Brendan Bendar wrote: » He heh…………trying to subtly goad people with your favourite tactic.. Choosing to ignore reality and continue to peddle idealistic vacuous tosh . Game is up.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As vitriolic and one sided as any belligerent unionist, I'll give you that. Majority of the electorate do not endorse FG or Ff or the Greens. That they huddle together ignoring other larger mandates is the point.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » What kind of an argument is that, pure rubbish. Since when is ‘power’ disbursed on a percentage of those elected from a particular party. If you think you deserve ‘power’ go ahead an form a government. If you can’t, then ask why the electorate voted for candidates who can? Ask why there are issues with a party which the majority of the electorate cannot agree to.... CCC is an example. The murder of a Garda in Our territory is another , not condemned by one of its members. Dancing on the head of a pin stuff. It’s all fine, there was a war on. Jeez man, there are some naive folk around this territory. The mind boggles as to how these folk thing how ‘simple’ the electorate are. As the dog says “News for ya, pal…………………
FrancieBrady wrote: » I love this delusional stuff that those in the south are somehow above those in the north politically. Look at the carry-on here to avoid giving a share of the power to 24% of the electorate. Just as bad as any Unionist bigotry and exclusion in essence.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » They were not ignored they just did not get more than the 50% of the parties who did not want them in government. For moral and transparency reasons many like myself think SF is not ready for government in the ROI. They carry too much baggage and bring Ireland back to a past rather than a future.
That was because of a worldwide economic crash. I honestly don't think both sides in NI are ready for a UI. Too much pantomime politics, symbolism, and flag waving in each others faces. If anyone wants a laugh you only need to listen to many of the discussions on that Nolan show on BBC. It is ridiculous when you stand back from it. Like the Jerry Springer show at times. Unionists and Nationalists roaring about 'identity'. As a person living in the ROI. I think do I really want all that baggage? It will just drag the ROI down to NI's level. Let the Brits deal with it and keep them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Childishly ignoring 24% of the electorate. No better or worse than the exclusionary politics practiced by Unionists. Unionist lost on that one as will the childish exclusionists in the south...it's only a matter of time.
The civil war parties in the south are more 'copped on, clued in, grown up and sensible'...are you having a fecking laugh here. It is only just over a decade since they put this country on the economic rocks ffs. Get a grip on reality there GDG.
downcow wrote: » I would think they'll be trying to make it work, same as all but republicans are doing now with Northern Ireland
Fionn1952 wrote: » So now it isnt, 'no Unionists', but rather, 'not the right Unionists' talking about it? I suppose Jamie Bryson and Sammy Wilson would be the leading voices of Unionism in your eyes. The Unionist pride in hand outs is also quite disturbing. 'Our wee country is so f*cked that only the Brits can afford us'.
BonnieSituation wrote: » And what about your nationalist neighbours? Reckon they'll join ye for another go at the partition merry-go-round?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I have already covered this on other threads Francie. Just add up the popular vote of those parties who said they would not go into government with SF. It is twice as much as SF. That is a mandate or 'mondate' as they say up in NI.
Yeah the ROI is above NI politically that is obvious - more copped on, clued in, grown up and sensible. NI always reminds me of glorified County Councillors making noise spinning the same records. Kind of like teenagers. And you never know if the hormones would get the better of them again - and violence flares up. A UI in order to be stable has no hope with that sort of eejitry.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am not buying that at all. The Irish Language Act was called for precisely for political effect/grandstanding. It would do feck all for the language in reality. Other than symbolism. Plus symbolism is the main issue why there is border in the first place. And the cycle continues.
FrancieBrady wrote: » An ILA de-politicises Irish for all time...that is why it is sought. No longer will iT be depending on somebody who demeans it for political effect/grandstanding.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Oh I am well kept up I can see through codology the Irish language act was just the latest political football between both sides. 100% cynical between the pair of them. It shows me that Ireland is not ready for a UI really with those clowns on both sides. SF and the DUP. A UI needs to moderate in order to succeed not one side deliberately winding the other up to score political points. Until I see The Alliance Party and SDLP rising I feel that only then will be the proper time to call for a border poll. A UI simply won't work with extremes like SF and the DUP as the main representatives of either side. Impossible.
BonnieSituation wrote: » The only parties that politicise Irish are the unionist ones. That's it. The SDLP and Alliance have only recently increased their representation. Do keep up.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I don't like the way both sides play with the language. SF cynically using it as a symbolic trick without (most) actually properly using the language. The Unionists just cynically use the Irish language just for the sake of being anti-Irish. If people care about the language just use the it in daily life simple as that. Miles better than pretend 'status' agendas. On the other hand if anyone is anti a particular language I find that odd. As a language is just a language. NI will always be a bit of a basket case as everything is politicised and words are analyised. As far as I can see it is a pity the likes of the SDLP and Alliance Party does not have a larger voice in NI. As it would be a sign (imo) that NI has moved away from pettiness and grown up. It would also be a sign that some form of a UI would have much more of a chance of stability, if that was the way things went.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The refusal to give Irish the same status as native languages have in the rest of the UK (Unionist exceptionalism again) and here was what 'politicised' it. It was 'depoliticised' at St Andrew's by agreement, only to be re-politicised' by the mis-use of 'petitions of concern' and DUP demeaning and intransigence in delivering the agreement.
BloodyBill wrote: » Ambivalent on the border question at best. I dont think it's even a question right now. But I ll indulge. If the majority of Protestants voted for a United Ireland I'd be fine with it. I would have concerns about the cost but I'd row in behind it. So for me the majority of Catholics and the majority of Protestants would have to vote for it for me to be for it. That's about at 70% majority of all the people i Northern Ireland give or take. You mention heritage. I think Hiberno English has a hugely rich written and oral history which we can add to. That's enough. The politicising of Irish is what turns me off the most. It's basically a Republican play thing at this stage. When I hear it I think Socialism,Republicanism ect..It was kept alive by Protestants yet they were pushed out or felt it was a cold house as the years have gone by aswell.. David Irvines sister is the exception that proves the rule. By the way Iv played hurling all my life. That doesnt make me one iota more Irish than my mates who played hockey or rugby. Irish should be kept by the academics and the money pumped into the gaelteachts and TG4 should be cut drastically. Both my mothers and fathers family would be rural middle class and both sides never had anything but ridicule for the irish language industry . Saying all that I can listen to Munster Irish ....Ulster Irish is an abominable sound to my ears..
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Well I agree with you 100% on the politicization of Irish.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Well BloodyBill you seem to have a really set defined view considering you take pride in being anti-Irish language. I am sure you have some well defined rational/irrational reasons as an Irish person being anti-a language in particular the Irish language. People like you intrigue me considering many foreigners have no issue learning Irish and treating it just like any language. But some Irish people like you seem to have this negative attitude towards the Irish language. Making a point of turning your back on Irish heritage. Which in my view is a colonial mindset. So in light of your viewpoint, where do you stand on the border question? Should a UI be created? If so.what concessions if any should be given to Unionists - to sweeten the deal. Or should the status quo remain?
downcow wrote: » I would be hoping that the Dublin sugar daddies would be there for us :-). The above selections are hardly the current voice of Unionism
downcow wrote: » again I am not sure where to start. I was very clear that I thought a reasonable level of support for kids participating in sport was a good thing. At no time did I suggest Irish sport language or culture should not receive at least equal funding to Unionist sport language and culture participation. And you rightly referred to my forefathers part in continuation of the Irish language - but I would not think they got big amounts of funding to do this, I would be inclined to think they done it because they loved it and valued it. I know lots of farmers, indeed am a part-time one myself, and of course people are watching with interest the way everything pans out after Brexit. But if you have fallen to the position that you are pinning all your hopes of a united Ireland Brexit I think you are on have beaten docket again. None of us really know how Brexit will materialise. If you're talking to lots of farming folks you probably saw them getting their trailers greased for the long journey north to get a good price for their beef. Headlines in some of the Irish papers today how Irish farmers are moving their cattle north to benefit from €150/head more. There are going to be lots of pros and cons with Brexit.
downcow wrote: » Oh I have said all along, if the hypothetical UI vote ever happened you will have no shortage of all shades of unionists who will want to talk and campaign for massive changes to what goes on in the south. Demands for our culture and identity to be ‘promoted and preserved’ (haha see what I done there) at great expense. All this while we work to make this new UI unstable and unworkable so that you will want to give us our own state. I guess we have learnt a lot watching you guys. Hopefully we won’t copy the bit of forming an ira and carrying out a sectarian murder campaign
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sam McBride, editor, Billy Hutchinson and Peter Robinson have all talked about shifting attitudes in Unionism...that it hasn't gotten to Castlewellan yet, is evidence only that there are rumps of Unionism behind the more moderate and progressive. What demands would you be making for funding in a UI at great expense? You guys will be taxpayers too I might remind you, any expense on the state will be coming out of your pockets too...i.e. No Westminister sugar daddies anymore)
