Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

weechucky wrote: the problem arises when anyone claims that the English have a right to claim control or authority over Irish soil!!

First of all, it's the British who have sovereignty over NI, not just the English.

Secondly, this isn't about the British having the 'right' to control Northern Ireland. It's about respecting the fact that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland wishes to remain in the UK. And until that day, we are obliged to maintain a prescence there, much as we'd like to get shot of the bastards......

[maxtsu]

Ah Thunder.
Good to see you have returned to this debate.
You still have not justified, or qualified, why you drew a parallel between myself and 'gas chambers'.

I'll remind you, if you might have forgotten.
It was reference ...
thundertaker wrote: Yeah, I bet those 'untermensch' being herded into the gas chambers, the guillotine, or crushed under a communist boot nevertheless found it a liberating experiance to be the citizen of a republic instead of the subject of a constitutional monarchy like Britain.....
You did clarify that you were referring to me when you made the statement...
thundertaker wrote: I was addressing YOU Euroboy yes I did know your were actually making an attempt at an insult here.

You are going to have to justify; why you draw a parallel with me, EuroBoy, and herding into gas chambers.

And whilst your at it, answer me...
thundertaker wrote: the citizens of the continent you love so much
Which continent? Australia? Asia?
:-)

~
EuroBoy

[thundertaker]

I'm flattered to have had such an effect on you that you should remember what I said several months earlier and care enough to send this thread off-topic. But I'll answer your questions anyway 'Euroboy':
As I remember you were waxing lyrical that constitutional monarchies are inherently inferior to republics, and insulting those of us who support the monarchy by suggesting that we are servile, I was merely pointing out that Republican governments have a far less savoury record when it comes to oppressing their people. In fact, not even the most despotic Absolute Monarchy ever had a patch on the USSR under stalin, Germany under Hitler, or Pol Pot's glorious people's republic of Kampuchea in the 1970s.
You think we briton's are arselicking, tyrant-huggers for having a constitutional monarch instead of a president. You probably think the British monarchy stands in the way of your wet-dream of The Republic of Europe, and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty from the same continent that gave the world Communism and Facsism, whilst I on the other hand do not. We had Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights long before the continentals started to question the idea that their rulers were living gods whose word was law.....

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

thundertaker wrote: I'm flattered to have had such an effect on you that you should remember what I said several months earlier and care enough to send this thread off-topic. But I'll answer your questions anyway 'Euroboy':
As I remember you were waxing lyrical that constitutional monarchies are inherently inferior to republics, and insulting those of us who support the monarchy by suggesting that we are servile, I was merely pointing out that Republican governments have a far less savoury record when it comes to oppressing their people. In fact, not even the most despotic Absolute Monarchy ever had a patch on the USSR under stalin, Germany under Hitler, or Pol Pot's glorious people's republic of Kampuchea in the 1970s.
You think we briton's are arselicking, tyrant-huggers for having a constitutional monarch instead of a president. You probably think the British monarchy stands in the way of your wet-dream of The Republic of Europe, and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty from the same continent that gave the world Communism and Facsism, whilst I on the other hand do not. We had Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights long before the continentals started to question the idea that their rulers were living gods whose word was law..... Yes,but the Brits were the ones that commit the most savage crime in World history:The Native Americans Genoside...

[Saracen]

Achilles the Myrmidon wrote: Yes,but the Brits were the ones that commit the most savage crime in World history:The Native Americans Genoside...

Achilles, it was not the Brits who did this. It was the Americans.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Saracen wrote: Achilles the Myrmidon wrote: Yes,but the Brits were the ones that commit the most savage crime in World history:The Native Americans Genoside...

Achilles, it was not the Brits who did this. It was the Americans. :bnghd:

[AKAMad]

weechucky wrote: Once again I have to point out that Ireland IS NOT FREE!!!!

Yes 26 of the 32 counties in Ireland have regained their freedom but there are still 6 occupied counties...Fermanagh, Armagh, Tyrone, Derry, Antrim and Down are still under forced occupation!!!

Not even going to get into that whole "but we all get along now"....yes there is not a problem when Irish people meet Scotch, Welsh or English each other....the problem arises when anyone claims that the English have a right to claim control or authority over Irish soil!!

The English didn't claim the right to control Irish soil until 1969, when it was the Protestants who we considered scum. Of course, we became more even-handed in our contempt later on :!:
As soon as the Northern Irish stop arguing over whatever, you can have control of your territory and if you want a united Ireland, you can have it. Have you heard of the GFA :!?:
Of course, when you have a bunch of people who are their own worst enemies, who you have had enough of, abandoning them to themselves is about the worst thing you can do to them. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is a lot closer than Palestine, and we value loyalty, or we would have said Goodbye decades ago. :!:

However, when you next find yourself in danger of ethnic cleansing, who you going to call :!?:
Ghost Busters :!?:
If you think the Irish Army is keen to do its' fair share of the dying.
Has a referendum and a change in constitution escaped your attention ?
Which part of nobody wanting you, is unclear ?
Of course, you could ask your NORAID friends, our loyal allies the Americans, to help you out. Then every Sunday would be Bloody Sunday, and Monday and Tuesday, as the poor Iraqis are finding out.

[Sawney]

Well it is truly up to the Irish to what they want. As the vast majority of Irish that I know (and judging by all the Irish members here) don't ever want that to be part of the UK ever again, I suppose we might as well respect their position. Hell will freeze over before Ireland will even contemplate ever doing that. It is never, ever, going to happen. So why even discuss it? :?

Anyways, if I am going to make my first post it might as well relate to my very own country. Especially on much of the rubbish that was stated above infering that the Scots are a bunch of 'subsidy junkies'. :evil:

AKAMad wrote: :!oops: Oh the poor Scots and Welsh ! How they suffer under English oppression ! :!oops:

Well I wouldn't say that. The only thing that the English have "oppressed" their neighbours, over the years, is the far superior voting block that they have always had. Far too many Bills and Acts over the last few hundred years, until 1998, that have been passed at Westminster, have been very detrimental to Scotland. This happened more due to the strange blind-spot that many English have over the fact that Scotland actually has institutions (i.e. Law and Education systems, etc) that are totally different than England. And most of these Acts were passed at the back of English MPs as well. Holyrood only came about due to this happening all the time. It was going on for far too long! :evil:

So only in that way, that the English have been "oppressors". More out of ignorance of Scotland than by pure vindictiveness, though. Well, most of the time! :wink:

Quote: Do you know the English subsidises Scotland by ONLY 13 billion, that is ONLY 3,000 pounds per man, woman and child per year. :shock:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't talk nonsense! Where the hell did you get that figure? The most that I have ever heard is £11.2 Billion. Is that the figure you actually mean? :?

You should realise that this figure is from the fundamentally flawed and quite dishonest GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland) Report that the British Government bring out every bloody year. The really pathetic thing that heap of rubbish is actually believed.

It is really just spin from the ruling Labour executive to put down the Scottish independence movement i.e. You Scots need the UK as Scotland is so very poor and won't survive on her own. Glory to the Union! :roll:

The report is flawed as for example 'Identifiable spending in Scotland' includes the running of the Centre 1 Tax office which operates UK wide and the Trident Nuclear base at Faslane with all the running costs of the missile subs. As this is included, how correct do you really think the whole GERS Report is then or how accurate it really is? :?

In relation to the GERS Report, below is an interesting letter sent to the Glasgow Herald, that was sent in about it all. I hope it proves my point about the whole report.

"I'M ALL for a bit of fantasy fiction in the festive season, so I was delighted when the latest Gers report (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland) dropped through my letterbox. This annual bad fairy tale has excelled itself this year, reporting that Scotland's apparently permanent desperate financial plight has comfortably beaten all previous records.

In previous years I have taken this official document seriously, but now I can only regard it as economic fantasy. It tells us that in 2003/04 Jack McConnell's "smart successful Scotland" had to be kept afloat yet again by a massive subsidy of £11.2bn from the ever-generous UK Treasury. This is almost £2bn more than the previous year, and equivalent to a free hand-out of £2240 to every man, woman and child in Scotland. Like Victor Meldrew, I don't believe it!

In the report, the figure of £34bn is described as "total government receipts in Scotland", but it carefully excludes all £6.9bn of North Sea oil revenues. "Identifiable government expenditure for Scotland" of £37.2bn is then increased by another £8.1bn for "non-identifiable expenditure and accounting adjustments". Most of the underlying figures rely heavily on estimates and assumptions because incredibly, after almost eight years of devolution, no-one in government has yet set up systems to collect specific details for Scotland. I truly wonder why!!!?

The report candidly admits that primary sources of UK revenue and expenditure are recorded centrally, and merely "allocated to the various regions [sic] using accepted economic methodology". And like most official statistics, it all depends on how the figures are presented. If we add in North Sea oil revenue and leave out arbitrary allocations of UK general costs, we arrive at very different outcome. Income raised in Scotland becomes £40.9bn and spending only £37.2bn, producing a net surplus of £3.7bn. That puts rather a different complexion on things, doesn't it?

When such blatant political spin is presented as legitimate public information, it's hard to take it seriously. Presumably that's why The Herald's coverage was just two paragraphs tacked on to another financial piece. Certainly with its serious shortcomings the present Gers report is simply not worth its 54 glossy pages."

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

Anyways, what is ignored is the really compelling fact that England, itself, does not have its own Government Expenditure and Revenue Report for each year. This is all very curious, as if England actually did then we will truly see how England is in comparison to Scotland economically. Why does this not happen I truly wonder? Isn't this meant to be an equal union? Or could it be that England has something to hide or something? Doesn't the UK, itself, have a debt of around 200 Billion at the moment? How much of this debt only belongs only to England? :-|

I'm sorry, but until the Government produce an expenditure and revenue balance sheet for England (as a whole) or for all of her own regions, in the same laborious way they do for Scotland, I will always take the GERS report with a very hefty dose of salt. Our English neighbours should really do the same.

Lastly, as for Scotland really being a net contributer to the UK economy. With the addition of oil revenue and net privatisation proceeds - it certainly is the case. The independent study that has shown this is by Murkens, Jones and Keating (2002) - "Scottish Independence - a practical guide" p189. Refreshingly this is an independent study - not a piece of Scottish nationalist propaganda. One of the authors is a co-editor of "The Economist". There is also the parliamentary answer from William Waldegrave in 1997, which showed Scotland was in net surplus between 1978 and 1995 to the tune of £27.1bn. The parliamentary answer, in the link below, does tell a much different story. You won't find it published in many places, for very good reason. Here it is:-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970113/text/70113w07.htm#70113w07.html_sbhd0

It shows that Scotland's General Government Borrowing Requirement between 1978 and 1995 was -£27bn. Or in other words Scotland's fiscal surplus relative to to rest of the UK was £27bn. The calculation gave Scotland 90% of North Sea Oil Revenues (as it should be, as this share is deduced via the Scottish Territorial Waters which, by law, is under Scottish legal jurisdiction but funnily enough - I wonder why? - is always excluded from Scotland's economy every year) and a population-based share of the net privatisation proceeds of UK assets (like British Rail, British Aerospace etc).

If you check the link above you should at least compare the rest of the UK to Scotland as well over the alloted time. Who do you think was subsidising who during all of those years? It certainly wasn't England. :-D

At present, Scottish Oil Revenues have actually bailed out the Treasury to the tune of £1bn, last year alone. PESA estimates that North Sea Oil Revenues for 2005 was supposed to be £7bn, but with continuing High Oil Prices it was nearer £11bn. How much do you think the Oil Revenues, this year, will be in comparison then? Especially that Gordon Brown, with a flick of his calculator, has increased taxation of the Oil Companies again.

Scotland, statistically complied by the Government, also contributes more to the UK economy in terms of Gross Value Added than other UK regions except for the South-east and London. Also you do realise that after London, the UK's next 2 richest cities per capita are both Edinburgh and Aberdeen? Nope? :(

Yep. You must be totally right. Scotland is an economic basket-case in need of English hand-outs. We are a truly subsidised people! :roll:

:edit: Updated Link

[AKAMad]

Well Sawney, I see I have raised your Celtic ire. :wink:
I was being flippant to a foreigner. You're right, we English did oppress people until 1706. Then we British oppressed people.
Even though the Scots, Welsh and Irish were just as much as involved with slavery etc.. it is the English who gets the blame.
I am sure that half the world thinks you're picking cotton up there. :lol:

I am sure that Westminster has produced some very bad laws for Scotland, it sure has produced enough for England.
It is always easier to blame the foreigner, so I think Holyrod is good for the Union.

Well Sawney, you seem very informed about the figures.
The GERS report is a waste of time. Our countries are so united after 199 years, that I am sure that figures are very hard to produce, especially as oil prices are very volatile. I must admit that it was an old figure.
Certainly we benefit from each other economically, Britain always has been bigger than the sum of its parts.

[maxtsu]

thundertaker wrote: As I remember you were waxing lyrical that constitutional monarchies are inherently inferior to republics, and insulting those of us who support the monarchy by suggesting that we are servile,
Your choice of words, inferior, when referring to a monarchy.
Not mine. Perhaps an inferiority complex?
thundertaker wrote: You think we briton's are arselicking, tyrant-huggers for having a constitutional monarch instead of a president.
Again, you have an interesting choice of words when you talk about the english monarch; arselicking.
You really do appear to have an issue with your ruler.
thundertaker wrote: You probably think the British monarchy stands in the way of your wet-dream of The Republic of Europe, and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty
Republic of Europe? what a stupid notion. You really starting to show your stupidity here.
wet-dream?...another immature insult. This is just showing your age (the lack of).

thundertaker wrote: and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty
Do you need lessons? Well, if you say so. If you really feel that you need lessons, then start taking them.

USSR, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Magna Carta...yawn
Still has no relevance to your statement referring to me herding people into gas chambers.

So to re-cap, you refer to the british monarchy as:-
inherently inferior
britons are described by you as:-
briton's are arselicking & tyrant-huggers
Then a load of babble about various dictators, and some digress into old law.

If you want to pile insults onto britian, be my guest.

So...you indeed should be flattered.
If you deem to insult me, you better stand-up and explain your self boy, or stop your incoherent rambling.
Answer the question:-
Why do you refer to me as someone who herds people into gas chambers?

[thundertaker]

maxtsu wrote: thundertaker wrote: As I remember you were waxing lyrical that constitutional monarchies are inherently inferior to republics, and insulting those of us who support the monarchy by suggesting that we are servile,
Your choice of words, inferior, when referring to a monarchy.
Not mine. Perhaps an inferiority complex?
thundertaker wrote: You think we briton's are arselicking, tyrant-huggers for having a constitutional monarch instead of a president.
Again, you have an interesting choice of words when you talk about the english monarch; arselicking.
You really do appear to have an issue with your ruler.
thundertaker wrote: You probably think the British monarchy stands in the way of your wet-dream of The Republic of Europe, and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty
Republic of Europe? what a stupid notion. You really starting to show your stupidity here.
wet-dream?...another immature insult. This is just showing your age (the lack of).

thundertaker wrote: and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty
Do you need lessons? Well, if you say so. If you really feel that you need lessons, then start taking them.

USSR, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Magna Carta...yawn
Still has no relevance to your statement referring to me herding people into gas chambers.

So to re-cap, you refer to the british monarchy as:-
inherently inferior
britons are described by you as:-
briton's are arselicking & tyrant-huggers
Then a load of babble about various dictators, and some digress into old law.

If you want to pile insults onto britian, be my guest.

LOL, is that the best you can do? That retort was essentially a long-winded version of 'I know you are but what am I'. Just say that in future, it'll waste less of both of our time.

Quote: So...you indeed should be flattered.
If you deem to insult me, you better stand-up and explain your self boy, or stop your incoherent rambling.
Answer the question:-
Why do you refer to me as someone who herds people into gas chambers?

*sigh* I'll type the following in big letters and maybe you'll get it this time:

I WAS NOT REFERING TO YOU PERSONALLY HERDING PEOPLE INTO GAS CHAMBERS. YOU WERE SLAGGING OFF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, AND COMPARING IT UNFAVOURABLY WITH REPUBLICANISM. I WAS MERELY BRINGING TO YOUR ATTENTION THE FACT THAT REPUBLICS, SUCH AS NAZI GERMANY (HENCE THE GAS CHAMBER REFERENCE) HAVE A FAR WORSE RECORD OF OPPRESSING THEIR CITIZENS THAN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY.
HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THIS FACT, YOU HAVE INSTEAD DECIDED TO PUT UP A SMOKESCREEN BY SUGGESTING THAT I WAS ACCUSING YOU BEING A NAZI. WOULD YOU CARE TO ADDRESS THIS, OR WOULD YOU RATHER JUST CARRY ON HIDING BEHIND THE RIDICULOUS ASSERTION THAT I HAVE BEEN ACCUSING YOU OF BEING A DEATH CAMP GUARD?

[social]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: thundertaker wrote: I'm flattered to have had such an effect on you that you should remember what I said several months earlier and care enough to send this thread off-topic. But I'll answer your questions anyway 'Euroboy':
As I remember you were waxing lyrical that constitutional monarchies are inherently inferior to republics, and insulting those of us who support the monarchy by suggesting that we are servile, I was merely pointing out that Republican governments have a far less savoury record when it comes to oppressing their people. In fact, not even the most despotic Absolute Monarchy ever had a patch on the USSR under stalin, Germany under Hitler, or Pol Pot's glorious people's republic of Kampuchea in the 1970s.
You think we briton's are arselicking, tyrant-huggers for having a constitutional monarch instead of a president. You probably think the British monarchy stands in the way of your wet-dream of The Republic of Europe, and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty from the same continent that gave the world Communism and Facsism, whilst I on the other hand do not. We had Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights long before the continentals started to question the idea that their rulers were living gods whose word was law..... Yes,but the Brits were the ones that commit the most savage crime in World history:The Native Americans Genoside...

Are you aware of what the Nazis called 'the Jewish question' and what, exactly, it led to?

[maxtsu]

thundertaker wrote: I WAS NOT REFERING TO YOU PERSONALLY HERDING PEOPLE INTO GAS CHAMBERS....
Ah, at last a retraction.
I'll remind you, in case you forgot...
thundertaker wrote: maxtsu wrote: thundertaker wrote: Quote: If the consequences are that there was less political extremism. It backs my statement up even more. Power to the monarchy, and not the people.
Yeah, I bet those 'untermensch' being herded into the gas chambers, the guillotine, or crushed under a communist boot nevertheless found it a liberating experiance to be the citizen of a republic instead of the subject of a constitutional monarchy like Britain..... :roll:
hmmmm...interesting how a discussion about english and irish cultures requires you to talk about "gas chambers".
A very english response.
I was addressing YOU Euroboy. That's why the above examples of political extremism were pertenent to the debate you brought up about the English 'bowing down' to monarchs vs the glorious republicanism that has been an unceasing source of joy and happiness for all the citizens of the continent you love so much.......

wrt your beloved "Constitutional" monarchy.
I really couldn't give a toss.
So..after all your immature insults. We end up with what I originally stated.
"You are a subject of the english queen.
You are obliged to bow to her."
If you find that statement an insult. Thats your problem.

[thundertaker]

Umm, what exactly did I retract? I was making quite clear that I was talking to you in my previous post. Where or what in that post led you to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that I was accusing you of being a concentration camp guard?

Quote: wrt your beloved "Constitutional" monarchy.
I really couldn't give a toss.
So..after all your immature insults. We end up with what I originally stated.
"You are a subject of the english queen.
You are obliged to bow to her."
If you find that statement an insult. Thats your problem.

Well, let's have a look at the original statement that provoked this shall we?

maxtsu wrote: The_Right_Honourable wrote:

lol! The first Monarch of England and Scotland was James the First, King of Scotland! And weve had Frenchies on the throne, the Dutch and now Germans!
There are different types of cultures in the world.
And some cultures like to be ruled.
Other cultures prefer to not to be ruled.

This is one of the differences between Irish and English cultures.
There is no way you would get an Irish person to be a "subject" of the Queen (unless his name is Bob Geldolf).
But English people are quite happy to bow to their ruler.

I know an insult when I read one. And this is an insult. You are suggesting that the British like to be 'ruled' over as opposed to proud citizens of a republic like yourself and the Irish. This is bulls**t. We are not 'ruled' over any more than you are, and in many ways we are ruled a lot less. I felt I had to correct you on your assumption that the British are unquestioningly loyal to their leaders in the way you seem to imply, and to point out the fact that Britain has in fact been a beacon of individual liberty and limited responsible government compared to most other countries for centuries...

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

social wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: thundertaker wrote: I'm flattered to have had such an effect on you that you should remember what I said several months earlier and care enough to send this thread off-topic. But I'll answer your questions anyway 'Euroboy':
As I remember you were waxing lyrical that constitutional monarchies are inherently inferior to republics, and insulting those of us who support the monarchy by suggesting that we are servile, I was merely pointing out that Republican governments have a far less savoury record when it comes to oppressing their people. In fact, not even the most despotic Absolute Monarchy ever had a patch on the USSR under stalin, Germany under Hitler, or Pol Pot's glorious people's republic of Kampuchea in the 1970s.
You think we briton's are arselicking, tyrant-huggers for having a constitutional monarch instead of a president. You probably think the British monarchy stands in the way of your wet-dream of The Republic of Europe, and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty from the same continent that gave the world Communism and Facsism, whilst I on the other hand do not. We had Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights long before the continentals started to question the idea that their rulers were living gods whose word was law..... Yes,but the Brits were the ones that commit the most savage crime in World history:The Native Americans Genoside...

Are you aware of what the Nazis called 'the Jewish question' and what, exactly, it led to? All i know is that what the Brits did to the Native Americans,genoside them in their own land and then stealing that land,was the most savage act in human history...

[social]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: social wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: thundertaker wrote: I'm flattered to have had such an effect on you that you should remember what I said several months earlier and care enough to send this thread off-topic. But I'll answer your questions anyway 'Euroboy':
As I remember you were waxing lyrical that constitutional monarchies are inherently inferior to republics, and insulting those of us who support the monarchy by suggesting that we are servile, I was merely pointing out that Republican governments have a far less savoury record when it comes to oppressing their people. In fact, not even the most despotic Absolute Monarchy ever had a patch on the USSR under stalin, Germany under Hitler, or Pol Pot's glorious people's republic of Kampuchea in the 1970s.
You think we briton's are arselicking, tyrant-huggers for having a constitutional monarch instead of a president. You probably think the British monarchy stands in the way of your wet-dream of The Republic of Europe, and that we need lessens in good governance and liberty from the same continent that gave the world Communism and Facsism, whilst I on the other hand do not. We had Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights long before the continentals started to question the idea that their rulers were living gods whose word was law..... Yes,but the Brits were the ones that commit the most savage crime in World history:The Native Americans Genoside...

Are you aware of what the Nazis called 'the Jewish question' and what, exactly, it led to? All i know is that what the Brits did to the Native Americans,genoside them in their own land and then stealing that land,was the most savage act in human history...

As other members have already pointed out, the people who commited this savage act of brutality were American. They were American because they lived in and claimed to own a country called America, not Britain...

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned thier nationality is not important. There have been many other genocides and occupations since the invasion and occupation of America, the majority of which have occured during the 19th and 20th Centuries. Think of the scramble for Africa and the entire history of European imperialism and colonialism (of which American history is only a part). Think also of the the American invasion and subsequent occupation of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghasnitan, and Germany's occupation of Poland and France, and Russia's of the Baltic states...

I'd avoid blaming one country for what you call "the most savage act in history" because all European and Western (and even some Eastern) states have had a finger in the big pie of imperialism and colonialism. All of them have at some point commited crimes against humanity.

[weechucky]

Quote: weechucky wrote:
the problem arises when anyone claims that the English have a right to claim control or authority over Irish soil!!


First of all, it's the British who have sovereignty over NI, not just the English.

Secondly, this isn't about the British having the 'right' to control Northern Ireland. It's about respecting the fact that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland wishes to remain in the UK. And until that day, we are obliged to maintain a prescence there, much as we'd like to get shot of the bastards.....

The British nation and nationality were created by the English as part of their Empire. I do not recognise it as a legitimate nation or nationality.

Secondly this is entirely about the "British" having the right to control the occupied 6 counties. The supporters of the union in this state are the descendants of settlers in Ireland, they do not have to say they are Irish if they don't want to but the have to accept that they are living in Ireland and must accept that the Irish people have a right to self-governance!

Quote: The English didn't claim the right to control Irish soil until 1969, when it was the Protestants who we considered scum. Of course, we became more even-handed in our contempt later on
As soon as the Northern Irish stop arguing over whatever, you can have control of your territory and if you want a united Ireland, you can have it. Have you heard of the GFA

You clearly do not have any idea what you are talking about.

The English invaded Ireland centuries ago and have kept control since.The 26 free state counties were freed from English oppression in 1921 but the other 6 counties still remain under foreign rule.

Read up on your history, this phase of the conflict started in 1969 with the arrival of the British armed forces but this is a war that has been going on a lot longer than that.

Also the GFA you speak of does not move us any closer to a united Ireland. My Father would have been ashamed to have been part of the SF party that signed that agreement. As part of that agreement SF and the Irish government both had to withdraw the Irish claim of sovereignty over the 6 counties.

[maxtsu]

thundertaker wrote: Umm, what exactly did I retract? I was making quite clear that I was talking to you in my previous post. Where or what in that post led you to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that I was accusing you of being a concentration camp guard?
The oldest trick in the book. Inferring by association.
Non-native english speakers my not understand it, what you think? :-)
thundertaker wrote: Well, let's have a look at the original statement that provoked this shall we?
maxtsu wrote: There are different types of cultures in the world.
And some cultures like to be ruled.
Other cultures prefer to not to be ruled.

This is one of the differences between Irish and English cultures.
There is no way you would get an Irish person to be a "subject" of the Queen (unless his name is Bob Geldolf).
But English people are quite happy to bow to their ruler.

I know an insult when I read one. And this is an insult. You are suggesting that the British like to be 'ruled' over as opposed to proud citizens of a republic like yourself and the Irish....
Again, if you find it an insult. Then thats your problem.
My advise to you is change your system. Then I won't be insulting you.
Simple really.

I hope I am not getting "pissy" on you. Because if I am...again...tough.

[thundertaker]

maxtsu wrote: thundertaker wrote: Umm, what exactly did I retract? I was making quite clear that I was talking to you in my previous post. Where or what in that post led you to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that I was accusing you of being a concentration camp guard?
Quote: The oldest trick in the book. Inferring by association.
Non-native english speakers my not understand it, what you think? :-)

Sounds like you answered your own question then "euroboy".....
thundertaker wrote: Well, let's have a look at the original statement that provoked this shall we?
maxtsu wrote: There are different types of cultures in the world.
And some cultures like to be ruled.
Other cultures prefer to not to be ruled.

This is one of the differences between Irish and English cultures.
There is no way you would get an Irish person to be a "subject" of the Queen (unless his name is Bob Geldolf).
But English people are quite happy to bow to their ruler.

I know an insult when I read one. And this is an insult. You are suggesting that the British like to be 'ruled' over as opposed to proud citizens of a republic like yourself and the Irish....
Again, if you find it an insult. Then thats your problem.
My advise to you is change your system. Then I won't be insulting you.
Simple really.

I hope I am not getting "pissy" on you. Because if I am...again...tough.

I'm almost tempted to believe you actually think I care enough about your opinion to consider changing our system.

Would you care to elaborate on why you think we are 'ruled over' more than you then? Come on. I'm really interested to know why we are so benighted, please enlighten me oh mighty one......

[mr crunchy]

as long as you bow to the throne you are subjects,not citizens
and
as long as the battenbergs live in buckingham palace i have living proof that man copulated with beast and gave birth to the horse people aka the royal family..
ann??
philip??
randy andy??
my christ these people are frightening

how many times did phillip jerk off before he impregnated lizzy with the spawn known as charles??

have you seen these people?

he actually lays down with that other beast??
whats her name??
carmelia parker bowles battenberg??

i'd rather stick it in a pencil sharpener