Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

_blaaz

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm not being abusive,I understand Britain's past actions in Ireland were horrendous but if this is constantly brought up even over something as relatively innocuous as a disagreement about a piece of rock in the sea it loses impact-i imagine ancestors of people from Iceland and Denmark attacked Ireland centuries ago-have you anything against them?

Mate yous called me patehic....idk what friends you have...but generally that would be regarded as abusive



Did ancestors from.iceland and denmark commit genocide here as recently to have people hear 2nd hand stories of it....or have swades of posters cheer them on,inspite of it

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

There is only 1 side (history is factual mate)

So said Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali too. I suppose when you learn your history from an Phoblocht what do you expect.

RobMc59

_blaaz wrote: »

Mate yous called me patehic....idk what friends you have...but generally that would be regarded as abusive



Did ancestors from.iceland and denmark commit genocide here as recently to have people hear 2nd hand stories of it....or have swades of posters cheer them on,inspite of it

If you constantly trundle out the same rhetoric every time there is a minor incident it looses impact-perhaps the British should take the same tack with the French instead of getting on with it-after all they invaded in 1066 and subjugated Britian and Ireland.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

So said Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali too. I suppose when you learn your history from an Phoblocht what do you expect.

Mate....history stands on facts....your mistaking history for proparganda....much like how you mistake government debt and think price of spuds add to it (it deosnt btw)



Deos an poblacht still exist even??

_blaaz

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you constantly trundle out the same rhetoric every time there is a minor incident it looses impact-perhaps the British should take the same tack with the French instead of getting on with it-after all they invaded in 1066 and subjugated Britian and Ireland.

Britain is named after brittany tbf.(perhaps if they have issue with it,they should rename their island??)....tbh i dont particularly care about britain anyway....only ireland



You think we should just get on with it....this weekend will see more british hate parades in the north....perhap the british shouldnt complain about us remembering history while they hold annual parades to remember it?

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Mate....history stands on facts....your mistaking history for proparganda....much like how ypu mistake government debt and think price of spuds add to it

As said to you before I am not your mate. History stands on facts but you look at it from a particular point of view, not surprising as you were subjected to the Republican slanted version.

If we did not import the 72,000 tonnes of spuds a year we do (mostly from Britain), do you really think it would have much effect on the 7 billion euro a year interest our government pays on the national debt? You are very confused.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

As said to you before I am not your mate. History stands on facts but you look at it from a particular point of view, not surprising as you were subjected to the Republican slanted version.

Theres no slanted version....it stands on facts...how you think facts can have a slant is beyond me mate

If we did not import the 72,000 tonnes of spuds a year we do (mostly from Britain), do you really think it would have much effect on the 7 billion euro a year interest our government pays on the national debt? You are very confused.

Why you still think spudz affect our national debt is beyond me....heres a hint....the government.deosnt import spudz


How yous call me confused while peddeling falsehoods that the government imports spuds and this adds to national debt (and now trebled down on this) is brilliant.....your my fav poster btw

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Theres no slanted version....it stands on facts...how you think facts can have a slant is beyond me mate


Why you still think spudz affect our national debt is beyond me....heres a hint....the government.deosnt import spudz


How yous call me confused while peddeling falsehoods that the government imports spuds and this adds to national debt (and now trebled down on this) is brilliant.....your my fav poster btw

Lol If you read back, you will see I never claimed the government here imported spuds. Read carefully and try harder.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Theres no slanted version....it stands on facts...how you think facts can have a slant is beyond me mate

I am not your mate. And Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali also claimed to speak the truth. I feel sorry for you.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Lol If you read back, you will see I never claimed the government here imported spuds. Read carefully and try harder.

Hmm except you think importing spuds adds to our national debt

And other shocking news, it is costing us money to import even the humble spud.
Quote: " External Debt in Ireland increased to 2331985 EUR Million in the fourth quarter of 2018 from 2293949 EUR Million in the third quarter of 2018.

Lolz.....these are your own words kid




Why you keep trying to convince people youve not said it...is beyond me?



Much like.more lies the british tell here....even during week stories emerged of fake stories circulated during war of independance by the british.......you do like to emulate your heroes in the lying stakes anyway it seems

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

I am not your mate. And Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali also claimed to speak the truth. I feel sorry for you.

These are progandists.....your mistaking history for propaganda (again!)


Much like how you mistaking think the government imports spuds and this adds to national debt......


Dont feel sorry for.me....im not one who keeps doubling down on brutal mistakes

janfebmar

If you quote properly, you will see nowhere did I claim the government here was importing spuds. I was replying to Francies points about trade within the EU etc. Showing how well it is doing.
And in other news, interest on the national debt is 7,000,000,000.00 per year. No wonder we have to pay so much VRT on the 100,000 or so second hand cars a year we import from the UK.

RobMc59

_blaaz wrote: »

Mate yous called me patehic....idk what friends you have...but generally that would be regarded as abusive



Did ancestors from.iceland and denmark commit genocide here as recently to have people hear 2nd hand stories of it....or have swades of posters cheer them on,inspite of it

I'm not your mate either.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

If you quote properly, you will see nowhere did I claim the government here was importing spuds. I was replying to Francies points about trade within the EU etc. Showing how well it is doing.

You literally blamed importing spudz for increasing national debt...keep.lying to yourself mate....only you believe this lie

And in other news, interest on the national debt is 7,000,000,000.00 per year. No wonder we have to pay so much get on the 100,000 or so second hand cars a year we import from the UK.

You think uk second hand car dealers decide their prices based on irelands interest repayments :pac:


Your some craic....this is almost as irrational belief that thinks price of spuds add to our national debt......boards needs a crying laughing emoji :pac:

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

These are progandists...

What is a "progandist"?

steddyeddy

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm not being abusive,I understand Britain's past actions in Ireland were horrendous but if this is constantly brought up even over something as relatively innocuous as a disagreement about a piece of rock in the sea it loses impact-i imagine ancestors of people from Iceland and Denmark attacked Ireland centuries ago-have you anything against them?

But Rob you'd think the government would remember them when they're sqaubbling over a rock and not to mention Loch Foyle on the Irish border.

For Rockwall Ireland's saying no one owns it. It's a sea rock. For Loch Foyle we're saying we own half.

In both cases the British government are saying they own all of it. Hardly a reasonable position.

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

For Rockwall Ireland's saying no one owns it. It's a sea rock. For Loch Foyle we're saying we own half.

.

Possession and ownership is 9/10 of the law. The 1662 Charter of Charles the Second (from memory, I think it was) said Lough Foyle was part of Co. Londonderry.

RobMc59

steddyeddy wrote: »

But Rob you'd think the government would remember them when they're sqaubbling over a rock and not to mention Loch Foyle on the Irish border.

For Rockwall Ireland's saying no one owns it. It's a sea rock. For Loch Foyle we're saying we own half.

In both cases the British government are saying they own all of it. Hardly a reasonable position.

I agree that British claims about lough foyle are unreasonable-it should be joint access for both countries as should rockall-despite how I'm perceived on the brexit forum I believe I do try to see things from Ireland's point of view also!:)

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree that British claims about lough foyle are unreasonable

They did not give it to use 100 years ago, why should they now? If I bought a property of a neighbour 100 years ago and there was a boundary dispute over a tiny section, I would say what was always his, and is still his, is his.
Carlingford Lough is divided 50:50 for practical purposes.
Quote:But the difficulty [with Lough Foyle] is that if you have vessels going into port of Derry, you have to go through Lough Foyle, and if you split it down the middle ships and boats would have to go on the Irish government’s side of that line in order to take the safest navigation channel.
“This wouldn’t be an issue for commercial vessels, but it might be an issue for navy vessels, for example.”
If the British did not have access to the port of Derry during WW2, it is conceivable the battle of Britain could have been lost, and if the battle of the Atlantic was lost, it is conceivable the Allies could have lost the war. Be glad and relieved the British held on to Lough Foyle. They made better use of it in defeating Nazism than we did.
I can see the British are quite reasonable in referring to the 1662 Charter on what is in Co. Londonderry. They were quite careful in what they gave us, our 26 counties and no more. I can also see merit in the Irish government wanting half of it, thus denying British navy access to the port of Derry.

RobMc59

janfebmar wrote: »

They did not give it to use 100 years ago, why should they now? If I bought a property of a neighbour 100 years ago and there was a boundary dispute over a tiny section, I would say what was always his, and is still his, is his.
Carlingford Lough is divided 50:50 for practical purposes.
Quote:But the difficulty [with Lough Foyle] is that if you have vessels going into port of Derry, you have to go through Lough Foyle, and if you split it down the middle ships and boats would have to go on the Irish government’s side of that line in order to take the safest navigation channel.
“This wouldn’t be an issue for commercial vessels, but it might be an issue for navy vessels, for example.”
If the British did not have access to the port of Derry during WW2, it is conceivable the battle of Britain could have been lost, and if the battle of the Atlantic was lost, it is conceivable the Allies could have lost the war. Be glad and relieved the British held on to Lough Foyle. They made better use of it in defeating Nazism than we did.
I can see the British are quite reasonable in referring to the 1662 Charter on what is in Co. Londonderry. They were quite careful in what they gave us, our 26 counties and no more. I can also see merit in the Irish government wanting half of it, thus denying British navy access to the port of Derry.

I can see the logic of what you're saying but wouldn't it be better if Ireland and Britain came to agreements over both areas?-Both countries are inexorably linked,if there's a 'special relationship'between Britain and any other country it should be with Ireland imo.

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

I can see the logic of what you're saying but wouldn't it be better if Ireland and Britain came to agreements over both areas?-Both countries are inexorably linked,if there's a 'special relationship'between Britain and any other country it should be with Ireland imo.

Yes, of course, common sense should prevail and mutual agreement between countries is always best. The British already gave the treaty ports back though. Lucky they did not give access to the port of Derry, one of the most strategically important ports in these islands during the fight against Nazism.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I can see the logic of what you're saying but wouldn't it be better if Ireland and Britain came to agreements over both areas?-Both countries are inexorably linked,if there's a 'special relationship'between Britain and any other country it should be with Ireland imo.

They have and they will. Somebody got excited in Scotland and has been put back in their box.

We will continue to let the sad old imperialists think they own it and fish away to our heart's content.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have and they will. Somebody got excited in Scotland and has been put back in their box.

We will continue to let the sad old imperialists think they own it and fish away to our heart's content.

Can you give any examples of 'sad old imperialists'do any actually exist?I don't know anyone who thinks like that in this day and age.
In fact,the only person I can think of who is obsessed with British imperialism is...hmmm let me think....:)

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Can you give any examples of 'sad old imperialists'do any actually exist?

those who threatened to board boats in an area they themselves and only themselves, decided they owned?

I don't know anyone who thinks like that in this day and age.
In fact,the only person I can think of who is obsessed with British imperialism is...hmmm let me think....:)

Stop thinking about janfebmar...it isn't healthy for a young man!

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

those who threatened to board boats in an area they themselves and only themselves, decided they owned?

You mean off the coast of one of their islands, which is much closer to them than any other country? Sure whose else would it be, they discovered it, first claimed it and are the only ones to have lived on it anyway.

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

Can you give any examples of 'sad old imperialists'do any actually exist?I don't know anyone who thinks like that in this day and age.
In fact,the only person I can think of who is obsessed with British imperialism is...hmmm let me think....:)

Come on Francis, can you give any examples of sad old imperialists?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Come on Francis, can you give any examples of sad old imperialists?

I just did.
Add in those who sanctioned the building of two whopping aircraft carriers*...not exactly for inland fishing are they? :rolleyes:

*These are to act out their sad old imperialist fantasies, but are actually tools to be used by their real masters (The US) as they ride shotgun with them.

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

In fact,the only person I can think of who is obsessed with British imperialism is...hmmm let me think....:)

He has just gone off on a rant yet again on US imperialism there now too

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

He has just gone off on a rant yet again on US imperialism there now too

A 'rant'? It was a statement of fact on the relationship between the real world power and one of those sad old imperialist relics who like to ride shotgun for them.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'rant'? It was a statement of fact on the relationship between the real world power and one of those sad old imperialist relics who like to ride shotgun for them.

You are just jealous that the President of the USA told Leo and his partner that the US-UK "special relationship" was the greatest the world had ever known. Not since Leo got put back in his box by Kylie did Leo ever feel so humiliated. That evening ever Leo's partner was in shock at the revelation his and Leo's relationship was not the greatest ever. No wonder Leo was lost for words when he met the President of the USA. Is it true Trump was heard to remark afterwards " Who are those little guys "?

BarryD2

_blaaz wrote: »

There is only 1 side (history is factual mate)

That's the funniest thing I've read today

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You are just jealous that the President of the USA told Leo and his partner that the US-UK "special relationship" was the greatest the world had ever known. Not since Leo got put back in his box by Kylie did Leo ever feel so humiliated. That evening ever Leo's partner was in shock at the revelation his and Leo's relationship was not the greatest ever. No wonder Leo was lost for words when he met the President of the USA. Is it true Trump was heard to remark afterwards " Who are those little guys "?

What are you raving about now?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you raving about now?

Trumps remarks on the US-UK special relationship was in the news, as was Leos squirmful letter to Kylie Minogue etc. Do pay attention.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Trumps remarks on the US-UK special relationship was in the news,

What would you expect him to say? They love it in Britain, it feeds their sad imperialist fantasies. Trump is many things but stupid isn't one of them. Massaging ego's it is called.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What would you expect him to say? .

OK , so the Americans and British /Commonwealth countries did storm the D day beaches together, but that was no reason to hurt the feelings of Leo's partner, now was it?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

OK , so the Americans and British /Commonwealth countries did storm the D day beaches together, but that was no reason to hurt the feelings of Leo's partner, now was it?

America saved Britain's ass and bailed them out and have kept them as their European slave nation since. They will rapidly lose interest if the loons Brexit though.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

America saved Britain's ass and bailed them out and have kept them as their European slave nation since. They will rapidly lose interest ...

You have been saying that since 1945. They still won the cold war together, liberated little Kuwait who had been invaded by Iraq together etc. Still G7 countries, still members of NATO, still brothers in arms.

Poor Leo's partner, do you not feel sorry for the humiliation he and Leo suffered?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You have been saying that since 1945. They still won the cold war together, liberated little Kuwait who had been invaded by Iraq together etc. Still G7 countries, still members of NATO, still brothers in arms.

Poor Leo's partner, do you not feel sorry for the humiliation he and Leo suffered?

Still laughing that you fell for the 'special relationship' guff, when in reality people were counting on twitter how many times Trump insulted the monarch alone. :D:D

Talk is cheap.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still laughing that you fell for the 'special relationship' guff, when in reality people were counting on twitter how many times Trump insulted the monarch alone. :D:D

.

Naw, he praised the Queen highly actually. The queen you think he insulted was Leos partner, God bless him.

"Who are those little guys?" Lol

"That's the Prime Minister, he is called teeshock here, and his eerr...partner. Remember Leo, you met him at the white house for 10 minutes and he gave you a bowl of some garden weed called Shamrock? The same guy you phoned up about a favour for your property in Clare before he became Prime Minister?"

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Naw, he praised the Queen highly actually.

Still laughing at you. Read the press on his visit. He disrespected the monarch over and over and didn't they accuse him of falling asleep when the monarch was speaking?

That's what you do when you are the power in a relationship.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still laughing at you. Read the press on his visit. He disrespected the monarch over and over and didn't they accuse him of falling asleep when the monarch was speaking?

That's what you do when you are the power in a relationship.

I could`nt care less how trump acted in front of the Queen,he is hardly the most sincere or well regarded or mannered world leader.
I would be concerned though,if the leader of my country used official stationary to write to a singer then tried to hide the fact from the public.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still laughing at you. Read the press on his visit. He disrespected the monarch over and over and didn't they accuse him of falling asleep when the monarch was speaking?

.

Nope actually he described her as an "incredible lady, "and he spent hours talking to her about a series of topics. I am still laughing at you, are you jealous he did not treat Leo and his partner well over a paper cup of coffee in the lobby of the airport, when he was properly "fed and watered" to the highest standards in London?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I could`nt care less how trump acted in front of the Queen,he is hardly the most sincere or well regarded or mannered world leader.
I would be concerned though,if the leader of my country used official stationary to write to a singer then tried to hide the fact from the public.

My thoughts on Leo's letter writing are well known on this forum Rob. And they ain't complimentary.

I refuse to give vent to janfebmar's fairly blatant homophobia though. She has been trying it on for a while now and not just on this thread. No need for it in her relentless anti Irish diatribe's.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Nope actually he described her as an "incredible lady,

Laughing here again because you must have missed, or probably are willfully ignoring the very funny counting of how many times he disrespected her on twitter.

Again - of course he would call her 'incredible', that is exactly what his minions want to hear.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My thoughts on Leo's letter writing are well known on this forum Rob. And they ain't complimentary.

I refuse to give vent to janfebmar's fairly blatant homophobia though. She has been trying it on for a while now and not just on this thread. No need for it in her relentless anti Irish diatribe's.

I am not the slighest bit homophobic, I am just amused by how you stand up for Leo when it suits you. And pointing out the reality of Leo and his relatively poor relationship with the President of the USA, when he had promised to raise and progress issues of concern such as Irish immigration to the USA, is not "anti-Irish".

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I am not the slighest bit homophobic, .

Sure jan, sure. :rolleyes:

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure jan, sure. :rolleyes:

Why do you think Leo did not get on well with the President of the USA? Even their body language when they met was awful.

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

I would be concerned though,if the leader of my country used official stationary to write to a singer then tried to hide the fact from the public.

He used his position of power to try to curry favour with her socially. I cannot imagine a leader of another western country making such a mistake.

RobMc59

janfebmar wrote: »

He used his position of power to try to curry favour with her socially. I cannot imagine a leader of another western country making such a mistake.

I agree that he made a serious misjudgment doing that but if I had to choose between him trump or boris johnson he'd win hands down.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Why do you think Leo did not get on well with the President of the USA? Even their body language when they met was awful.

Did he not get on with him? Boo hoo.

I don't pay much attention to the Paddy's Day shamoozle. Others seem to get their jollies stopping Irish people getting access though.

Like Scotland threatening to stop us fishing, it will take somebody braver than Trump to stop us getting access that is reputedly worth billions in PR/promotion.
No other nation of our size or even much bigger gets the treatment we get on our national day.