had Protestant Heads of State in the South as well as a whole second chamber of the Oireachtas dedicated to protecting minorities.

Again, using Antrim and Down against the remaining 7 counties shows the extent of your ignorance.

None of those examples are in any way relevant to Northern Ireland and you know full well they aren't. God help you if you cannot recognise that.

What is your point? That does not make unionist bigots.

Bottle_of_Smoke

*

Oasis_Dublin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Please explain how 'unionists are horrible bigots' means anything other than 'all unionists are horrible bigots'

If someone said 'the Irish are horrible Paedos' would you not have some objection?

I would most likely point out that "I'm Irish and I'm not a paedo." Then again, I would see the statement as a general one. If you were to say that "Irish people tend to drink" I wouldn't take offense to it because I realise that it's true. Even though I would obviously recognise that not ALL Irish people tend to drink. Don;t attempt to make the statement into something it is not.

KeithAFC

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I would most likely point out that "I'm Irish and I'm not a paedo." Then again, I would see the statement as a general one. If you were to say that "Irish people tend to drink" I wouldn't take offense to it because I realise that it's true. Even though I would obviously recognise that not ALL Irish people tend to drink. Don;t attempt to make the statement into something it is not.

You should of explained it a bit better then. Saying Unionists are bigots..

Oasis_Dublin

KeithAFC wrote: »

What is your point? That does not make unionist bigots.

If you cannot see that Unionist are biggots I cannot help you. They went on a general strike when Sunningdale attempted to give Nationalists a say in the Stormont government, when Sunningdale attempted to remove gerrymandering. They were willing to go against Maggie Thatcher, the definition of someone who defended British sovereignty, when she attempted to bring in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. The Orange Order, of which both Trimble and Paisley were members, is a strictly Protestant organisation. Irish nationalism has never been about excluding anyone, Ulster Unionism is the equivalent of a European KKK.

Oasis_Dublin

KeithAFC wrote: »

You should of explained it a bit better then. Saying Unionists are bigots..

I didn't think that Loyalists had such a poor grasp of the English language. Go bhfoire dia ort!

KeithAFC

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

If you cannot see that Unionist are biggots I cannot help you. They went on a general strike when Sunningdale attempted to give Nationalists a say in the Stormont government, when Sunningdale attempted to remove gerrymandering. They were willing to go against Maggie Thatcher, the definition of someone who defended British sovereignty, when she attempted to bring in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. The Orange Order, of which both Trimble and Paisley were members, is a strictly Protestant organisation. Irish nationalism has never been about excluding anyone, Ulster Unionism is the equivalent of a European KKK.

Oh please.. :pac:

Irish nationalism is in no place to talk about the KKK or anything of the sort. Not with some of the famous racist quotes some famous Irish nationalist leaders have came out with about Jews and black people.

"No thoughtful Irishman or Irishwoman can view without apprehension the continuous influx of Jews into Ireland. Strange people alien to us in thought, alien to us in sympathy who come to live among us but never become one of us." - Arthur Griffith

"the Jews of Limerick tainted the purity of the Irish race." - Arthus Griffith

Bottle_of_Smoke

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I would most likely point out that "I'm Irish and I'm not a paedo." Then again, I would see the statement as a general one. If you were to say that "Irish people tend to drink" I wouldn't take offense to it because I realise that it's true. Even though I would obviously recognise that not ALL Irish people tend to drink. Don;t attempt to make the statement into something it is not.

You've just proved my point. You originally said: Unionists are horrible bigots

That's not a misquote or taken out of context. It is literally what you posted.

You did not say ''Unionists tend to be bigotted'' Whilst I would also object to that general a statement I could accept what you meant. What you originally posted was just a massive unfounded generalisation. There are over a million unionists on your own island and you said that they are horrible bigots. I'd suggest if you lived here for any amount of time you wouldn't make that kind of outrageous statement.

Oasis_Dublin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You've just proved my point. You originally said: Unionists are horrible bigots

That's not a misquote or taken out of context. It is literally what you posted.

You did not say ''Unionists tend to be bigotted'' Whilst I would also object to that general a statement I could accept what you meant. What you originally posted was just a massive unfounded generalisation. There are over a million unionists on your own island and you said that they are horrible bigots. I'd suggest if you lived here for any amount of time you wouldn't make that kind of outrageous statement.

I clearly explained that I had suggested a majority were bigoted but it's explicit that I did not say or suggest that "all" Unionists were bigots. Once again, your logic has failed you. And don't give me that old "live here first, then comment" line; explain why Unionists were unwilling to give over power to fellow Irishmen with all the previous examples I have mentioned.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

If you cannot see that Unionist are biggots I cannot help you. They went on a general strike when Sunningdale attempted to give Nationalists a say in the Stormont government, when Sunningdale attempted to remove gerrymandering.

A large percentage of today's unionists weren't even born when that happened. We need to move forward - a lot has happened since then. Basically the same thing as sunningdale - the good friday agreement - was accepted 12 years ago - so its outdated to pull today's unionists up on that.

They were willing to go against Maggie Thatcher, the definition of someone who defended British sovereignty, when she attempted to bring in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. The Orange Order, of which both Trimble and Paisley were members, is a strictly Protestant organisation. Irish nationalism has never been about excluding anyone, Ulster Unionism is the equivalent of a European KKK.

Less than three percent of the unionist community are members of the orange order.

Your argument is basically ''all these historical bad things were committed by people who were unionist....therefore today's unionists are bigots.''

Oasis_Dublin

KeithAFC wrote: »

Oh please.. :pac:

Irish nationalism is in no place to talk about the KKK or anything of the sort. Not with some of the famous racist quotes some famous Irish nationalist leaders have came out with about Jews and black people.

I like how you totally ignored what I wrote with regards Sunningdale, the Anglo-Irish Agreement etc. Or how you ignored the progress that has been made in the south.

Arthur Griffith is one example of a Nationalist who supported Dual-monarchism, led Sinn Féin until it became popular, didn't fire a shot during the Civil War and was then placed onto a delegation because certain other people didn't want to bring home the 'bad news.' He then died a few months into the Civil War. Hardly the Theobald Wolfe Tone of the 20th century now, is he?!

KeithAFC

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I like how you totally ignored what I wrote with regards Sunningdale, the Anglo-Irish Agreement etc. Or how you ignored the progress that has been made in the south.

Arthur Griffith is one example of a Nationalist who supported Dual-monarchism, led Sinn Féin until it became popular, didn't fire a shot during the Civil War and was then placed onto a delegation because certain other people didn't want to bring home the 'bad news.' He then died a few months into the Civil War. Hardly the Theobald Wolfe Tone of the 20th century now, is he?!

He is the founder of Sinn Fein, one of the most famous Irish political parties. He was an Irish nationalist. I ignored it because you have obviously ignored the history of many racist comments which have came from Irish nationalists. I don't have to explain sunningdale. Everyone knows what that was about, trying to make a deal during the height of the troubles - doomed to fail.

Oasis_Dublin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

A large percentage of today's unionists weren't even born when that happened. We need to move forward - a lot has happened since then. Basically the same thing as sunningdale - the good friday agreement - was accepted 12 years ago - so its outdated to pull today's unionists up on that.



Less than three percent of the unionist community are members of the orange order.

Your argument is basically ''all these historical bad things were committed by people who were unionist....therefore today's unionists are bigots.''

The DUP became popular after the GFA was passed. I'm almost certain I've already discussed how the brigade of bigots voted out the man who brought them the GFA, one David Trimble, and voted in Ian "never, never, never!" Paisley. Don't attempt to disconnect the present from the past. I look forward to next May when it is quite likely that Martin McGuinness will become the First Minister of the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland; then we shall see how unbigoted the Unionist community has become.

Of course things have improved nowadays. That clearly isn't my point. As the President of Ireland, born and raised in Belfast, once said. "They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children an outrageous and irrational hatred of those who are of different colour and all of those things." She spoke as someone who experienced Loyalist bigotry. The Irish people voted her their President... twice.

Oasis_Dublin

KeithAFC wrote: »

He is the founder of Sinn Fein, one of the most famous Irish political parties. He was an Irish nationalist. I ignored it because you have obviously ignored the history of many racist comments which have came from Irish nationalists. I don't have to explain sunningdale. Everyone knows what that was about, trying to make a deal during the height of the troubles - doomed to fail.

An attempt to bring 35% of the people into the state; rejected by Northern Unionists. Perfect example of bigotry.

As I already explained, Griffith did not lead the movement at its zenith. One swallow (apparent racist) doesn't make a summer (doesn't make Irish Republicanism a racist movement akin to the OO) Sinn Féin = open to Protestants, took its inspiration from Tone, Emmet, Parnell etc. The OO, a band of bigots, is most certainly a Protestant only organisation.

jugger0

Wont happen with the unionists still there, pitty they wouldnt just disappear.

Oasis_Dublin

jugger0 wrote: »

Wont happen with the unionists still there, pitty they wouldnt just disappear.

It may soon be out of their control if NI demographics are anything to go by

KeithAFC

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

An attempt to bring 35% of the people into the state; rejected by Northern Unionists. Perfect example of bigotry.

As I already explained, Griffith did not lead the movement at its zenith. One swallow (apparent racist) doesn't make a summer (doesn't make Irish Republicanism a racist movement akin to the OO) Sinn Féin = open to Protestants, took its inspiration from Tone, Emmet, Parnell etc. The OO, a band of bigots, is most certainly a Protestant only organisation.

Sinn Fein is a NOT a religious organisation. Sinn Fein is a political party which represents Irish republicans. The Orange Order is a religious organisation which is for Protestants. I am not in the Orange order or anything of the sort but you can't compare the two. What would be the point of a Catholic joining the Orange Order when they believe in something a catholic just would not believe in.


A Protestant joining Sinn Fein is OK because his political opinion might be that of Irish republicanism.


Regarding the sunningdale argument, sunningdale was never going to work because it took part during a real dark period in the history of Northern Ireland and the island overall. Paranoia was strife and no one trusted anyone on the other side.

KeithAFC

jugger0 wrote: »

Wont happen with the unionists still there, pitty they wouldnt just disappear.

Why should we disappear? We have been here for hundreds of years.

Oasis_Dublin

KeithAFC wrote: »

Sinn Fein is a NOT a religious organisation. Sinn Fein is a political party which represents Irish republicans. The Orange Order is a religious organisation which is for Protestants. I am not in the Orange order or anything of the sort but you can't compare the two. What would be the point of a Catholic joining the Orange Order when they believe in something a catholic just would not believe in.


A Protestant joining Sinn Fein is OK because his political opinion might be that of Irish republicanism.


Regarding the sunningdale argument, sunningdale was never going to work because it took part during a real dark period in the history of Northern Ireland and the island overall. Paranoia was strife and no one trusted anyone on the other side.

Ah now come off it! Establishing an organisation that is explicitly open to 60% of the population but not the remaining 40% of the population is as bigoted as they come. The OO won't even accept Protestants who are friends of Catholics! Don't attempt to use religion to defend the bigoted nature of the organisation, it undermines whatever intelligence you have.

Oasis_Dublin

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why should we disappear? We have been here for hundreds of years.

Stay. I have relations in the Protestant tradition of Ulster and there is no way I would like to see any Irish national kicked off our island. Just accept the democratic will of the people of the island. It really is so simple.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The DUP became popular after the GFA was passed. I'm almost certain I've already discussed how the brigade of bigots voted out the man who brought them the GFA, one David Trimble, and voted in Ian "never, never, never!" Paisley. Don't attempt to disconnect the present from the past. I look forward to next May when it is quite likely that Martin McGuinness will become the First Minister of the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland; then we shall see how unbigoted the Unionist community has become.

There's other reasons for DUP winning votes - as the SDLP recently said it is the typical post-conflict response for hardline parties to be popular post conflict.

So forget the parties. If you look at the breakdown of the GFA vote - in unionist regions approx half of the votes were Yes to the GFA. That agreement is virtually identical to sunningdale. The nationalist Seamus Mallon called it ''Sunningdale for slow learners'' and the republican ex POW Marian Price called it ''Sunningdale for retards''

Therefore trying to justify Unionists as bigots by citing the Sunningdale agreement is outdated. You could say ''Unionists of the early 70s were mostly bigots'' based on the UWC strike and I'd be inclined to agree.

So given half the unionist electorate voted for the GFA I think you should take back your statement ''Unionists are horrible bigots''. I don't think you realise how much your kind of attitude is and always has been pushing Irish unity further and further away.

Of course things have improved nowadays. That clearly isn't my point. As the President of Ireland, born and raised in Belfast, once said. "They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children an outrageous and irrational hatred of those who are of different colour and all of those things." She spoke as someone who experienced Loyalist bigotry. The Irish people voted her their President... twice.

They did not vote her their president twice, they voted her in once - the second term was enacted by the dail.

Just as a caution I'm from Dublin but lived in the north the last 2 years, I have many friends who are unionists and I live in a unionist town full of lovely people, so not gonna let that kind of mass generalisation go unprotested.

KeithAFC

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Ah now come off it! Establishing an organisation that is explicitly open to 60% of the population but not the remaining 40% of the population is as bigoted as they come. The OO won't even accept Protestants who are friends of Catholics! Don't attempt to use religion to defend the bigoted nature of the organisation, it undermines whatever intelligence you have.

lol. Are you serious?

The organisation is FOR PROTESTANTS. What don't you understand? Frankly, i don't care for the Orange Order all that much to be honest but the point is they are a religious organisation for Protestants.

And regarding them not liking members who have catholic friends, i remember them marching not long ago (some OO members) with the Ancient Order of Hibernian.