"Unionist's should be prepared to open wide; there is a large dose of bitter medicine coming their way."
I'm guessing there must be some reason (other than sheer vindictive spite) that you seem to take such glee in this and seem to be celebrating some kind of perceived vengeance, but for the life of me I can't think what it might be.
have sinn fein organised, or are organising, a protest for Mrs Windsor when she visits Armagh on Holy Thursday?
Let me elaborate.
I'm sure a more dignified approach would be to explain to unionists exactly why the devolution of policing and justice would be a good thing for either
A. nationalists/republicans
B. everyone in Northern Ireland
Obviously a is easy option because you can just ramble on about the usual collusion shite. I somehow doubt it will be that effective though. B would be more of an intellectual challenge, perhaps, but you might find it more productive - then again that's assuming republicans are not more concerned with scoring a victory over unionists than actually improving things.
Bobbydylan
I'm not sure to be honest
Beano
No spite on my part, had they kept to their end of the bargin in relation to an Irish language act etc it wouldn't be an issue.
They have bummed and blowed about how these powers wouldn't be devolved, I relish the prospect of watching their backpeddling which will soon occur.
Beano
Unionists perhaps do not understand how fundamental the devolution of P&J was to our acceptance of policing.
It was a fundamental tenant upon which we agreed to change our stance, without it many Republicans will find it very difficult to maintain our position.
You can call collusion shite if you wish, people like Raymond McCord, the Finucane family and countless others wouldn't agree with you.
"have sinn fein organised, or are organising, a protest for Mrs Windsor when she visits Armagh on Holy Thursday?"
Bobbydylan
I doubt very much that $inn Fein would do a anything like that as it would be seen as a Republican thing. sure they didnt protest at that other fucker the other week.
She's the "Queen of England", so call her by her name. She doesn't have a surname.
no surname?
i thought it was:
Lizze Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
so the dup wont let $f use the long gallery for the mairead farrell memorial.
remind us again chris, how youse are equal partners in government?
another example of croppies lie down
and the adamites go along with it.
The Irish government is obviously trying to use every influence, however pathetic, in order to get the DUP to play ball.
Including insisting that the IRA disband. They've already started that.
I think it was wrong to try and have a memorial to mairead farrell it stormont in the first place. How can $F tell if thats what she would have wanted.
It's what her family, close friends and comrades wanted.
We take our leave from them as the dead can't speak.
She's the "Queen of England", so call her by her name. She doesn't have a surname.
John
She does have a surname, after the old Saxe-Coburg-Gotha became unpopular during the First World War the name was changed to Winsdor.
In 1917 George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the House but also as the surname of his family.
At a meeting of the Privy Council on 17 July 1917, George V declared that 'all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor'.
You are also lucky that I only called her Lizzie Windsor, I must have been in a charitable mood as much more descriptive terms come to mind when one is thinking of her.
Chris is it still the position of Sinn fein to support diplock lite in the form of single judge trials?
i see margaret thatcher has been taken to hospital.
dear dear
i hope its nothing serious.
ahem
bobby,
She's in a "stable" condition, thank God!
"She's in a "stable" condition, thank God!"
Thats a first!
lol Exactly, Obs.
What sort of drugs did they pump into the old bag to produce that effect? 
Don't the family get a choice to euthanaise over a certain age? My money would be on Carol doing the deed. Funny, I have no lingering deep seated hatred for Paisley, he is what he is. Thatcher on the other hand.....
Tony,
I definitely have contempt for Paisley, but I agree Maggie is in a different league.
I must have been in a charitable mood as much more descriptive terms come to mind when one is thinking of her.
Ah, stop mouthing off. You're impressing no one.
i am afraid we counted our chickens too soon.
but it must be only around corner. then queue street party.
BU is one of the good guys, as you know, and he appears to only be asking for the tiniest bit of respect for someone who may be important to his tradition.
See the answer he gets.
"BU is one of the good guys, as you know, and he appears to only be asking for the tiniest bit of respect for someone who may be important to his tradition."
Maybe you should try practicing what you preach when referencing people who may be important to other traditions, Phantom.
What a hypocrite Phantom, do you possess the ability to self analyse?
Observer
Such as who, exactly?
Tony
Absolutely. Why do you ask?
And my point stands as respects BU, the point / request that he made, and the smirking response he was given.
Phantom
Your points of order lately compose of objecting to the SDLP being called the stoops. And the English Queen not being given her honorific titles.
This site is run by a young Republican who is spot on over his gritted teeth civility towards both. Why are you so worried about insignificant nonsense but play dumb over other far more important things. Get a grip!
BTW you bailed out of our last conversation. Were you hoping perhaps to have us confirm your silly expectations of anti-Americanism...........isms?
Tony
Allow Observer to answer the question I posed to him if you would. You don't speak for him.
I am unsure what you are referring to as to the conversation, etc.
--
Name-calling wins nothing. When people like BU meet you way more than half-way and he is greeted with a smart-aleck attitude, that does not help any cause. And that's just common sense.
Phantom
Give me a break!
It took two minutes to copy these;
"Will the IRA be sending the Three Stooges to the funeral?"
"So, if you're not a guy or girl from the gelegnite squad, you're not worthy of freedom."
The first refers to three guys whose fate exercised the Irish Government, Amnesty,the media and Republicans.
The second refers to a woman who won the admiration of many Irish people, not just Republicans.
"Name-calling wins nothing."
Indeed.
Now about that debate Tony referred to....
The Three Stooges went to another continent to hang out with members of an organization that kills innocents and which finances itself by kidnapping and selling cocaine.
You tell me what I should call these three fugitives from justice.
If they should choose to visit Colombia again some day , the locals (not the military and not the cops ) will call them a whole lot worse.
The Three Stooges went to another continent to hang out with members of an organization that kills innocents and which finances itself by kidnapping and selling cocaine.
Prove it, Phantom. Put up or shut up.
You could talk about the most corrupt judicial system in the world, controlled by a government which supplies most of the world's cocaine and protected by the U.S. because criminality is better than socialism but you'd be wasting your time, Julius.
Phantom is one of those vexations to the spirit your granny used to warn you about.
Reminds me of another individual with a common sense filter who used to troll through Balrog and other sites. Can't remember his bloody name!
You could, Obs, but Phantom has made a claim. Let him provide the evidence to back it up.
Phantom bleats about respect but refuses to show Irish republicans an ounce of it.
I will not shut up. Which precise facts do you dispute?
Do you dispute
that the three men exist?
that they went to Colombia?
that they met with FARC?
Here
Read this while you get your stories/questions straight.
Still can't remember his name, but I do remember thinking about amputating my fingers rather than engage in a life diminishing debate with him.
I suggest a pre-emptive course of antidepressants before you commence a duel of wit against half-wit, Julius.
Only person has to get their story straight is you. You made the claim, not me.
Do you dispute
that the three men exist?
that they went to Colombia?
that they met with FARC?
Don't play dumb now, Phantom. We know you're smarter than that.
You said they went to Colombia to "hang out" with FARC. But the truth is you have no idea why they were there, and most definitely no proof.
Obs,
Ah, our old friend Willow!
I'm too busy to get into this nonsense with Phantom and in any case we've gone off topic. Phantom's hypocrisy is on display for all to see. Crying that we're not showing BU enough respect when he makes comments such as the ones Tony cited. You couldn't make it up!
Two intellectually unarmed men against only me is fine.
JG
They themselves said that they met with FARC. That fits any definition of "hanging out"
Now you tell me why they made that trip.
When the Queen of England --who I don't have any particular opinion on one way or the other -- when she travels to Colombia to play footsie with FARC, then we will put her in the same category with the Three Amigos!!
Two intellectually unarmed men
LMAO! Woops, that wasn't very intellectual was it?
That fits any definition of "hanging out"
Actually no it doesn't. The point that has been made and that you haven't adressed is that you called them disrespectful names while telling the rest of us off for (allegedly) being disrespectful. That's called hypocrisy and it's here for all to see.
That's the last word from me. I have better things to do.
The Three Stooges went to another continent to hang out with members of an organization that kills innocents and which finances itself by kidnapping and selling cocaine.--
Prove it, Phantom. Put up or shut up.
You certainly do.
----
Truth is always a sound defense in any court of law.
Buenos noches!
Willow!
God, remember him/her/it?
He is still around on slugger Obs. Pardon me but I have used your *now famous* retort about chewing appendages off.
It has earned me adulation as a wit of high regard by those who have been similarly frustrated. Don't worry I cited you in a small way, but the torchlight of celebrity shines bright on me now.
Phantom
Scan down to the 'new rules' blog. You had demanded that we state times where we had supported the US, and also our opinions on Afghanistan. We duly obliged, and your grand plan to prove that we were yank haters fell around your ears. Hence your bailing out.
And a lot of what you say may well be true regarding FARC, however I again cite your hypocrisy for failing to point out one thing wrong with the government side. Balance!
Tony
I don't buy it.
FARC came into existence at around the same time, and perhaps in reaction to, right wing militias. Which excuses exactly none of FARC's many atrocities- to native Indians, to ordinary Colombians, to those it has kidnapped, to those families ruined by the drugs it sells or that it allows to be sold by others via its protection rackets.
The elected government of Colombia cannot be compared to "right wing death squads"
It is under severe pressure, including as we see now, from tacit or overt support from oil rich neighbors.
And from people from wealthy northern European countries who do not know the local situation and who are out for an adventure.
Be great to read this ex_IRA Army Council members report.
Anyone know if there's a web-link to that internal investigation?
IRA chief ordered to probe Quinn killing
And from people from wealthy northern European countries who do not know the local situation and who are out for an adventure.
a little like the US policy in Iraq and afghanistan.
Afghanistan was necessary and entirely justified as an act of self defense.
The major goal of ending the Taliban free rein was achieved--damned imperfectly, but achieved.
On Iraq honest men can debate.
But not Afghanistan. No one need apologize for acting in self defense.
Phantom
My citing of FARC was merely to show your inability to strike a balanced view. I know about as much as you do of the region, that would be practically zero. You probably are wider read, however as evidence by your sometimes hilarious claims, I'd bet you read too much propaganda nonsense. Anyway.
Now what about the bailing out stuff.
--Now what about the bailing out stuff.--
Que?
Oh...when I left that discussion, I thought that the respective positions had been dealt with.
And I really was busy...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, you know.
Since at no time in history has SF been anything but a strong opponent of all basic tenets of US Foreign Policy, it is fair and accurate to call them "Anti American"
As you may likewise call me "anti Cuban" since I despise the Castro hereditary Communist monarchy and all its works, even though I have great affection for Cuban people, their culture, love of music, and their exceptional love of baseball and skill at playing it.
But Phantom you were asking about our positions. Which we honestly gave, are you going to now throw a blanket SF label on us?
oh and that labelling might assuage your discomfort about the Unionist bedfellows that you choose to fraternise with. Easy, these Unionists, some of whom are bona fide fascist scum 'get' your quasi neo-con take on what in reality a crazy and somewhat nonrepresentational US foreign policy. But hey ho we are anti-Yanks, and they are your pals...................................enemy of my enemy and all that. Trouble is phantom it just isn't true
"Since at no time in history has SF been anything but a strong opponent of all basic tenets of US Foreign Policy, it is fair and accurate to call them "Anti American""
Didn't DeValera raise a war loan in 1920? In America!
What am I doing!!!
I know you were being rhetorical, but I'd guess that illogically you are playing Phantom's game.
Madness!
I think he has troubles with his conscience you know. Though the missus does criticise me for needless over analysing.
My last word wasn't really my last word!
Since at no time in history has SF been anything but a strong opponent of all basic tenets of US Foreign Policy, it is fair and accurate to call them "Anti American"
If I love the friendliness and genuine kindess of average Americans, if I love the blues, if I am in awe at the sheer mastery of people like Louis Armstrong, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and Hemingway. If I love strolling down Navy Peir or through Boston Common or Haight-Ashbury...
but despite all this I disagree fundamentally with US foreign policy...
Would it really be "fair and accurate" to call me anti-American?
What am I doing!!! - Obs.
lol - I know!
Tony
Most of those Unionists, the ringmaster included, are good guys, with whom I agree on some things and disagree with on others.
I've sharply disagreed with some posted views and have not been censored or treated with disrespect at any time. Nor has Mr. Gaskin or the other Nationalists or Republicans or Irish Americans as far as I've seen. There are plenty of them there, and they speak all the time.
If you don't care for that site, why do you read it so assiduously? If you secretly do like it, why do you decline to speak on it?
If you want to be a registered commenter there, I shall be happy to give you a letter of recommendation.
Tony
C'mon. You're playing chess with Boris Spassky now. Nothing to worry about.
JG
The old Soviet Union used to say that stuff too...we hate the warmongering US, but we love the people, and Louis Armstrong and Hemingway ( he who lived in Cuba!! )
So therefore, the USSR and Castro's gulag regime are "pro American" . In the JG/Tony perspective.
A chara,
Phantom
Phantom
Do you believe one can be against US foreign policy and not be anti-American?
Or is America defined by what it does outside its own country.
Yes.
But if someone is always and without exception against US foreign policy, and...that someone is unsympathetic to our nation acting in legitimate acts of self defense ( ie Afghanistan, which some noted local Marxists / socialists supported with great sincerity and enthusiasm ) ... and that someone is in sympathy to those who want to attack or destroy the United States ( Iran/Jihadists/Al Queda, the usual....then there is a pretty good bet that they are anti-American.
( The above not written with any individual in mind )
he who lived in Cuba!!
LOL, I know!
Seriously though, Phantom, I'm not taking the piss or trying to get one up on you. I really am not anti-American and I can't for the life of me imagine how anyone would think I am. There's so much to admire about the US, the things I listed above are just a few, the list goes on and on.
You said:
"Since at no time in history has SF been anything but a strong opponent of all basic tenets of US Foreign Policy, it is fair and accurate to call them "Anti American"
Now I am not SF myself but you do strongly suggest that if one consistantly opposes US FP that they are anti-American. I think that is just wrong a chara. Think about it.
America is both what it is and what it does.
But if I despised everything you ever did and disagreed with everything you ever said, I'd be hard put to say I'm your best buddy.
At some point, one detects a pattern.
Maybe its good to be anti-American! But those who think the country is unfair and unjust and that its foreign policy is always wrong should be honest and say what they are. We the people elect that government--if we're always electing monsters, then we're bad guys and monsters too, even if we make pretty music. Just say it like it is.
Constructive criticism is totally OK, even if harsh. But if one always is critical and never supportive--again, one detects a pattern after a few decades.
USA will be better under Obama
Y'all will be a lil more chilled out!
Better Obama than Osama
Not a bad guy. But a lot of Clintonian dirty tricks have yet to be played.
See what happens when we play phantom's game of trying to disprove a negative.
Phantom you can ram your invitation right up your fat hole, but thanks anyway. I check that particular website once in a blue moon, my stomach (unlike you) could not handle more. Oh and why lie about there being plenty of Republicans on there? Thankfully there are plenty more Unionists to consider in that yardstick.
My point was that you have these fascist scum as bedfellows simply because you agree on 'some' things. Are you selective in your reading, because much of these guys other views would turn milk................Cue Phantom phoney excuses. Anyhow I agree with you on 'some' things, don't really have many (if any) unpalatable views(habits don't count) So why the selectivity? BTW the guys site you mention will have plenty of time to read these views(Phantom's sycophantic filter switches to on), as he doesn't really have much to read there these days.
Now let's figure if you believe that your views are representative of current US public opinion at the moment, never mind your fascist bedfellows? If not then it is us who are really the true American patriots, and you and your pals are the loonies on the outside.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
God bless America!
Tony
I don't think phantom actually sees his own fascism.
Its dressed up in respectability, like the Orange Orders, all bowler hat and brollies.
Someone or some peoples are always getting hurt and abused as a consequence of their faux-supremacy; and that goes for the Yanks as well as Israel.
As Paisley one famously said
" I'd rather be British than fair "
And so they are always guilty.
I find the aggressors to be the transgressors.
Love your one about us being true american patriots, its right on the money. If they knew what embarrasment felt like, they'd feel it.
Not holding my breath there either.
Oh, aren't the two of you nasty. Shooting around the nastiest of words when the argument does not go your way, without the slightest beginning of a shred of evidence.
"Phantom's fascism" and the OO? F*** you. You may feel it open-minded never to speak to those you disagree with, but that is precisely how things stayed so bad for so long.
The two of you aren't man enough to meet the Unionists who wish to debate. At least Chris Gaskin has the balls to show up and speak his mind. Not so perci and Tony. And Tony--I truly expected better from you.
Phantom,
You're forgetting something: Tony and Perci were banned for sharing their views on that site. In Tony's case for opposing the celebrations and whoops of the natives at the news of butchered Palestinian children.
But if I despised everything you ever did and disagreed with everything you ever said, I'd be hard put to say I'm your best buddy.
Facile analogy a chara. I don't despise everything the US has ever done nor disagree with everything US presidents (for example) ever said.
Case in point:, 'Palestine: Peace not Apartheid' by Jimmy Carter. A very good read, much (though by no means all) of which I agree with.
Perhaps Carter is anti-American! Something to think about.
Carter was a failed President--but at least he agreed with some aspects of US foreign policy ( those that he set of course ) When has SF agreed with any broad objective of US policy openly? Other than the NI peace process.
Tony I thought was banned for making personal attacks.
And I'm not buying the "Palestinian children" line. I've read the site in question, and have seen a strong support of Israel acting to defend itself against rockets fm Gaza, etc etc.
You show me the post there that openly gloried in the death of any child.
Phantom
All true!
I could show you, but it would tax my memory and I really don't have the time to go trawling(family commitments). I am by no means pro-Palestinian, in fact I am reasonably neutral compared to Julias and Chris. In the short term I would ask you to take my word, JG remembers and probably Perci. I was banned from said site just as Julias says, but now have barred myself permanently. pointless someone like me airing my views there.
And Phantom I engage with Unionists all of the time on slugger, and occasionally here. Should I have something to fear from Unionists?
I am by no means pro-Palestinian
And that's not even the point. The point is that you are against chrildren being murdered, and you are against people taking pleasure in children being murdered. All decent people are.
Well , Slugger is a fine place, and I will perhaps have to spend more time over there.
You can have the last word if you like, but I do not see any bloodlust against anyone's children over there. I see a strong support for a vigorous defense of Israel --and any cheering I've seen was for entirely legitimat IDF attacks on Hamas etc.
A force that like its friends makes it a point to hide amongst civilians all the time. Those who care about "Palestinian children" might have a word to say about those who strap the kiddies with suicide belts, or those who fire rockets and then go hide behind a nursery. Those who kill those children are not bloggers, the blood rests on the hands of Hamas and Fatah.
All decent people are against the issuance of libeling people as "rejoicing in child murder" when everyone reading it knows that to be untrue.
Ok Phantom
Since you don't believe us then I will have to go trawling.
Don't hold your breath it may take a while. Give you time to get your sycophantic excuses ready.
JG
I stand corrected, you are right it is not the point. I was trying to appeal to Phantom, a base appeal, a "I'm not your enemy type appeal"
Senseless!
I'll leave any discussion of Palestine there. Obviously I take a radically different view but I'll not get into that just now.
All decent people are against the issuance of libeling people as "rejoicing in child murder" when everyone reading it knows that to be untrue.
1. The quote ("rejoicing in child murder") is incorrect.
2. I think you'll find I mentioned no names. That's not a libel.
Veritas Julias, veritas.
Said arsehole has been on here plenty in the past trying to bully by throwing threats of court action.
JG
-- for opposing the celebrations and whoops of the natives at the news of butchered Palestinian children. --
Well, no names were mentioned, but this was said. Presumbably someone did the celebrating and whooping "at the news of butchered Palestinian children ". Or maybe the computer did it by itself!
Now please point out where I wrote:
"rejoicing in child murder"
Or did you just put something in quotes that nobody actually wrote?
What I actually said:
"for opposing the celebrations and whoops of the natives at the news of butchered Palestinian children"
is true.
Nobody has been libeled but carry on talking nonsense all you like.
I can just see the courtroom now, 'The natives vs Julius Geezer'
A fine Clintonian "definition of what is is" answer.
Didn't think you'd have the integrity to admit you're wrong.
Prozac, anyone
Oh, me please!!
I'll take aw ye've goat ma man!
When I'm wrong, I'll be sure to do so.
Your words are not as careful as you think they are. But life is too short for much more of this "conversation".
Have a nice day.
Ok so. Run along.
But if it comes to you in a dream (the libelous comment I made) do get back to me!
As Bill O'Reilly might say, pinhead!
Aw shite!
When Phantom wishes someone a nice day it means he wants tae knock 9 shades a shite oot ye.
Be afraid, be very afraidŽ
Oh I am afraid, Tony! lol
I might be over your neck of the woods soon for a few days. I've a friend working there. Any good bars you'd recommend in Glasgow? I was in Edinburgh recently, lovely city.
Just e-mail me before you come and I'll catch ye for a pint or a wee tour.
If you can't manage the time. Merchant city is ideal for the modern bourgeoisie, Byres rd for sophisticated types, or the gallowgate, where all the maddie's and hard core rebels go. Me I'd prefer stockwell street, in there you have the Scotia and the clutha vaults. Excellent if pricey folky/political type places.
Phantom
Are you aware Julias is submerged in studying the law.
I'm afraid being precise is part and parcel. If you are looking for a fool to claim whatever.
Ah'm yir man!
Just e-mail me before you come and I'll catch ye for a pint or a wee tour
That'd be good man, I'll do that. Might be a few months down the track. I've a wedding to go to first which is going to break the bank in fine style!
How's the fingers now, lads?
They're actually ok, Obs. Thanks for your concern!
For a while there it wasn't looking so good though, I had the bread knife to hand...
the matiarch of the english royal family is visiting Ard Macha on holy thursday.
chris.. any word on the sinn fein protest?
are they having one?
will conor, cathal, mickey be on a picket line with posters demanding no royal visit before withdrawal.
or will they be on the meet and greet line?
If they're not protesting, that could be a sign of political maturity. Seriously.
It does not mean that they've been co-opted, rather that they realize that a protest would anger some and accomplish nothing.
bobby dyla
you little " jerk off " i see you are still rambling on with the same old story you hard done by dissident , will you be protesting in armagh at the visit ? or will you be mouthing off here as per usual ? any word of a dissident strategy yet ?
Commenting by HaloScan
