Are you a 'Republican'?

layke

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Yes and I will vote Sinn Féin too.

So the people in Sinn Féin are scumbags today but the lads back in the 20s weren't? I don't see the difference expect the way they are looked on by the majority of people in this country.

Whatever way you want to paint them I remember Gerry on TV saying why it was ok to car bomb <insert randomer here> and kill his family.

I'm sure they're was a few knackers back then but strong leaders like Adams and Collins in the 20s have/had to do whatever was needed to keep the whole thing together.

Few Knackers? Rackateering and extorionism.. these boys have all been in knee deep making Irish peoples lives miserable for years.

I don't agree with what Gerry Adams does regarding the scumbags that killed Jerry Mc Cabe but he is in a tight spot keeping all the elements of the party happy. I think Adams, Mc Guinness and a lot of the party members high up have good intentions and that's the type of person I vote for.

Maybe they do. Fact is myself and a sizable portion don't want or care about a united Ireland, being forced to learn Irish or suffer the revival of insternatinally embarressing didde diddle music.

Think what we have to do now is convince the Unionists that the fact that they are Irish too and then we can have a 32 county state.

Good luck. They don't want it and as I see it from the last vote we don't either.

mise_me_fein

You remember Gerry saying that? I'd love to see the full context of the conversation.

What happened up the North was not all the IRA's fault. The state at the time brought a lot of it on and it just spiraled out of control.

Racketeering and extorionism.. these boys have all been in knee deep making Irish peoples lives miserable for years....this type of behaviour is going away. Give it time. It was just what happened in those crazy times to fund the campaign.


"Fact is myself and a sizable portion don't want or care about a united Ireland, being forced to learn Irish or suffer the revival of insternatinally embarressing didde diddle music.", oh this is a fact... ok

We don't want it a 32 county Ireland, get a grip mate. That wasn't what the Election was about.

Ruen

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Yes and I will vote Sinn Féin too.

So the people in Sinn Féin are scumbags today but the lads back in the 20s weren't? I don't see the difference expect the way they are looked on by the majority of people in this country.

Who said they were scumbags? I think you're jumping the gun there mmf

What lads in the '20s are you talking about?

johnnyskeleton

jtsuited wrote: »

why would northern ireland become part of the republic? What's the point?

I suppose it makes more sense than the republic joining the north.

togster

layke wrote: »

Few Knackers? Rackateering and extorionism.. these boys have all been in knee deep making Irish peoples lives miserable for years.



either.

I think you need to seperate the Old IRA and the IRA of the 70's 80's etc. Just because something is called the same thing doesn't mean it is. This is the point the OP is getting at i think,... Republican is a word cemented in violence however the true meaning IMO of it is something different. I guess its up to the individual to interprate it as they see fit. I don't like the word.. it has connotations of violence and bloodshed. However i would like a united Ireland but im not pushed.

constitutionus

well as the name would suggest i'd define myself as a constitutional republican. but only really because as mentioned the word republican on its own tends to mean people put you into the balaclava /gun running camp. to me it means pretty much the french model and the recognition all people are equal and the preference of democratic rule over aristocratic with the social aspects in terms of education, health care (single tier, harney!) and judicial system

ironically i couldnt give a toss about the north. they have the right to determine their own future thanks to the good friday agreement. im more conscerned about the EU at the moment and this upcomming "reform treaty" i.e the EU constitution. i consider myself irish, not european, and i want to decide what the ultimate fate of my country is along with my countrymen ,not some bloody united states of europe where we have the electoral equivelent to rhode island . i personally belive the EU project has gone far enough in terms of integration and frankly the fact we're the only feckers having a referendum on it is disturbing to say the least and a more damning indictment of it than anything i can say.

layke

togster wrote: »

I think you need to seperate the Old IRA and the IRA of the 70's 80's etc. Just because something is called the same thing doesn't mean it is. This is the point the OP is getting at i think,... Republican is a word cemented in violence however the true meaning IMO of it is something different. I guess its up to the individual to interprate it as they see fit. I don't like the word.. it has connotations of violence and bloodshed. However i would like a united Ireland but im not pushed.

That said, then I do associate Republicanism with Terrorism.

constitutionus

layke wrote: »

That said, then I do associate Republicanism with Terrorism.

dont tell george bush that

kodute

Why call yourself a republican?
If you vote for Mr. Ahern, thats fine. If you vote for Mr. Adams, thats fine. You can vote for Hitler for all i care as long as you have the right to do it. (not advocating voting for Hitler!)

Also what actual difference to your daily lives would it make if President Mary McAleese was actually called Queen Mary McAleese and our government some form of scary Constitutional Monarchy??

Don't call myself a Republican because I don't so much "believe" it exists, I know it exists, but for me its inconsequential what you call it. When it works it works, when it doesn't change it.

Personally i like the ideas of this system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Good ole Swiss, getting it right (almost) everytime!

Terry

kodute wrote: »

Why call yourself a republican?
If you vote for Mr. Ahern, thats fine. If you vote for Mr. Adams, thats fine. You can vote for Hitler for all i care as long as you have the right to do it. (not advocating voting for Hitler!)

Also what actual difference to your daily lives would it make if President Mary McAleese was actually called Queen Mary McAleese and our government some form of scary Constitutional Monarchy??

Don't call myself a Republican because I don't so much "believe" it exists, I know it exists, but for me its inconsequential what you call it. When it works it works, when it doesn't change it.

Personally i like the ideas of this system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Good ole Swiss, getting it right everytime!

Ask me swiss roll.

The Chessplayer

darkman2 wrote: »

Thought id ask this question. I will start by saying that if you are not a 'Republican' then you dont believe in Ireland (or the Republic of Ireland) being an independent nation state (how could you? You're either a Republican or your not). I ask because of the bad press 'Republicanism' has attracted over the years because of IRA violence. I am proud to live in a Republic and to be a Republican and Nationalist. I dont believe Sinn Fein or the IRA have ever had a monopoly on the term and never will. Many say they are not 'Republican' because of the bad name associated with it. But if you're not - then what are you? (someone who believes Ireland's future is best served within the UK?). Of course not. There is no other term to describe those who believe in the democratic, non monarchy, independent country. Thats what we have. So would you label yourself a 'Republican'? Or do you want to, but feel you can not, because of its association with violence? If so what do you call yourself?

It is possible for terms to develop new meanings over time, so in fairness the notion that someone who isn't a republican is in favour of joining the UK is ridiculous in this day and age, given the UK's membership of the EU. Many would see themselves as more Euro-centric. Also, a sizeable minority of Britons would be republican in the pure sense of the word.

Many Fine Gael/Fianna Fail supporters consider themselves republican, as would many labour, PD's etc. Michael McDowell himself is a republican, and spoke on this subject at length over the past few years. It's a loaded term.

It's simply not as black and white a topic as your post suggests, and to make such a statement exhibits a lazy attitude to history.

togster

The Chessplayer wrote: »

It's simply not as black and white a topic as your post suggests, and to make such a statement exhibits a lazy attitude to history.

yeah good point. You cannot isolate people on the topic. Are you or are you not a republican?? I'd say many of us are in so far as what the same term meant when it was origianlly coined, not what its ramifications are nowadays.

mise_me_fein

Generally I am a republican but like most people it's not the most important issue for me at the moment - the 6 counties and all that.

I think like a lot of people I would vote for the party that can sort out the heath service.

quackquackBOOM

well i think that our government can barley run the counties that they have so i dont think they would make a great job with the rest.

Most people who argue this point cant even speak the irish language, if people can call themselves republicans and support sinn fein and/or the ira and cant speak the language or even know the history well that to me is another scumbag with a celtic jersy sitting in the pub drinking alco pops at half 10 in the morning

Im not saying that sinn fein are a bad political party so dont reply with somthing stating the obvios

Im saying some people who support sinn fein dont even vote or know the reason they vote for them they just do it because they are reported as a pepublican party

DICK FINGERS

I would consider myself to be a Republican

but it really doesn't matter i don't get much time to think about it:(

KIVES

DICK FINGERS wrote: »

I would consider myself to be a Republican

but it really doesn't matter i don't get much time to think about it:(

With your 'broken legs' the way they are, you mean or just because of your busy lifestyle?

DICK FINGERS

KIVES wrote: »

With your 'broken legs' the way they are, you mean or just because of your busy lifestyle?

Haha, both actually:)

SuperSean11

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

Most people who argue this point cant even speak the irish language, if people can call themselves republicans and support sinn fein and/or the ira and cant speak the language or even know the history well that to me is another scumbag with a celtic jersy sitting in the pub drinking alco pops at half 10 in the morning

Im saying some people who support sinn fein dont even vote or know the reason they vote for them they just do it because they are reported as a pepublican party

+1

marco murphy

All this Sinn Fein monopoly of republicanism talk.

Sinn Fein have released more than one statement welcoming FF over the border and would welcome more parties.
They don't claim to monopolise republicanism.

artanevilla

I'm a republican in that is support the right of independance of areas such as the Baque Country and the Catalan regions in Spain, as well as Palestine.

cournioni

Ali G to Sammy Wilson of the PUP:

Ali G: "So iz you Irish?"
Sammy: "No I'm British"
Ali G: "So iz you ere on 'oliday?!"

The Chessplayer

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Generally I am a republican but like most people it's not the most important issue for me at the moment - the 6 counties and all that.

I think like a lot of people I would vote for the party that can sort out the heath service.

You had your chance in the election only a few months ago. Everyone knew that Harney would be given the health brief again.

If there was an election tomorrow, it would be the same. FF have an inrivalled publicity machine. Doesn't matter what they do. And now Ahern can barely believe he's got away it. I'd say they had some craic when he doled out those whopper pay rises.

Rossibaby

republican socialist and supporter of the IRSP. i personally hate how people can call modern day freedom fighters like those in ireland,basques,palestinians terrorists yet idolise ché guevara,bobby sands and nelson mandela.even michael collins is idolised by many.yet in modern times violence as a defence is wrong?hypocrisy at its finest.if a country invades yours do you not have a right to defend yourself.

the problem is these days people dont care.why should they in the republic?we are wealthier than ever,and thats what matters to people,money.the only way to get our 32 county republic is by swaying public support in our favour and showing them the benefits it would have.rags like the sunday world etc and pro british and american media branding freedom fighters terrorists doesnt help.our own media labels us druggie scumbags,and people are idiots,they believe what they are told.

“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle., unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”. - James Connolly, from Socialism and Nationalism in Shan Van Vocht, January 1897

Fratton Fred

Rossibaby wrote: »

republican socialist and supporter of the IRSP. i personally hate how people can call modern day freedom fighters like those in ireland,basques,palestinians terrorists yet idolise ché guevara,bobby sands and nelson mandela.even michael collins is idolised by many.yet in modern times violence as a defence is wrong?hypocrisy at its finest.if a country invades yours do you not have a right to defend yourself.

so the people of Omagh who died in the bombing were an invaing army? glad we cleared that one up:rolleyes:

Rossibaby wrote: »

the problem is these days people dont care.why should they in the republic?we are wealthier than ever,and thats what matters to people,money.the only way to get our 32 county republic is by swaying public support in our favour and showing them the benefits it would have.rags like the sunday world etc and pro british and american media branding freedom fighters terrorists doesnt help.our own media labels us druggie scumbags,and people are idiots,they believe what they are told.

people are free, free to go where they want and pay taxes to whom they want, or do you propose a socialist state like the other outstanding socialist states like the USSR and China. Fine examples of freddom they are

Rossibaby wrote: »

“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle., unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”. - James Connolly, from Socialism and Nationalism in Shan Van Vocht, January 1897

Great if we lived in an ideal world, but we don't and it may have slipped your notice, but it isn't 1897 anymore.

humanji

Rossibaby wrote: »

republican socialist and supporter of the IRSP. i personally hate how people can call modern day freedom fighters like those in ireland,basques,palestinians terrorists yet idolise ché guevara,bobby sands and nelson mandela.even michael collins is idolised by many.yet in modern times violence as a defence is wrong?hypocrisy at its finest.if a country invades yours do you not have a right to defend yourself.

I don't think these groups can really be classed as freedom fighters. The general definition of a freedom fighter (taken from dicitonary.com, because some git in work stole my websters! :mad: )

–noun a fighter for freedom, esp. a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship.

n. One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurgent]

These would point towards someone fighting against an oppressive government for the well-being of their fellow countrymen. And this is the meaning I would take from the term Freedom Fighter. So putting aside whether or not you view the British government as oppressive (they've had their moments), is a united Ireland in the best interests of everyone in Ireland, or are these so called Freedom Fighters, simply fighting for what they want, regardless of the majority?

And anyway, the groups you mention do seem to fit into the terrorist definition:

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

They use violence and fear to try and get their way. This, in my view makes them terrorists. It doesn't matter what their cause is.

But a big "meh" to is anyway. I should just count myself lucky that these people are defending my freedom :rolleyes:

LouOB

I dont own a pub

humanji

LouOB wrote: »

I dont own a pub

lol, that made me spill my coffee

Time Magazine

Rossibaby wrote: »

“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle., unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”. - James Connolly, from Socialism and Nationalism in Shan Van Vocht, January 1897

I love it when people take their economic doctrines from two centuries ago. Do you apply the same logic to human rights?

Also, if we were a socialist nation, we'd still be governed by Britain? Why? Because we'd all f*cking emigrate.

Ruen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or do you propose a socialist state like the other outstanding socialist states like the USSR and China. Fine examples of freddom they are

USSR and China are Communist if you didnt know, so dont try to make out Socialism is bad by associating it with something people think is negative i.e. Communism, they are different.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Great if we lived in an ideal world, but we don't and it may have slipped your notice, but it isn't 1897 anymore.

James Connolly founded the Irish Labour Party and his ideals were crucial in the foundation of this nation and they're still widely cherished and relevant today. And why shouldnt we live in an ideal world, we deserve it and we have the opportunity to achieve the ideal world that the James Connollys and Jim Larkins of the world aspired to.

Rossibaby wrote: »

republican socialist and supporter of the IRSP. i personally hate how people can call modern day freedom fighters like those in ireland,basques,palestinians terrorists yet idolise ché guevara,bobby sands and nelson mandela.even michael collins is idolised by many.yet in modern times violence as a defence is wrong?hypocrisy at its finest.if a country invades yours do you not have a right to defend yourself.

You're giving a mixed bag there so it's hard to argue against your point, the people you mentioned cant all be lumped into the same category. Those irish ones would be the IRA INLA and they are terrorists by most peoples standards, Basques like ETA would be similar to IRA in terms of tactics and they are nothing like Mandela and Collins(not that they're the same either) so to say you hate that is ridiculous. Violence is wrong but if Ireland was invaded tomorrow it would be right to fight the invaders, the thing about the IRA is that there was two legitimitely elected governments on both sides of the border working together to solve the problem peacefully through diplomatic relations and the IRA who went around killing innocent people in addition to their military targets and because of that they were not in any way helpful to the process. In fact they probably held it back by a couple more decades than necessary.

Ruen

Ibid wrote: »

I love it when people take their economic doctrines from two centuries ago. Do you apply the same logic to human rights?

Also, if we were a socialist nation, we'd still be governed by Britain? Why? Because we'd all f*cking emigrate.

There are people in this country too Ibid not just an economy.
Give my regards to Mary.