tayto lover wrote: » No, Never, We shall overcome, No surrender, Tiocfaidh ar la, Ulster Says No etc etc are all the same Francie. Language of the past that has no place anymore if we are to move on and grow.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » 'Tiocfaidh lmeans 'Our day will come' - It is a message of hope & optimism - it is about the future, not the past.
Colonel Claptrap wrote: » It's a loaded term for many people. Hearing Mary Lou uttering it on the radio was jarring. I didn't feel hope or optimism. Far from it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It doesn't matter what 'age' the DUP come from or SF for that matter. You could characterise the headlong rush to Brexit as Stone Age thinking. .
blanch152 wrote: » You could characterise Brexit as Stone Age thinking, but that is just more whataboutery. Both SF and the DUP are stuck far in the past, fighting old battles. I fully agree. St. Patrick's Day has become a day of fun, not of hostility to others. The same needs to happen to the 12th, but also to the Easter commemorations, particularly the separate and alone commemorations that SF indulge themselves in. The language of the paramilitary - Tiocfaidh ar La - and the symbolism - badges in the SF online shop - need to be permanently ditched if we are to have true reconciliation. Unfortunately, I don't believe that either side in the North is currently capable of normal behaviour. Until they learn, the less we have to do with them, the better.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Saint Patrick's day celebrates our patron saint of the island - celebrated internationally by all walks of life. The twelfth is a day where a group (or groups) from one religion celebrates its triumphalism over another religion, by organisations who actively forbid their members from marrying people from Roman Catholic backgrounds - that is the epitome of sectarianism and bigotry. Comparing, or trying to place it anywhere near saint Patrick's day celebrations is lunacy on an astronomical level.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I'm curious to know why SF didn't agree to a consolidated minorities language act. Granted that Scots Gaelic isn't a real language, but what would have been the downside of recognition of that also? Seems to me that what's going on is point scoring on both sides instead of compromise.
Matt Barrett wrote: The facts are both the DUP and SF were ready to make concessions on Ulster Scots and Irish recognising both. Grassroots DUP told Foster no way and that was the end of it. She tried to paint it another way but that's simply false spin. Others either ignorant or bias are trying to make it all about SF. Nonsense. It's about Foster trying to maintain broad support.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Speaking for the 'majorities' again. Anyone with an independent eye would see that one party has fully lived up to it's commitments under the GFA and subsequent agreements to allow northern Ireland to be governed and one party has dragged it's feet again and again and again until the entire process collapsed. Of course somebody ill informed is gonna say that the easiest way to progress is to pretend and paper over cracks and to appease. It's painful to read this bias born commentary and not really interested in debating with someone who willfully ignores what is happening and why it is happening.
blanch152 wrote: » St. Patrick's Day celebrates the triumph of Christianity over paganism, how is it different?
tayto lover wrote: » I am not deflecting at all, just saying what I see. I have no time for politicians of any hue and colour. I have time for the man on the street who is the loser in all of this. And again all that language and slogan stuff is language of the past. It has no place in any arrangements or talks for the future.
nuac wrote: » Have you forgotten the Decommissioning Process, which was drawn out for as long as possible to extract political gains for SF?
FrancieBrady wrote: » How can there be a 'future' if this is what happens when you want 'simple equality'. This Act will hurt no one.
riffmongous wrote: » Did anyone see the BBC Newsnight interview with Gregory Campbell a few days ago? The interviewer really puts it up to him, which was a bit surprising. And I'm starting to think, as was said earlier, that the best thing SF can actually do at the moment is play the long game, especially while the DUP hold the balance of power in Westminster. Stay out of power and call the DUP out on as many petty issues as possible.. as the WM deal has really cast a spotlight on the DUP and it's highlighting the ugly nasty side of the party to those in the rest of the UK, who don't seem to have been very aware of the party until now and look at each new 'DUP collapse talks' article with bewilderment and exasperation, like in the interview above
Donnielighto wrote: » Why is the union flag only flown on certain days, isn't it the national flag, seems odd.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » It has been brought into line with British Government guidelines, and to be flown no more than 18 days a year. It was odd beforehand now it's on par with everywhere else.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » The current political situation means that it's going to be very hard to get a deal across the line. The DUP has very little interest in forming an executive because direct rule suits them as long as they hold the balance of power in Westminster. The entire row meanwhile is typical petty Northern Ireland politics. The region is facing into one of the biggest economic upheavals it'll ever experience (Brexit) but what's the core sticking point? A language almost nobody speaks. I wouldn't expect anything less of them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No I haven't forgotten it. The IRA were simply not going to decommission until the deal was done and being acted on. The British knew that. They lost that particular battle of wills.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Get back to me when the loyal green lodge of saint Patrick's worshippers start banning its members from marrying people from non Christian religious denominations.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » As already said, and I have said last night, the common misconception (wilful ignorance imo) from the usual anti anything to do with Sinn Fein or republicanism as a whole, is that this is a Sinn Fein demand alone, it's not this act has the support of no less than 5 other mainstream party's from the north, 50/90 of its members. The DUP are doing what they always do, but they will end up where they always end up, conceding regardless. Civil rights. GFA RUC disbandment and restructured North South institutions Union flag being flown on certain days only. All of which they foughht tooth and nail, but happened anyway. Unionism is on a fast track into a cul de sac.
blanch152 wrote: » They did for centuries, non-Catholics had to convert. It has been relaxed slightly since. Here you go, apply for permission, but who says you will get it:http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage-faqs/ "If a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic, how can they assure that the marriage is recognized by the Church? In addition to meeting the criteria for a valid Catholic marriage (see question #3), the Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic. If the person is a non-Catholic Christian, this permission is called a “permission to enter into a mixed marriage.” If the person is a non-Christian, the permission is called a “dispensation from disparity of cult.” Those helping to prepare the couple for marriage can assist with the permission process." Yawn, nobody is really interested in an Irish language act, not even Sinn Fein to be honest. The language died out in the North in the mid-1970s when the last native speaker died. It was artificially regenerated afterwards, a bit like the way Ulster-Scots is being artificially regenerated now.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You and unionists are very interested in an ILA. In denying it because it might be a win for your boogeymen/women
blanch152 wrote: » That doesn't make any sense and I am not sure what you are trying to say. I believe language acts, and I include the one in this State, are a complete waste of money, so perhaps that is why I am so blase about it. As usual, in an attempt to put down someone else's views, you question their motivation or lump them in with unionists/Brits/DUP/latest bogeyman.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Your entire argument since I first came across you has been in favour of unionism. If the cap fits etc. Many people believe a language act is important, you don't speak for everyone.