markodaly wrote: » No, its just tiring and boring having to argue the same nonsense year in year out.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well you know what to do about that? Don't make statements you cannot defend. Terrorist is a redundant word here. Because if you use terror, and all soldiers/armies/paramilitaries do, then you are by definition a 'terrorist'. Some happen to be in the employ of governments.
markodaly wrote: » What statement is this then? I stated correctly that the nationalist population in the north lobbied for the British Army to be deployed onto the streets. Something you accept. You want to go off an the usual tangent about labelling the BA terrorists as a way to detract away from the topic itself, UI and patriotism. So maybe stick with the topic an save your anti British rants to the Poppy thread.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You made the statement implying that because they were welcomed by besieged people, abandoned to their fate by Dublin and local 'security forces' that nationalists therefore didn't view them as 'terrorists'. And I didn't start the conversation about 'terrorists'. Maybe take it up with those that did.
markodaly wrote: » That is odd, the nationalist population wanted the BA deployed on the street but also view them as terrorists. Your a hoot. .
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Patriotic' would mean respecting the constitution of your country...no?
markodaly wrote: » What a stupid thing to say. Was 95% of the people unpatriotic when they voted on the Good Friday agreement to give up the territorial claim on the North? Do you view a constitution as set in stone that cannot and should not be changed?
Skylinehead wrote: » My point is taking the constitution as a barometer for "patriotism" is a pretty silly thing, it means different things to different people. You can have pride in your country without having to refer to a document.
markodaly wrote: » That is odd, the nationalist population wanted the BA deployed on the street but also view them as terrorists. Your a hoot. Maybe lets revert back to the topic on hand. Not wanting a UI can indeed be viewed as being patriotic, as the constitution mentions the free will of the people in this matter. i.e. it is up to each person to form their only view on the matter. Patriotism doesn't come into it but is pushed by flag waving numpties.
tomwaterford wrote: » Those 95% voted that Ireland aspires to a united Ireland too?
wotzgoingon wrote: » I said it already in this thread a few posts back but I really do believe you need counseling for those drugs you are taking.Ireland is 32 counties always was and should always be. Do you follow GAA? The all Ireland championship is with all 32 counties on this island of Ireland. Get some counseling for those drugs anyway because you really need it.
markodaly wrote: » It seems Frankie views that changing a constitution is fundamentally unpatriotic. So wanting more liberal laws like divorce, gay marriage is being unpatriotic as they had to come about from changing the constitution. Repealing the 8th is also unpatriotic therefore.
markodaly wrote: » Nope, when was Ireland united under an Irish ruler or kingdom. The answer is never. I said this a while back but I will say it again. Ireland was NEVER united under Irish rule.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, changing the constitution is the correct thing to do if you oppose a clause in it. Where are all these people who oppose 'the will to unite the Island of Ireland'. Is there a campaign to change the constitution I am unaware of? Is Leo suddenly challenging this silent majority of opposition, that you all have alluded to?
tomwaterford wrote: » Ireland was united in 1922....Until the north formally broke away
markodaly wrote: » Changing your tune, not surprising. The constitution mentions that it is up to the people, i.e. the people, us, have to give their consent to a UI. They key word, consent. Patriotism has nothing to do with it. Its a nonsense stupid argument. Its a Trump argument.
wotzgoingon wrote: » Well I'm no expert on history but I remember one high king of Ireland called Brian Boru.
The concept of national kingship is first articulated in the 7th century, but only became a political reality in the Viking Age, and even then not a consistent one.[2][3][4] While the High Kings' degree of control varied, Ireland was never ruled by them as a politically unified state, as the High King was conceived of as an overlord exercising suzerainty over, and receiving tribute from, the independent kingdoms beneath him
