N.I catholics gains massively on the protestant population

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I meant was, that we are not at loggerheads, business happens everyday, interaction etc etc. Junder would like the perception to go out that the evryday is hindered by bigotry and protest...it's not in most areas.

No.

They where minor in the context of what we have seen in the past here. Disorganised, wholly ineffective without the weight of 'official' party participation and largely over, in terms of having any effect. They have peetered out quicker than Ulster Says No campaign and Garvaghy Road.(both of which also failed to achieve any gain and only detracted from the Unionist image)

Are you saying that the involvement of the leaders of official Unionism didn't lead to the ending of the violent protest??

Junder would like? There in that statement is exactly the point I am making, a groundless, negative preconception of what I apparently want. although its unsurprizing that's its the very person who said he takes pleasure from the recent discomfort of the unionist community over the flag issue is the one who can't see how unhelpful his attitude is toward his own gaol of a united ireland Actully is

djpbarry

Happyman42 wrote: »

No.

Let me put it like this. My issue with the whole "United Ireland" issue is the fact that Republicans consistently refer to it as being in existence at some (unspecified) time in the future. It's apparently already a reality - we just haven't reached it yet in the timeline. It's a matter of fact and anyone who suggests that maybe we're on a different timeline is dismissed as a "partionist".

By refusing to consider other possibilities, the Republicans in question are no different to the "belligerent, suprematist, nay saying Unionist" you referred to above.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where minor in the context of what we have seen in the past here.

The event that triggered them was ridiculously minor. In fact, it couldn't even be described as an event. Yet they triggered riots that would have been considered a major event in any other British or Irish city.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying that the involvement of the leaders of official Unionism didn't lead to the ending of the violent protest??

I'm saying it would appear there are elements within unionist parties who sympathise with the protestors.

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

So when I referred to the "brutality of Loyalist thugs" you somehow took this as a slur on an entire community?

...

The protests were of note more for what the said about the Unionist movement than anything else

Whoops.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

Whoops.

Explain

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Junder would like? There in that statement is exactly the point I am making, a groundless, negative preconception of what I apparently want. although its unsurprizing that's its the very person who said he takes pleasure from the recent discomfort of the unionist community over the flag issue is the one who can't see how unhelpful his attitude is toward his own gaol of a united ireland Actully is

Yes I did take a certain pleasure, in the sense that I can see how it isolates the bigots and I expressed that pleasure to Unionist friends. One of them made the point that the more of this kind of reaction the extremeists engaged in, the more defined positions within Unionism would become.
That's a good thing, the moderates must stand up and be counted and show that they have no truck whatsoever with this kind of behaviour. And they are, Peter Robinson's behaviour, while not wholly concilatory is a long way away from his behaviour before the signing of the GFA.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I did take a certain pleasure, in the sense that I can see how it isolates the bigots and I expressed that pleasure to Unionist friends. One of them made the point that the more of this kind of reaction the extremeists engaged in, the more defined positions within Unionism would become.
That's a good thing, the moderates must stand up and be counted and show that they have no truck whatsoever with this kind of behaviour. And they are, Peter Robinson's behaviour, while not wholly concilatory is a long way away from his behaviour before the signing of the GFA.

Ah the 'my best friend is / i am married to / i went out with' argument' the people I know at the protests are not extremists or bigots or knuckle dragging thugs, they are just people, remember that word, people

maccored

junder wrote: »

I know at the protests ....

Do me a favour and tell me what are they protesting about anyway? Its not about a flag, and if its about where they find themselves socially and politically, then they should correct that by voting a bit more astutely.

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

I am not sectarian,

How many Catholics, Muslims, Hindus etc are in the Loyalist marching bands Junder? How many non-Protestants would be at a 'Loyalist' protest?

racist,

Would you agree that the Loyalism is very much mono-racial? White Protestants (or of Protestant heritage) would make up, what, 100% of loyalists?

homophobic

Would a Loyalist gay pride band be allowed to participate in a Loyalist march?

or sexist

In fairness Unionism, Loyalism and Orangeism isn't noted for its commitment to gender equality.

Now you may not harbour all the negative attitudes you claim but that does not mean that the culture you identify with are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I'd imagine as far as attitudes go you're an outlier Loyalist.

thecommietommy

djpbarry wrote: »

If someone attacked your car, your home, your place of work and then sent you a death threat, would you be referring to it as "just hot air"?

Compared to unionists mouthing of " civil war " and having a " bloodbath from Belfast to Cork " if they didn't get their way, yes it is the usual unionist hot air

thecommietommy

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

23% of Sinn Fein voters voting to stay in the union!

What interests me about the poll is flag issue, 35%support 365 days a year, 44%support 18 days a year, 10% said never to fly it. Meaning we have a majority of people who support 18 days or less. I hope the loyalist knuckledraggers can understand that now.

SF got votes of 171,942 in the last Westminster elections, and what is being propagated by deluded unionists and by the BBC is that 23% (39,500) are unionist. A laughable suggestion

Thomas_I

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How many Catholics, Muslims, Hindus etc are in the Loyalist marching bands Junder? How many non-Protestants would be at a 'Loyalist' protest?

Would you agree that the Loyalism is very much mono-racial? White Protestants (or of Protestant heritage) would make up, what, 100% of loyalists?

Would a Loyalist gay pride band be allowed to participate in a Loyalist march?

In fairness Unionism, Loyalism and Orangeism isn't noted for its commitment to gender equality.

...

The very same questions can be turned to SF and I´m not aware that they´re as progressive as if they would be embracing multiculturalism and equality towards other nationalities. But wait, there is some exception they support the Palestinians and others:

http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/pins-badges/

The only party with political roots into the decades of the troubles and which is living these principles of multiculturalism and equality seems to be the Alliance Party in NI.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Ah the 'my best friend is / i am married to / i went out with' argument' the people I know at the protests are not extremists or bigots or knuckle dragging thugs, they are just people, remember that word, people

Are you feeling a bit sorry for yourself Junder?
Protest away by all means, I was referring to those who engaged in violence at the 'protests'.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

... I was referring to those who engaged in violence at the 'protests'.

This doesn´t comes always clear as you say in most of your posts. There is indeed more generalisation and one would had to bear in mind that you´re "always referring to those enganged in violence at the protests" to acknowledge that.

thecommietommy

junder wrote: »

Ah the 'my best friend is / i am married to / i went out with' argument' the people I know at the protests are not extremists or bigots or knuckle dragging thugs, they are just people, remember that word, people

We all know just how ' peaceful ' these so called protests are and the calibre of those on them.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

This doesn´t comes always clear as you say in most of your posts. There is indeed more generalisation and one would had to bear in mind that you´re "always referring to those enganged in violence at the protests" to acknowledge that.

You are being played Thomas, this is the fallback position of some of the Unionists on here, play the siege mentality card when you run out of ideas.
I have more than once referred to and made the distinction between 'belligerent Unionism' and 'reasonable Unionism'. Somebody needs to quit the boo hooing and get on with it.

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How many Catholics, Muslims, Hindus etc are in the Loyalist marching bands Junder? How many non-Protestants would be at a 'Loyalist' protest?



Would you agree that the Loyalism is very pmuch mono-racial? White Protestants (or of Protestant heritage) would make up, what, 100% of loyalists?



Would a Loyalist gay pride band be allowed to participate in a Loyalist march?



In fairness Unionism, Loyalism and Orangeism isn't noted for its commitment to gender equality.

Now you may not harbour all the negative attitudes you claim but that does not mean that the culture you identify with are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I'd imagine as far as attitudes go you're an outlier Loyalist.

Have no idea since I'm not privy to those figures. I do know that there are Catholics in some flute bands because I have met a couple, I also know that there are different ethinc minority's in bands especially in Liverpool but what has that got to do with me,again your making the usual republican mistake of failing to see loyalists as individuals, you judge me by me, not what other people in my community may be or may have done

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are being played Thomas, this is the fallback position of some of the Unionists on here, play the siege mentality card when you run out of ideas.
I have more than once referred to and made the distinction between 'belligerent Unionism' and 'reasonable Unionism'. Somebody needs to quit the boo hooing and get on with it.

I´ve noticed that more often than you assume I did. Another point is, what about the "belligerent Republicanism"? No reference to that in your posts. I mean it on a general level. If you like, have a look on that SF website via the link I´ve posted in a previous post on this very page.

So what impression will leave all the stuff they´ve on offer there to someone not knowing very much about SF anyway. All that stuff related to the IRA, PLO, POUM and even Ché has been included into that range of different stuff they sell, apart from the Irish things.

There is as well much work to do for SF to work on its own history and in particular in regards to her "relationship" with the IRA as it is on the Unionists / Loyalists side to face their own history as well. Some progress can be noticed, but this isn´t the end of the road yet.

Well, the way junder is acting or responding in conversations with you is not of my concern. To play the "siege-mentality-card" is one thing, to see that he gets most of the "Unionist bashings" on here is another and honestly, sometimes it appears unfair to him, imo.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are being played Thomas, this is the fallback position of some of the Unionists on here, play the siege mentality card when you run out of ideas.
I have more than once referred to and made the distinction between 'belligerent Unionism' and 'reasonable Unionism'. Somebody needs to quit the boo hooing and get on with it.

And your being disingenuous, I'm sure Thomas is intelligent enough to formulate his own opinions

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you feeling a bit sorry for yourself Junder?
Protest away by all means, I was referring to those who engaged in violence at the 'protests'.

Not at all, I'm feeling quite empowered as it happens.

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

And your being disingenuous, I'm sure Thomas is intelligent enough to formulate his own opinions

Aside from some moderators posting their opinions in disagreement towards the idea of a UI, those who get most of the "Unionist bashings" on here are you and gallag. I don´t see any reason for that you both would deserve such treatment in any way, for from my experiences in exchanges some posts with both of you, you´re more reasonable and rational in many ways than others like make me to believe.

I appreciate your expression of your individuality in another recent post and you´re quite right when you say that you want to be judged by yourself and not by your community in a generalised way. I support you in this stance, because I think so too.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´ve noticed that more often than you assume I did. Another point is, what about the "belligerent Republicanism"? No reference to that in your posts. I mean it on a general level. If you like, have a look on that SF website via the link I´ve posted in a previous post on this very page.

So what impression will leave all the stuff they´ve on offer there to someone not knowing very much about SF anyway. All that stuff related to the IRA, PLO, POUM and even Ché has been included into that range of different stuff they sell, apart from the Irish things.

There is as well much work to do for SF to work on its own history and in particular in regards to her "relationship" with the IRA as it is on the Unionists / Loyalists side to face their own history as well. Some progress can be noticed, but this isn´t the end of the road yet.

Well, the way junder is acting or responding in conversations with you is not of my concern. To play the "siege-mentality-card" is one thing, to see that he gets most of the "Unionist bashings" on here is another and honestly, sometimes it appears unfair to him, imo.

Have a look at just my last few posts before you took exception, I actually referred to 'belligerent' Unionism's republican counterparts.

As I say, you are being played by somebody who engages in this siege nonsense when he runs out of useful contributions.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have a look at just my last few posts before you took exception, I actually referred to 'belligerent' Unionism's republican counterparts.

As I say, you are being played by somebody who engages in this siege nonsense when he runs out of useful contributions.

Well, I might check these posts of yours tomorrow regarding the "belligerent Unionism´s republican counterparts". Just to say this, in these times where every "freak" can claim he´s the "IRA" you´ve some difficulties to tell them from the other Republicans. These problems are also SF´s problems because they´re giving republicanism a bad name. So it´s on the other side, but I can´t accept that this has anything personally to do with junder himself. I doubt that you´ve some real proof for even such an assumption.

As for junder, to whom you apparently are referring to in your second paragraph, I´m not ashamed to say that I´ve some empathy for him because he´s been treated unfair and you know that as well. It´s not the point of "running out of useful contributions", it´s more about "unfair treatment" on him. That´s the perception I have.

Brian Shanahan

StudentDad wrote: »

What does a typical resident of NI see when he looks over the border? A country bedevilled by corruption. A country that in alot of ways tries to exist as an economic and cultural bubble. Politicians who behave like spoiled children, pizza anyone?

On the other hand, when they look at their own country, they see the exact same things.

I don't get it with many people in this country holding up UK politicians as some breed of paragons of virtue. The antics of Condom-Man and his sidekicks "Too Jewish a name for a future PM" Osborne and Cleggster Cleggmeister, and previous to them the awesome duo of TB and the Big Clunking Fist put paid to that notion, not to mention expenses gate, selling off national assets to friends, the revolving door into industry directorships after being voted out &c which are endemic to Westminster (to an extent you will never see over here by the way).

Just because Ireland is a basket case is not a valid argument for staying in the UK, because, frankly, at the moment we are following in its shadow in terms of lunacy.

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

you judge me by me, not what other people in my community may be or may have done

Wait a sec.

I have no problem judging you by your own behaviour and attitudes as you've expressed them here on these boards, you seem like a reasonable enough person to me, but it is you keeps saying 'I'm not sectarian, racist, homophobic, sexist' and follow it with 'loyalism is being pilloried by you lot'.

So you're effectively asking me to stop calling out loyalism for its failures because you are a reasonable loyalist.

I do not believe that you are in any way representative of mainstream loyalism. On the one hand I could imagine sitting down debating these matters with you over a pint but on the other I would be at serious risk of being battered to death if I was stupid enough to do it in a loyalist bar.

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

Have no idea since I'm not privy to those figures. I do know that there are Catholics in some flute bands because I have met a couple, I also know that there are different ethinc minority's in bands especially in Liverpool but what has that got to do with me,again your making the usual republican mistake

---

of failing to see loyalists and individuals, you judge me by me, not what other people in my community may be or may have done

The irony is strong in this one

Galwayguy35

There was an interesting debate on the subject of a referendum for a UI on Spotlight this week.

From the texts appearing on screen during the programme it's hard to know how Nationalists feel about it, some wanted to unify the country but others were content to leave things as they were.

One guy from Manchester texted to say that there should be a vote to see if the British want to keep the o6.

I'd imagine most of the Brits would vote to give it back.

COYW

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

We never agreed that we were voting for permanent partition in 1998 OscarBravo, speaking as someone who voted yes.

Also I believe from anecdotal evidence e.g. popularity of GAA in North, that a lot of partitionist Northern Catholics nonetheless define "Ireland" as their country just as pre-1989 partitionist Germans would have done.

Also, what has GAA membership got to do with it? I know countless people in London who send their sons and daughters to Irish dancing classes, feiseanna and that sort of thing and they would not consider themselves Irish in any shape or form. My cousin just moved over here from South London and she is big into her sports. Millwall fan through and through. She cannot wait for the championship to start up, so she can go to the games and see what it is all about. She will be at the rugby on Sunday and will sing GSTQ load and proud, cheering on England not Ireland.

junder wrote: »

What's to negotiate. A clear majorty of the population of northern Ireland are in favour of maintaining the union, seems the matter is already resolved. I want an Aston Martin db7 it's possible but highly unlikely that I will ever own one, either way I see no point in trying to negotiate a price right now, when I have the money then I will negotiate for the car

Judging by the posts in the thread Junder, it is clear that the wishes of the majority in NI counts for nothing. Hardcore republicans want a UI and don't care how economically senseless it is or what percentage of the population in NI don't want it. So much for the equal modern society they bleat on about!

COYW

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

One guy from Manchester texted to say that there should be a vote to see if the British want to keep the o6.

I'd imagine most of the Brits would vote to give it back.

Give NI back to whom?

Reekwind

COYW wrote: »

Judging by the posts in the thread Junder, it is clear that the wishes of the majority in NI counts for nothing

Fifty years ago the clear majority in NI favoured a Protestant state for a Protestant people

ardmacha

I know countless people in London who send their sons and daughters to Irish dancing classes, feiseanna and that sort of thing and they would not consider themselves Irish in any shape or form. My cousin just moved over here from South London and she is big into her sports. Millwall fan through and through. She cannot wait for the championship to start up, so she can go to the games and see what it is all about. She will be at the rugby on Sunday and will sing GSTQ load and proud, cheering on England not Ireland.

Cheering on England, eh. That would probably be because she is English. What that has to do with the issue, I'm not sure.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Well, I might check these posts of yours tomorrow regarding the "belligerent Unionism´s republican counterparts".

Do you not believe me?;)

COYW wrote: »

Judging by the posts in the thread Junder, it is clear that the wishes of the majority in NI counts for nothing. Hardcore republicans want a UI and don't care how economically senseless it is or what percentage of the population in NI don't want it. So much for the equal modern society they bleat on about!

NI is currently economically senseless and we don't know what percentages are, we do know the results of an opinion poll of 1000 people however, ahead of a vigourous debate amongst all the stakeholders, Unionists, Republicans, the disinterested, British and Irish governments etc.

Lelantos

COYW wrote: »

Give NI back to whom?

Mordor.

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

Mordor.

Is he a prod or a taig?

firemansam4

The Economic situation in the republic will not last forever and in many years too come may well be very different.
It will probably not be likely that there will be any yes vote for a united Ireland in the near future, but who knows how things may be in the next 10 - 20 years time, and one thing that is apparent is that the nationalist vote will be considerable higher at that stage and may hold a significant majority.

And even if a high number of Catholics would not vote for a UI now, they probably would vote on such decisions like to limit the amount of days the union flag flies, and going by the reactions we have seen to that from sections of the loyalist community, you can more or less guarantee that tensions are going to be high for many years to come yet, and peoples opinions may be swayed if things get worse again in the north.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you not believe me?;)
...

It´s less a question of believe than more of remembering what one has written in a whole thread.

So I´ve tracked back some three to four pages or your post (following these on your account) to check them. I´ve found more posts with some general expressions towards the Unionists and some remarks on the "New Ireland" you´re advocating. Some condemnation of violence in your post is fairly general and it´s left to the reader to take it that way that you´re including the militaristic republicans in this sense.

Let´s leave it as it is and everbody who knows you on here, is aware that you´re clearly on the nationalists side. I for myself have my own side and that is something inbetween what nationalists and unionists demand for themselves. That´s the problem I´ve to cope for myself in various ways.

Plainly spoken, I utterly distrust SF (Martin McGuinness is the exception) and I also say so about the DUP (I do not know any politician from that party I would trust). They both represent each side of the extremists eventhough they appear at the present more civilized then in the past. In a recent post, Crooked Jack made a good point about the SDLP and in respond to that I admitted that I find myself almost at the same place like the SDLP. I´ve probably more in common with them than with any other political creed, for I´m a Social Democrat and that´s why I can´t take either the stance of the nationalists nor of the unionists alone for my political thinking.

I can find positives and negatives on both sides, but the better and therefore the more real practical way is in the middle, which means compromise in which both sides are winning but also have to let go outdated attitudes without giving too much away from themselves. That´s the point where it starts to get tricky.

You´ve often expressed some thoughts about a "New and united Ireland". As many posts on that matter from yourself and others, these thoughts are just in general terms, nothing in particular.

I wouldn´t rely just on the views and aims of political parties and wait for them to come up with proposals and then let the people debate these. What about discussing these things without partisan blinkers and following the thoughts of each individual and express how they would like to have that shape of a New Ireland. Some initiative from the people is what can give more inspirations and it could be a more free debate on the matter then by following partisan agendas.

What do you think of that?

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

What do you think of that?

Think of what? That you are confused by it all? Just say what you mean, don't attack the poster, you'll be fine. If Junder or anybody else, is going to get upset because he reads something he doesn't like then maybe this isn't the place for him, that's his own decision. Meanwhile I will carry on expressing my thoughts as honestly as I can without fear or favour.

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

Explain

You claimed you were not casting slurs on an entire community. You then went right ahead and cast a slur on an entire community.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Think of what? That you are confused by it all? Just say what you mean, don't attack the poster, you'll be fine. If Junder or anybody else, is going to get upset because he reads something he doesn't like then maybe this isn't the place for him, that's his own decision. Meanwhile I will carry on expressing my thoughts as honestly as I can without fear or favour.

1. I´m not confused by it at all, but I´ve my own ideas about what a New United Ireland could look like and what could be improved by the shape of the RoI (that would be the outset for some reformative approach).

2. You´re of course entitled to express your thoughts and I´d appreciate it to learn something more in particular of your ideas about what a New United Ireland could look like.

So I´d suggest that one of us might start to express his thoughts in that, if you´d agree on this.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

1. I´m not confused by it at all

Yes you are, you support the SDLP.

You say what you mean, I'll say what I mean, some will resort to the 'woe is me' stance when they have nothing more to say or retreat into the siege mentality, that's their problem.
Please don't don't try and filter or censor what I or others have to say......that is all.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

You claimed you were not casting slurs on an entire community. You then went right ahead and cast a slur on an entire community.

In what way does the "Unionist movement" comprise "an entire community"? If I referred to "the Republican movement" would you assume that I was talking about all Nationalists or Catholics?

I suppose that I could have been clearer in referring to the 'political movement' but I thought that that was fairly obvious

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes you are, you support the SDLP.

You say what you mean, I'll say what I mean, some will resort to the 'woe is me' stance when they have nothing more to say or retreat into the siege mentality, that's their problem.
Please don't don't try and filter or censor what I or others have to say......that is all.

I´m neither trying to filter or censor what anybody says here. I´m just making up my mind by what people are saying, so much for this.

I´ve never said that I support the SDLP, I´ve just stated that I´ve more in common with them than any other parties. So who is filtering or censoring what I say now?:D

I support no party anymore in general, but I estimate some good politicians in particular, even by acknowledging that Mr McGuinness is a member of SF. It doesn´t means a contradiction to me, because I believe in his abilities and that he´s concerned about the people in general, not only his supporters, but his country (NI and RoI put together). In this view of mine, it doesn´t mean a great deal what people are arguing about his past in the PIRA, it´s his past and that´s it. NI needs progressive and openminded politicians like him to keep the peace process going. I also appreciate his ability to criticize the lack of initiative on the Unionists to stop the violence during the protests, because he was right in what he said.

Well, even if this might be in vain and for some people nothing more than "hot air", I´m going to draw a routh picture of my own ideas about an New United Ireland.

1. It would be a state in which all people have their room, freedom and chances to live their own way of live, as long as they´re not breaching the law. Mutial respect and tolerance for different ways of life, freedom for the maintenance of clutural customs according to their traditions are guaranteed. This applies for nationalists and unionists as well. In addition to the latter, they´d be entitled to keep their British citizenship only or keep both, British and Irish. Just as they like it with all full citizen rights that any single Irish citizen has.

2. The people as the electorate would have more say in referendums on nationwide concerns and some power shifting from the central government to local or if appropriate regional council would be made, to let the local people decide on their own matters in issues which are not important for the whole of the state. Powershifting from the political parties as mandatories from the electorate would be essential to give the electorate some of its power back and bind the political parties to fulfill the expressed will of the people (made up in referendums or in pettitions) in the first place and if necessary adopt it to their agenda (that would be left to the parties themselves). Tightening anti-corruption laws especially for political parties and mandatories.

3. An overhaul of the current constitution of the RoI would be made where necessary to adjust the constitution to the demands of that new state, but rather reform them then to abolish it and replace it by a complete new outset. Social demands must be included, but no "State Socialism" be installed. That constitution would need the approvement of the electorate by vote.

4. Regional councils, in its shape like the NI Assembly but without legislation could be installed in the four provinces if demanded by the people. Their main business would be to deal with regional matters and maintain their affairs and in particular economical interests to gain more prosperity.

That´s some of the main points I´ve from my ideas. That´s of course plain theory and above all these thoughts, what would be decisive is what the majority of the people want and what is practical feasable. But by any means, in this new state there would be no room for oppression, discrimination gerrymandering or any other sort of poltical radicalism. Organizations that threatens the democracy of that state would be dealt with like any other sort of public offenders by the law and if necessary for the security of the state and the peace of the society, they would be banned and by breach of the law prosecuted. Not so new all that, isn´t it?
That´s the way the current Republic of Ireland works and I regard this Republic as a state with a stable democratic basis. And it is stable enough to tolerat organizations like the RSF and some other radical splinter groups parading on certain occations and threatening Irish people joining the British Army by "being a legitimate target for the IRA", like recently in Limerick by public speech. Well, the Gardaí is already investigating that incident.

I understand that republicanism aims a "Socialist Republic". That´s not quite the same as the current Republic of Ireland. That´s different and I doubt that there will be a majority by the people for such an republic, neither by most of the people within the Republic of Ireland, nor by the Unionists in NI which one has to take along into that new and then United Ireland because otherwise it´s not going to work on peaceful and prosperous basis.

Well I would not prefer the establishment of an "Socialist Republic" because it doesn´t mean a "Social Republic".

You´re of course entitled to dismiss all that as drivel if you like. It would be interesting what you´d have on ideas in contrast to mine.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Think of what? That you are confused by it all? Just say what you mean, don't attack the poster, you'll be fine. If Junder or anybody else, is going to get upset because he reads something he doesn't like then maybe this isn't the place for him, that's his own decision. Meanwhile I will carry on expressing my thoughts as honestly as I can without fear or favour.

Getting a but defensive there arnt we, it's seems you are the one who has nothing more to say since your attacking anybody who disagrees with you. Thomas while believing in a middlie way, it's fairly obvious that he would lean more to nationalist side and yet because he disagrees with you he retreat into mockery. As for me, I have already pointed out that I'm not upset, Infact I am more then happy for you to undermine your own argument by attacking my community, it works in my favour, not yours as all I have to do is direct fellow unionists to your posts as an example of what some republicans really think of us, so please insult away

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

Getting a but defensive there arnt we, it's seems you are the one who has nothing more to say since your attacking anybody who disagrees with you. Thomas while believing in a middlie way, it's fairly obvious that he would lean more to nationalist side and yet because he disagrees with you he retreat into mockery. As for me, I have already pointed out that I'm not upset, Infact I am more then happy for you to undermine your own argument by attacking my community, it works in my favour, not yours as all I have to do is direct fellow unionists to your posts as an example of what some republicans really think of us, so please insult away

This might appear so in some ways, infact I´m clearly for the middle way and to me what is on top of the agenda is not that the nationlist or unionist side prevails, it´s the well being of all people without preference towards nationalists or unionists. It hasn´t took me long to realise that for the sake of peace which is most important to achieve anything in positive, one has to take the unionists with into the future. Otherwise a United Ireland, should it ever get the chance to become reality, can´t work without real and honest equality for all its people. The "Republican dream of an United Ireland" isn´t my dream, for I´m more realistic and in some ways liberal minded to reject the principles of republicanism by SF. My distrust towards SF comes from my considerations of their political creed which is (if not alterated in day to day politics) outdated as well as some passages in that discussion paper of the PUP. I´d never support nor would I sign up to any demands with the aim to drive the Unionists out of NI. Such aims are not acceptable. A party that supported the PLO (and assumably still supports the Palestinians) remains suspect to me, as to see by the merchandise SF has on offer on their internet shop (what else reason than this brings them to sell it anyway?).

I´ve often read and occationally also said it myself, that it is on the Unionists to move on, but that´s just the half of the truth, it applies as well for some Republicans to move one, because the times of the Easter Rising are gone. It´s the similar thing they maintain for themselves but demand to be given up by the unionists, and from what I´ve seen they´re more linked to commemorate the death than the Irish culture alone when on parade. That´s a contrast to the Orangemen marching on their days.

The only decent commemoration of the Easter Rising imo is held by the officials of the RoI in Dublin. It has the simple spirit to commemorate those who gave their lives for a free Ireland and no demonstration of some radical Republicans. It is more comparable with the ceremony each year in London on Remembrance (Armistice) Day.

I´ve been also wondering about what his unionist friends might think of his friendship when they´d read what he writes on here. Well, that´s not of my concern. In general I´ve always thought that real friendship demands some level of an honest and tolerant mindset, otherwise it´s just false.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Getting a but defensive there arnt we, it's seems you are the one who has nothing more to say since your attacking anybody who disagrees with you. Thomas while believing in a middlie way, it's fairly obvious that he would lean more to nationalist side and yet because he disagrees with you he retreat into mockery.

Mockery? Where was that? I objected to him asking me to tone it down or go easy on you.

As for me, I have already pointed out that I'm not upset, Infact I am more then happy for you to undermine your own argument by attacking my community, it works in my favour, not yours as all I have to do is direct fellow unionists to your posts as an example of what some republicans really think of us, so please insult away

You keep going on about people 'insulting your community'. I have yet to see that from any of the consistent posters on here. What I see is people insulting the footdraggers and rioters who happen to be part of that community.
I don't have any problems with reasonable and democratic Unionism, in fact, I think, it is and can be, a fascinating dialogue and like it or not, part of who we are as Irish.

gallag

Its bad when you go to the after hours section of this forum to get away from bickering. Same old ****, different thread.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

Its bad when you go to the after hours section of this forum to get away from bickering. Same old ****, different thread.

That might be right so, but I´ve had some very good laughs reading through some threads in the after hours section.:D

Curious people there and some funny posts, really. :pac:

How are you?

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Mockery? Where was that? I objected to him asking me to tone it down or go easy on you.


You keep going on about people 'insulting your community'. I have yet to see that from any of the consistent posters on here. What I see is people insulting the footdraggers and rioters who happen to be part of that community.
I don't have any problems with reasonable and democratic Unionism, in fact, I think, it is and can be, a fascinating dialogue and like it or not, part of who we are as Irish.

Those 'foot draggers' seem to be all unionist with the exception of the alliance party.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Interesting. Which political party do these Unionists vote for?

Doesn't matter we're talking about how they'd vote in a referendum.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Doesn't matter we're talking about how they'd vote in a referendum.

Well, your side of the debate are saying SF/SDLP voters want the status quo to remain so please indicate which party those Unionists are voting for.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Well, your side of the debate are saying SF/SDLP voters want the status quo to remain so please indicate which party those Unionists are voting for.

No the nationalist parties want unification no doubt but apparently the people voting for them don't.