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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jtsuited wrote: » why would northern ireland become part of the republic? What's the point?
layke wrote: » Few Knackers? Rackateering and extorionism.. these boys have all been in knee deep making Irish peoples lives miserable for years. either.
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.
layke wrote: » That said, then I do associate Republicanism with Terrorism.
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!
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?
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.
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:(
KIVES wrote: » With your 'broken legs' the way they are, you mean or just because of your busy lifestyle?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
–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]
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.
LouOB wrote: » I dont own a pub
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
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.
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.