Martin McGuinness to be named as Sinn Féins candidate for the Presidential Election?

crucamim

vellocet wrote: »

He is on the wind up. Pulling our pissers. Acting the maggot. On a fishing trip. Whatever you want to call it.

If you believe that, there is an "Ignore" button. The truth shall set ye free.

crucamim

KeithAFC wrote: »

Dunphy once said Gerrard is a nothing player. Why anyone would listen to him bar the entertainment factor is beyond me.

Do you live in East Belfast? I live in Derry ... oops .. sorry Londonderry to you.

cardwizzard

KeithAFC wrote: »

Dunphy once said Gerrard is a nothing player. Why anyone would listen to him bar the entertainment factor is beyond me.

In football terms it was 3-0 to Dunphy on Newstalk.

KeithAFC

cardwizzard wrote: »

In football terms it was 3-0 to Dunphy on Newstalk.

Disagree having listened to it, I think Fintan is holding his own.

Sunnyisland

keith whats the graffiti say on the wall in your picture,just curious.

Nodin

realies wrote: »

keith whats the graffiti say on the wall in your picture,just curious.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25151328@N07/2678953539/

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

The point is not who or what he's upsetting, it's the obvious implication of what he's saying. It goes to show that he's lost none of the anti-British bigotry that led to decades of terrorism and murdered innocents up North.

Even if people liked the man for his accomplishments, public displays that he has failed to move on and still retains his bigotry will lose him any non-republican support that he would otherwise have from the admiring Irish middle class. He can't win it on the republican vote alone. He can't even make an impression with just the republican vote.

At the end of the day, using terms like "West Brit" makes it appear as though he's still just that same old revolutionary terrorist, but now paying lip service to politics because terrorism has failed and he's too old to keep fighting.

Hold on I get what your saying but anti-Brit bigotry didnt cause the troubles. More like bigotry in general.

crucamim

seamus wrote: »

It goes to show that he's lost none of the anti-British bigotry that led to decades of terrorism and murdered innocents up North.

It was not anti-British bigotry which led to decades of terrorism and murdered innocents. The first shots fired as the British soldiers were fired by Protestants on the Shankill Road in Belfast. The first policeman killed was Victor Arbuckle, shot dead that same night on the Shankill road. The first person killed in the troubles was Francis McCloskey, killed in Dungiven by the Protestant police. The first person shot dead was a Catholic, John Gallagher, killed in Armagh by the Protestant B Specials - none of whom were ever brought to trial. The first petrol bomb was thrown by Protestants at the Civil Rights marchers at Burntollet Bridge. The first bombings were by the Ulster Volunteer Force when they attacked the water lines from the Mourne Mountains into Belfast. The first cross border bombings were by the Protestants. They bombed the grave of Wolfe Tone at Bodestown and also the electricity station at Ballyshannon, Co Donegal.

KeithAFC

crucamim wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

It goes to show that he's lost none of the anti-British bigotry that led to decades of terrorism and murdered innocents up North.

It was not anti-British bigotry which led to decades of terrorism and murdered innocents. The first shots fired as the British soldiers were fired by Protestants on the Shankill Road in Belfast. The first policeman killed was Victor Arbuckle, shot dead that same night on the Shankill road. The first person killed in the troubles was Francis McCloskey, killed in Dungiven by the Protestant police. The first person shot dead was a Catholic, John Gallagher, killed in Armagh by the Protestant B Specials - none of whom were ever brought to trial. The first petrol bomb was thrown by Protestants at the Civil Rights marchers at Burntollet Bridge. The first bombings were by the Ulster Volunteer Force when they attacked the water lines from the Mourne Mountains into Belfast. The first cross border bombings were by the Protestants. They bombed the grave of Wolfe Tone at Bodestown and also the electricity station at Ballyshannon, Co Donegal.

You going to comment on the evil deeds of Rome and it's scandal it's played on this island and the world?

Martin Mcguiness has actually said he has got some support from Protestants on this presidential run.

crucamim

KeithAFC wrote: »

You going to comment on the evil deeds of Rome and it's scandal it's played on this island and the world?

Martin Mcguiness has actually said he has got some support from Protestants on this presidential run.

It was not Rome which ruined by life. It was Presbyterians.

I do not believe that Martin McGuiness has any Protestant supporters - except perhaps a few who want rid of him - even if that means putting him in the ivory tower called "Aras Something or Other".

walrusgumble

KeithAFC wrote: »

You going to comment on the evil deeds of Rome and it's scandal it's played on this island and the world?

Martin Mcguiness has actually said he has got some support from Protestants on this presidential run.

The clergy men of the Roman Catholic Church do not, contrary to some people's belief, have the sole exclusive rights to the sex scandals you know. Of Course, the media and politicians never want that to be known. While no where near the problems of Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland boys have some skeletons in their closet too. And as for the Free Pres, please, cope your self on. Even most Protestant churches would give the Free Presbyterian the time of day.

Sure wasn't it Craig who said, Protestant Ulster for Protestant People?, even Carson felt a tinge unease with this. (Look something like that funny enough was said by DM Moran during the Gaelic League days re Catholics, so pot kettle & black)

I do think that I would be entering silly season to start talking about how the Protestants treated the Catholics prior to the days of O'Connell. So lets not get into it because, I doubt that is what you are referring to.

The Catholic Church, whether you like it or not, have provided some positivist for the building of the State. But to blame the deeds of the Church entirely on Rome is pathetic. The people themselves, the people of faith have some moral blameworthiness in failing to have the courage to stand up to the Church on issues. It is the lay person via Legion of Marys etc that have been the vocal points. Because of years being unable to speak for themselves, they then turn to the church for guidance. Look at the Abortion Referendums as an example. Look at how even Divorce Referendum scrapped over the line. People knew damn well things were going on behind close doors back then. They choose not to believe it. If victims had gone forth years earlier they would nearly have been treated worse for bringing disgrace to the family and packaged off to Britain or elsewhere. By whom? their parents (not all of course).

But hey, Irish people don't like such matters being pointed to them


Being Irish, Northern Irish, British, has been and is always will be more than what religion one should be. Its just the idiots who try to make it out that way.

Liam Byrne

walrusgumble wrote: »

Being Irish, Northern Irish, British, has been and is always will be more than what religion one should be. Its just the idiots who try to make it out that way.

QFT

I remember watching news reports in the days of the worst violence and wondering why they explicitly mentioned someone's religion when saying that someone was murdered in Belfast - and I was only 10 or 12 at the time.

Aside from some objectionable extremists (and they can be on both "sides", even with rampant atheists) there is no relevance in what a person does or doesn't pray to, or where they do it.

KeithAFC

walrusgumble wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

You going to comment on the evil deeds of Rome and it's scandal it's played on this island and the world?

Martin Mcguiness has actually said he has got some support from Protestants on this presidential run.

The clergy men of the Roman Catholic Church do not, contrary to some people's belief, have the sole exclusive rights to the sex scandals you know. Of Course, the media and politicians never want that to be known. While no where near the problems of Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland boys have some skeletons in their closet too. And as for the Free Pres, please, cope your self on. Even most Protestant churches would give the Free Presbyterian the time of day.

Sure wasn't it Craig who said, Protestant Ulster for Protestant People?, even Carson felt a tinge unease with this. (Look something like that funny enough was said by DM Moran during the Gaelic League days re Catholics, so pot kettle & black)

I do think that I would be entering silly season to start talking about how the Protestants treated the Catholics prior to the days of O'Connell. So lets not get into it because, I doubt that is what you are referring to.

The Catholic Church, whether you like it or not, have provided some positivist for the building of the State. But to blame the deeds of the Church entirely on Rome is pathetic. The people themselves, the people of faith have some moral blameworthiness in failing to have the courage to stand up to the Church on issues. It is the lay person via Legion of Marys etc that have been the vocal points. Because of years being unable to speak for themselves, they then turn to the church for guidance. Look at the Abortion Referendums as an example. Look at how even Divorce Referendum scrapped over the line. People knew damn well things were going on behind close doors back then. They choose not to believe it. If victims had gone forth years earlier they would nearly have been treated worse for bringing disgrace to the family and packaged off to Britain or elsewhere. By whom? their parents (not all of course).

But hey, Irish people don't like such matters being pointed to them


Being Irish, Northern Irish, British, has been and is always will be more than what religion one should be. Its just the idiots who try to make it out that way.

I think you will find many people on here disagreeing with you on Rome and their power priests have had on this island. We hear stories coming out all the time of abuse of power with covering child abuse up, taking part in child abuse and adults being haunted by it to this day.

If this poster is posting about Protestants, he should look closer to home within the Catholic church which is hated by a lot of Irish people at the minute and probably beyond repair. Which should be a big worry for Rome.

crucamim

walrusgumble wrote: »

The clergy men of the Roman Catholic Church do not, contrary to some people's belief, have the sole exclusive rights to the sex scandals you know.

What makes you think that Keith or any other Ulster Prod needs to be told that? Do you actually believe that Keith does not know about the Kincora House scandal in Belfast? Or about Dr Lindsay Browne, the vice principal of Bangor Grammar School, a prestigious Protestant school?

Dr Browne advised his employers that he intended to plead guilty to many charges of sexually abusing students over a period of many years. Did they sack him for gross breach of the implied terms of his contract of employment? No, No, No. They offered him a redundancy package which he accepted. So very nice of him.

The redundancy package included a severance payment equal to 6 months salary. Plus his superannuation pension being made payable 6 years before normal retirement age. He was 54 years old and normal retirement age for a teacher's pension is 60. And to put the cap on it, when calculating his pension benefits, he was credited with 6 years additional service to bring it up to what it would have been if he had remained in his employment until aged 60.

The Protestants certainly know how to pamper sex abusers - especially when nearly all of the cost of the pampering is being borne by the taxpayer. If they had any decency in them, the Protestants would offer night classes for those who want to shield and pamper sex abusers. Some of the Catholic bishops would need to attend those night classes.

LordSutch

crucamim wrote: »

The Protestants certainly know how to pamper sex abusers - especially when nearly all of the cost of the pampering is being borne by the taxpayer. . . .

You still rabbiting on about Protestants :rolleyes:

I mentioned this way in post #449, and you're still at it . . . . .

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

I have already warned twice to get back on topic. This thread is not about religion. 24h ban for failing to listen to mod warning.
Anyone else starts on about it will get the same.

I realise the topic is linked to religion. But that is not what is up for discussion in this thread. This is a politics-elections forum. Not a place to rant about the history of everything that was wrong with religion.
Last warning or I'm locking this.

Pat D. Almighty

realies wrote: »

keith whats the graffiti say on the wall in your picture,just curious.

The graffiti on the wall it's says THEY'RE MAGIC THEY'RE MAGIC...

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hold on I get what your saying but anti-Brit bigotry didnt cause the troubles. More like bigotry in general.

crucamim wrote: »

It was not anti-British bigotry which led to decades of terrorism and murdered innocents.

Yes, apologies. On re-reading what I wrote, "led" is not what I intended. "aggravated" is probably closer to what I actually meant.

Surprise, surprise, like I requested previously in this thread and got no coherent responses, McGuinness himself has refused to clarify what a "West-Brit" is. He knows, like those that use it here on boards, that it's a derogatory term which directly implies an anti-British agenda on the part of the person who uses it.

caseyann

seamus wrote: »

Yes, apologies. On re-reading what I wrote, "led" is not what I intended. "aggravated" is probably closer to what I actually meant.

Surprise, surprise, like I requested previously in this thread and got no coherent responses, McGuinness himself has refused to clarify what a "West-Brit" is. He knows, like those that use it here on boards, that it's a derogatory term which directly implies an anti-British agenda on the part of the person who uses it.

West Brit is a sell out,holds no value on Irish history and is someone who supports the destruction of Irish culture language and freedom.Who would crawl up Lizzie butt as fast as they could.Like Irish government .usurpers!

Tiocfaidh Armani

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

The graffiti on the wall it's says THEY'RE MAGIC THEY'RE MAGIC...

And "uh ah..."

Alopex

He is second favorite to win on paddy power. If he does win it will be preceived as the Irish public oficially backing the Provisional IRA campaign, by Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Now that's not to say I would believe that, I wouldn't as I understand the dynamics of the Irish presidential election, but that is how it will be perceived by Ulster Scots, and also the rest of the world.

LordSutch

They mentioned another poll on the RTE Six One news, with 500 participents who voted Norris No1, Higgins No2, and McGuinness/Davis joint third.

There will be many polls between now and the real poll.

crucamim

seamus wrote: »

Yes, apologies. On re-reading what I wrote, "led" is not what I intended. "aggravated" is probably closer to what I actually meant.

Surprise, surprise, like I requested previously in this thread and got no coherent responses, McGuinness himself has refused to clarify what a "West-Brit" is. He knows, like those that use it here on boards, that it's a derogatory term which directly implies an anti-British agenda on the part of the person who uses it.

Anti-Brit bigotry certainly influenced the direction of much of the violence in Northern Ireland. Whether it aggravated the extent of the violence is another question for another thread on another day.

As for this term "West Brit". I do not know how Martin McGuinness means it but to me it means a native of Eire who is an enemy of the Catholic people of Northern Ireland. e.g. Most Eire journalists.

crucamim

Alopex wrote: »

If he does win it will be preceived as the Irish public oficially backing the Provisional IRA campaign, by Protestants in Northern Ireland.

What does it matter how THEY would see it?

steddyeddy

Alopex wrote: »

He is second favorite to win on paddy power. If he does win it will be preceived as the Irish public oficially backing the Provisional IRA campaign, by Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Now that's not to say I would believe that, I wouldn't as I understand the dynamics of the Irish presidential election, but that is how it will be perceived by Ulster Scots, and also the rest of the world.

To be honest ulster scots in the past saw the peaceful civil rights movements as Ira. So those that held or still hold that opinion are irrellevant in world politics. Also those who fail to condem the supramcest orange state at the time would hardly be in a position to criticise what or what not our state backs.

crucamim

steddyeddy wrote: »

Also those who fail to condem the supramcest orange state at the time would hardly be in a position to criticise what or what not our state backs.

People, who were so anxious for political power, they agreed to have Martin McGuiness as their Deputy First Minister, would hardly be in a position to complain if he manages to use that position to achieve higher things.

KeithAFC

Alopex wrote: »

He is second favorite to win on paddy power. If he does win it will be preceived as the Irish public oficially backing the Provisional IRA campaign, by Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Now that's not to say I would believe that, I wouldn't as I understand the dynamics of the Irish presidential election, but that is how it will be perceived by Ulster Scots, and also the rest of the world.

Probably. But then again, most Unionists accept the conflict is over and we are still in the Union. Martin Mcguinness has went down a different road now. Even Gregory Campbell has admitted that. It seems to me a lot of people in the Republic are to still come to terms with Martin Mcguinness and his past.

A Dub in Glasgo

Alopex wrote: »

but that is how it will be perceived by Ulster Scots, and also the rest of the world.

Ulster Scots? Jesus Christ, lets just invent a group to be offended!

Pompey Magnus

KeithAFC wrote: »

Probably. But then again, most Unionists accept the conflict is over and we are still in the Union. Martin Mcguinness has went down a different road now. Even Gregory Campbell has admitted that. It seems to me a lot of people in the Republic are to still come to terms with Martin Mcguinness and his past.

There are people in the South who make Ian Paisley look sensible and progressive. They will never be able to come to terms with SF, it is simply beyond their capabilities.

KeithAFC

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

There are people in the South who make Ian Paisley look sensible and progressive. They will never be able to come to terms with SF, it is simply beyond their capabilities.

Why not? This is what I would like some to explain.

Ulster Scots? Jesus Christ, lets just invent a group to be offended!

Yeah, the Ulster Scots people in Ulster. I think he was basically making the point a large amount of people from that background will probably think that. But I would say not all.

caseyann

Alopex wrote: »

He is second favorite to win on paddy power. If he does win it will be preceived as the Irish public oficially backing the Provisional IRA campaign, by Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Now that's not to say I would believe that, I wouldn't as I understand the dynamics of the Irish presidential election, but that is how it will be perceived by Ulster Scots, and also the rest of the world.

It will be will it? Then should it be perceived that those who are still wanting to be under British rule in the north and vote for loyalists etc.. are backing the murder and oppression of Irish?
But yet he is voted as deputy minister and yet if Irish vote him Irish president they will be somehow be feeling Irish people are backing Provos?
And the rest of the world.
See that shatter one(Alan Shatter said he would not agree with a former IRA commander being head of the Irish defence forces.)
Disgraceful he brought that in speaking in Brussels.They have no say in our presidency and neither does any other country in world.And majority of countries agree with British rule out of Ireland.So i dont know why you are making like they give a **** if he is president or not.
And he should be suspended for making those comments.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sf-shatter-comments-on-mcguinness-completely-wrong-521793.html#ixzz1YoN7W9qr

Sounds like he is ****ting with Irish forces under his power will go to war with England lmao