downcow wrote: » Kids learn to play band music also football, PlayStation etc with no financial support, funded summer schools, etc. Simply because they want to, and in the case of loyalist bands, because other young adults want to teach and encourage them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And the lies begin. Where you one of those who ran away from the thread when I asked if you would be happy for the State to celebrate/commemorate the IRA in a new inclusive UI? We know why the usual crew run away from that. BTW I don't think the State should give a commemoration to the IRA due to the sensitivities involved.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Join the party downcow...other than that you or I have no say. You have a problem with individuals in a party...don't vote for them. If you have incriminating evidence bring it to the police. If I think of any other advice I will let you know.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Really? I distinctly remember being on holidays in a mobile home in Portrush when I was a kid, not 10 years old at the time. A big bunch of us kids used to play together in the mobile home site playground. There was one kid that got called by his Da every evening and used to run off in a sort of half-panic shouting 'I have to go to band practice'. I didn't realise until many years later what was happening, the kid couldn't even get a break from indoctrination into his loyalist future on his holidays. So spare us the rosy Enid Blyton picture you're painting of your 'culture'.
downcow wrote: » This would be some outfit to even consider commemorating. Your advice was go to the horses mouth
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Ran away from what? I just got bored listening to you. I think it a bit sad when all you seemed to have going for you is a hopeful end of partition and a defence of Republicanism. I have never seen you post elsewhere other than SF related stuff. The IRA already gets commemorated every April through the reading of the proclamation. If you want an IRA commemoration all jazzed up no probs can have it one month and an RIC one the next. As long as everything is fair and balanced warts and all for both sides.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Thread is not about me GD. So you would be happy with Martin McGuinness being given a state commemoration or Bobby Storey or Michael Stone? Could you answer the question without fulminating about me?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » As long as everything balanced warts and all I would have zero issue whatsoever. A glorification and people picking bits for one side I would not be for, with no context. Plus there should be a memorial listing all the 3000 dead in the troubles all names listed in stone. IRA, civilians, UVF the whole shebang. A life is a life at the end of the day. Both sides would probably hate it - but it needs facing up to. On that day Ireland would be ready to reconcile in whatever form Ireland takes in future.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The names are available to anyone who wants them despite the selected list of victims used here. What makes you think carving them in stone is going to reconcile anything?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Make people stop hiding from it and realise what a waste it all was.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Other than those who select certain emotive victims off the list who is hiding from it? And how does a stone monument promote reconciliation? Any examples of this?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It give youse all a good jolt. Instead of artists painting the sides of houses with glorified guff. Youse all hide from it and dance around it claiming one side is more to blame than the other. It has warped minds and youse barely know the difference between right and wrong anymore always some justification or other. And the use of couched language youse can't even talk straight and honestly. I dunno how youse have not ended up in white coats after decades of even listening to it all. Oddballs - both sides of the Nordie divide.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Oddballs - both sides of the Nordie divide.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » The vast majority of Irish people have similar opinions on the British state's rotten legacy in Ireland, unfortunately for you that does not stop at the imaginary line that runs through Ulster.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » To me the irony is it is an imaginary sense of Irishness to get rid of an imaginary line. As I already have said there is huge cultural appropriation from England to Ireland. Most of these so called Republicans partake in English culture happily. The 'look how Irish I am' anti-partition line seems very hollow to me. Ask most people on the street in the ROI they would say at the top of thier head - a UI would be nice to have but are not too bothered. Others use it as a misguided badge like a Celtic jersey. There is no thought about what partition would mean. Taxes and so on. Plus the more sensible will have to mediate the hardline versions of Down Cow and Francie Brady. Expecting them suddenly to co-exist in a regime change. Plus the British were the only ones to Unite Ireland in any case as before it was merely a collection of clans. There is myth that has grown up that the High King was the authority in Ireland - but there were variants many were unaccepted and without full authority in the Gaelic World. It was largely ceremonial at times. Ironically the cause of partition was the IRA. It would never have been divided if they did not go against public opinion in 1916. Irish nationalists were disgusted. After that lets be honest SF only got elected on a landslide on the back of a sympathy vote. Sympathy ran out quickly in a few short years. All this rotten legacy stuff... No look at positives! The people of Ireland speak English and make it economically attractive for business, migrants, tourists. Easier for Irish people to get jobs worldwide. Also the British set up the Irish Civil Service, Ireland follows the Common Law system of jurisprudence from the English.There is also fine Architecture in Ireland built by the British. Irish roads built by Irish developers loyal to the crown Luke Gardiner who planned and developed- Gardiner Street and Mountjoy Square for example.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Tired repetition doesn't make what you rant about true GD. You have to move away from stereotypes to be taken credibly.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » You ARE the stereotype in my opinion. I enlightened enough to think beyond that. Plus what in my last post is not true only the fact it does not fit your glorious Republican narrative? As for repetition you have about 30k posts on the same overlapping topics. I assume each one is different to the last?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes...but if I make claims I back them up...always. You just come out with Celtic top wearing stereotypical notions about Irish people redolent of the Bernard Manning type British comedians of the '70's - the stupid Oirish Paddy. Keep it up...it's a great reveal.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Not true you have obviously never being in the players lounge in fairview Dublin before it was burnt down. Prime example of the Republican voter base in the ROI.https://www.herald.ie/news/im-not-going-to-be-intimidated-by-drug-dealers-irish-soccer-aces-dad-27963490.html Previously owned by John Stokes - Republican and father of Anthony Stokes. . The pub had the usual Paddy whackery inside Tricolours all over-Ceitic and so on. Alan Ryan Real IRA used to drink there and there was an attempt on his life there as wellhttps://www.herald.ie/news/how-we-reported-on-ryans-reign-of-terror-in-capital-28016963.htmlhttps://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0726/133764-fairview/ Republicanism attracts Ireland's best and brightest? :rolleyes:
FrancieBrady wrote: » There is paddywhackery in Irish pubs all over the world GD...you should get out in the world and see them. Ever see the paddywhackery that goes on when we have a US president here...the pint of Guinness and the stereotypes all rolled out. One pub in one suburb does not a theory make sadly. Not interested in your peculiar form of self loathing anymore so I will disengage on this tiresome stereotypical ranting from you. May the road rise with you and begorrah and begosh etc etc.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » To me the irony is it is an imaginary sense of Irishness to get rid of an imaginary line. As I already have said there is huge cultural appropriation from England to Ireland. Most of these so called Republicans partake in English culture happily. The 'look how Irish I am' anti-partition line seems very hollow to me.
Plus the more sensible will have to mediate the hardline versions of Down Cow and Francie Brady. Expecting them suddenly to co-exist in a regime change.
Plus the British were the only ones to Unite Ireland in any case as before it was merely a collection of clans. There is myth that has grown up that the High King was the authority in Ireland - but there were variants many were unaccepted and without full authority in the Gaelic World. It was largely ceremonial at times.
Ironically the cause of partition was the IRA. It would never have been divided if they did not go against public opinion in 1916. Irish nationalists were disgusted. After that lets be honest SF only got elected on a landslide on the back of a sympathy vote. Sympathy ran out quickly in a few short years.
No look at positives! The people of Ireland speak English and make it economically attractive for business, migrants, tourists. Easier for Irish people to get jobs worldwide.
There is also fine Architecture in Ireland built by the British. Irish roads built by Irish developers loyal to the crown Luke Gardiner who planned and developed- Gardiner Street and Mountjoy Square for example.
downcow wrote: » You are very seriously misguided if you think I am hardline. I have never been a member of any of the loyal orders, I have never been a member of a band, I voted yes to the Belfast agreement (I think that may put me in a very small soft minority of Unionists), I have spent 30 years involved in cross community work, I am a UUP voter, I absolutely detest the evangelical Protestant / political mix, I've never been to a Rangers game. I support equal marriage, etc, etc. I am actually not sure what else to say to demonstrate how far off the mark you are. ...But I still get your point - the genuine Unionist hardliners and Francie can only go to war in a united Ireland scenario. .... And you know what Frankie said about two tribes going to war
FrancieBrady wrote: » ....but you cannot guarantee your peacefulness in the event of the agreement you claim to support comes to fruition. You have been rumbled more times than Phil Hogan's travel arrangements.
A couple of things are fascinating to me here. The first is that Unionist politicians, particularly in the DUP, seem to think that the UK Prime Minister is going to act to support their interests, despite being shafted twice in a row by both Theresa May and Boris Johnson, and in the context where Johnson is publicly threatening to repudiate a deal that has his own signature on it. But the second thing is more serious, and is emblematic of Unionism’s age old problem – not being able to see the wood for the trees. What is the strategy here; exactly do they think is going to happen next ? What happens if they get their way ? The horse that Unionism is backing here is a no-deal horse, the inevitable conclusion of the UK repudiating its own agreement. No deal may mean no border in the Irish sea; but it will also mean, among many other things, a border within Ireland. The problem with this is not security (a security threat can be met with a security response, provided people are prepared to pay the cost) but the fact that most people and businesses in Northern Ireland are against it, which has implications for the union by itself which I will discuss further below.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Just looking back over this thread and two words that keep appearing time & time again in relation to Ireland Vs Britain are colony colonialism....Cambridge dictionary; a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country that is often far away: Australia and New Zealand are former British colonies. ...far away catches the eye.
As Ireland and Britain are just twelve miles apart, and with constant human travel & traffic between the two Islands since the last ice, can we really keep pulling the colonial card in relation to our relationship with next door!
Yes, there would have been colonies within the island, but was Ireland as a country an English Colony? It seems like nowadays the use of the word colony explains all our ills from the past, but is that what we really mean? Surely if the inhabitants of these islands have been mixing for thousands of years, then the actual meaning of the word "colony" itself must be stretched to the limit. Should the Scots claim to have been colonised by the Irish? Should the English claim to have been colonised by the Normans? Should the Welsh claim to have been colonised by the English? I'm all colonised out now, but you get my drift, so I'll leave it there, just a thought
