Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
I've no intention of changin gyour minds, but why are you voting YES? Personally I cant find any reason to and Im just interested in what makes a YES voter vote....
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
ATT Those who intend to vote YES to NICE (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chocohead
- Start date
- Replies 43
- Views 5K
- Watchers 0
kstop
New Member
Mostly because it makes accession easier for prospective member states. The sooner they're in the better off they'll be. I can live with the slightly reduced power in the governing bodies for that reason.
Also because I think there should be a more well defined common foreign policy. The most powerful entity globally at the moment is the US, and anything they touch seems to turn to shit (Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, the Kurds). A coordinated foreign policy, including a peacekeeping force, would go a long way to balancing that out.
Note that that doesn't mean that we should sacrifice our neutrality. But if we can be involved in UN peacekeeping efforts, there's no reason we can't be involved in EU organisations with a similar focus. In fact, I think we should be involved in a force with such a mandate, to make sure it stays that way.
Actually, an interesting point in the EU's favour is the fact that we're not even setting a date for Turkey's accession, despite strong pressure from the US. (See above re: the Kurds.)
Also because I think there should be a more well defined common foreign policy. The most powerful entity globally at the moment is the US, and anything they touch seems to turn to shit (Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, the Kurds). A coordinated foreign policy, including a peacekeeping force, would go a long way to balancing that out.
Note that that doesn't mean that we should sacrifice our neutrality. But if we can be involved in UN peacekeeping efforts, there's no reason we can't be involved in EU organisations with a similar focus. In fact, I think we should be involved in a force with such a mandate, to make sure it stays that way.
Actually, an interesting point in the EU's favour is the fact that we're not even setting a date for Turkey's accession, despite strong pressure from the US. (See above re: the Kurds.)
- Thread starter
- #3
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
Thanks for replying, I'll just give you my reaons for a no vote::
Mostly because it makes accession easier for prospective member states. The sooner they're in the better off they'll be. I can live with the slightly reduced power in the governing bodies for that reason.
Assention will happen regardless, as the EU president has already stated. he said NICE isnt necessary for enlargement as it'll happen within a 12 month period anyway (something like that). Actually did 7 states start the ball rolling this week?
Also, why would you let states enter an EU thats radically different than it is now? its not doing them any favours. The main 8 countries can still have an inner committe that wont listen to the rest of us. It basically just opens up massive markets of cheap labour for the global corporations who are funding the governments campaign. We'll be doing them a major disfavour, not doing them any good. If we voted no on the other hand and tried to get a better agreement made up then things would be better for us all.
Also because I think there should be a more well defined common foreign policy. The most powerful entity globally at the moment is the US, and anything they touch seems to turn to shit (Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, the Kurds). A coordinated foreign policy, including a peacekeeping force, would go a long way to balancing that out.
There wont be a peacekeeping force, but a peacemaking one with nuclear subs etc. John Brutal, sorry, Bruton has said that peacemaking is the same as war making.
Here we are trying to disarm the north and now everyone wants to arm europe .. that doesnt make sense to me, its just asking for more war. The EU wishes to copy america, not do something different, so things would just be twice as bad. also, how are we going to pay for all this equipment etc? ie, how are me and you going to pay for it since thats what'll happen
Note that that doesn't mean that we should sacrifice our neutrality. But if we can be involved in UN peacekeeping efforts, there's no reason we can't be involved in EU organisations with a similar focus. In fact, I think we should be involved in a force with such a mandate, to make sure it stays that way.
True. Denmark has a protocol that protects its neutrality. why dont we have one? I think NICE should be re-written to give us a protocol, rather than the useless neutrality agreements we have. Also, theres no peacekeeping anymore, its peacemaking. Our constitution doesnt allow warmaking, so they just changed the word.
Actually, an interesting point in the EU's favour is the fact that we're not even setting a date for Turkey's accession, despite strong pressure from the US. (See above re: the Kurds.)
theres internal politics at work there somewhere....
Mostly because it makes accession easier for prospective member states. The sooner they're in the better off they'll be. I can live with the slightly reduced power in the governing bodies for that reason.
Assention will happen regardless, as the EU president has already stated. he said NICE isnt necessary for enlargement as it'll happen within a 12 month period anyway (something like that). Actually did 7 states start the ball rolling this week?
Also, why would you let states enter an EU thats radically different than it is now? its not doing them any favours. The main 8 countries can still have an inner committe that wont listen to the rest of us. It basically just opens up massive markets of cheap labour for the global corporations who are funding the governments campaign. We'll be doing them a major disfavour, not doing them any good. If we voted no on the other hand and tried to get a better agreement made up then things would be better for us all.
Also because I think there should be a more well defined common foreign policy. The most powerful entity globally at the moment is the US, and anything they touch seems to turn to shit (Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, the Kurds). A coordinated foreign policy, including a peacekeeping force, would go a long way to balancing that out.
There wont be a peacekeeping force, but a peacemaking one with nuclear subs etc. John Brutal, sorry, Bruton has said that peacemaking is the same as war making.
Here we are trying to disarm the north and now everyone wants to arm europe .. that doesnt make sense to me, its just asking for more war. The EU wishes to copy america, not do something different, so things would just be twice as bad. also, how are we going to pay for all this equipment etc? ie, how are me and you going to pay for it since thats what'll happen
Note that that doesn't mean that we should sacrifice our neutrality. But if we can be involved in UN peacekeeping efforts, there's no reason we can't be involved in EU organisations with a similar focus. In fact, I think we should be involved in a force with such a mandate, to make sure it stays that way.
True. Denmark has a protocol that protects its neutrality. why dont we have one? I think NICE should be re-written to give us a protocol, rather than the useless neutrality agreements we have. Also, theres no peacekeeping anymore, its peacemaking. Our constitution doesnt allow warmaking, so they just changed the word.
Actually, an interesting point in the EU's favour is the fact that we're not even setting a date for Turkey's accession, despite strong pressure from the US. (See above re: the Kurds.)
theres internal politics at work there somewhere....
kstop
New Member
Originally posted by Chocohead
Thanks for replying, I'll just give you my reaons for a no vote::
Also, why would you let states enter an EU thats radically different than it is now? its not doing them any favours.
It is, coz they'll get access to structural funds, their political processes will be subject to oversight, reducing corruption, and their citizenry will be protected from abuse of their human rights.
The main 8 countries can still have an inner committe that wont listen to the rest of us. It basically just opens up massive markets of cheap labour for the global corporations who are funding the governments campaign.
Why is employment a bad thing? And surely individual countries have the right to set competitive labour rates to court foreign investment. We did it, after all.
There wont be a peacekeeping force, but a peacemaking one with nuclear subs etc. John Brutal, sorry, Bruton has said that peacemaking is the same as war making.
The structure of such a force is a long way from definition, and its roles as laid out in the revised Article 17 don't give it any remit for aggressive action. (Said article also makes it clear that the constitutions of member states have the final say on their responsibilities within such a force, and Seville reiterates that and clarifies it for the case of Irish neutrality). That's why I think that we should be involved in at least the discussions, to make sure that there is a voice for neutrality and for a purely peacekeeping force.
Here we are trying to disarm the north and now everyone wants to arm europe .. that doesnt make sense to me, its just asking for more war.
Europe is already armed. In case you haven't noticed, the EU has two nuclear powers, and each country has its own standing army. Also it's most likely that any new force would be drawn from the existing armies of the countries involved, and in that sense wouldn't represent an increase in the size of the military in the EU.
The EU wishes to copy america, not do something different, so things would just be twice as bad.
I don't see any evidence for this at all in EU foreign policy so far. In fact, if you ask me its policies show orders of magnitude more regard for basic human rights than those of the US. Like I said, the most recent example of this is the furore over Turkey. with the US pushing for EU membership despite Turkey's woeful human rights record (basically because they want to keep their bases there), and the EU refusing it on that basis.
also, how are we going to pay for all this equipment etc? ie, how are me and you going to pay for it since thats what'll happen
I have no idea who'll pay for what. I'll deal with that when it arises, by voting for the government that echoes my views.
True. Denmark has a protocol that protects its neutrality. why dont we have one? I think NICE should be re-written to give us a protocol, rather than the useless neutrality agreements we have.
We don't have one because we have a shite government who failed to get us one. But I think there's enough there to protect our neutrality as it is. And I don't think it's worth fucking over Eastern Europe just to get back at Bertie. That's what our national polls are for.
Thanks for replying, I'll just give you my reaons for a no vote::
Also, why would you let states enter an EU thats radically different than it is now? its not doing them any favours.
It is, coz they'll get access to structural funds, their political processes will be subject to oversight, reducing corruption, and their citizenry will be protected from abuse of their human rights.
The main 8 countries can still have an inner committe that wont listen to the rest of us. It basically just opens up massive markets of cheap labour for the global corporations who are funding the governments campaign.
Why is employment a bad thing? And surely individual countries have the right to set competitive labour rates to court foreign investment. We did it, after all.
There wont be a peacekeeping force, but a peacemaking one with nuclear subs etc. John Brutal, sorry, Bruton has said that peacemaking is the same as war making.
The structure of such a force is a long way from definition, and its roles as laid out in the revised Article 17 don't give it any remit for aggressive action. (Said article also makes it clear that the constitutions of member states have the final say on their responsibilities within such a force, and Seville reiterates that and clarifies it for the case of Irish neutrality). That's why I think that we should be involved in at least the discussions, to make sure that there is a voice for neutrality and for a purely peacekeeping force.
Here we are trying to disarm the north and now everyone wants to arm europe .. that doesnt make sense to me, its just asking for more war.
Europe is already armed. In case you haven't noticed, the EU has two nuclear powers, and each country has its own standing army. Also it's most likely that any new force would be drawn from the existing armies of the countries involved, and in that sense wouldn't represent an increase in the size of the military in the EU.
The EU wishes to copy america, not do something different, so things would just be twice as bad.
I don't see any evidence for this at all in EU foreign policy so far. In fact, if you ask me its policies show orders of magnitude more regard for basic human rights than those of the US. Like I said, the most recent example of this is the furore over Turkey. with the US pushing for EU membership despite Turkey's woeful human rights record (basically because they want to keep their bases there), and the EU refusing it on that basis.
also, how are we going to pay for all this equipment etc? ie, how are me and you going to pay for it since thats what'll happen
I have no idea who'll pay for what. I'll deal with that when it arises, by voting for the government that echoes my views.
True. Denmark has a protocol that protects its neutrality. why dont we have one? I think NICE should be re-written to give us a protocol, rather than the useless neutrality agreements we have.
We don't have one because we have a shite government who failed to get us one. But I think there's enough there to protect our neutrality as it is. And I don't think it's worth fucking over Eastern Europe just to get back at Bertie. That's what our national polls are for.
- Thread starter
- #5
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
hmm, I dunno, i cant see how letting countries into a state that seems determined to fuck them over is a good idea. Look at us for example - last year we said NO and that answer wasnt suitable so we're being harassed about it again. employment isnt a bad thing, but taking major employers from other countries, like ireland, wont do us any good. also, what proof do we have that there wont be any abuse, ie dirt cheap labour .. thats no good for anyone.
As for the EU army, dont count your chickens yet. In a few years time you wont be able to whinge about it nor change it, actually after NICE you wont be able to change much in the EU. Same goes for the financing of the army since it has been stated already that all equipment etc has to be interchangable countrywise, which for ireland means investing in gear with money we dont have.
I'll dig out the quote from the EU that uses the United States of Europe thing .. if that isnt copying america what is...
Voting YES is fucking over europe, remember that when it happens
As for the EU army, dont count your chickens yet. In a few years time you wont be able to whinge about it nor change it, actually after NICE you wont be able to change much in the EU. Same goes for the financing of the army since it has been stated already that all equipment etc has to be interchangable countrywise, which for ireland means investing in gear with money we dont have.
I'll dig out the quote from the EU that uses the United States of Europe thing .. if that isnt copying america what is...
Voting YES is fucking over europe, remember that when it happens
Originally posted by kstop
Originally posted by Chocohead
Are you telling me that Ireland will have exactly the same influence it has now or more, or will it be less?
If its less, how is that a good thing?
Everyone will have less, because there will be more members. More members is a good thing.
Except Germany who lose no MEPs or their right to veto decisions made by the majority of states in the EU.
Are you in a state of denial about the proposed two tier europe? Do you not believe that will be the case?
I do think that the Eastern European states are entering at a disadvantage, and that it'll be decades before they're equivalent economically or politically to the current member states. The same was true for us. I don't think that they're at a disadvantage democratically.
They will not be able to create competitive tax regimes. Perhaps what is potentially the most attractive thing about their economies will driven down as they will have to fall in line with "Europe".
Do you want a United States of Europe? .. theres proof to support that it will exist.
Only if we let it. Nice has nothing to say about that.
That's true, but Nice is certainly about centralising power on the five main states of Europe. This, couple with the effort to bring about an EU president, suggest there are political moves to create something along these lines. Saying No to Nice is an expression that you are against this. Say Yes gives the impression that you don't have an opposition to it.
IS it because a YES vote opens up the assendant countries to exploitation by global corps? wont that mean large corps leaving ireland and fucking off to somewhere else where the labour is cheaper?
In that case, why would the Irish government be campaigning for it? Also, like I said elsewhere, individual countries have the right to set the price of their labour and court international investment. Are you arguing for common wages across the EU, or common corporate taxation rates? Isn't there a contradiction there with your fear of a United States of Europe? After all, even in the USA, individual states set their own tax rates.
Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Spain are all dead against our 10% Corporation Tax - which is a huge advantage in terms of attracting businesses to Ireland. In giving more representation to these countries (which Nice does) and allowing them to veto, coupled with a policy of Tax Harmonisation, it is clear that there is an effort to bring this competitive tax regime to an end in Ireland. They want to bring it in line with the rest of Europe. Indeed, it would be unlikely that the Big 5 will allow countries in Eastern Europe adopt similar tax regimes.
Think about it,.... if you were a business about to invest in Europe, where would you go? To Germany, or to a country with lower wage bills, easier taxes and a government willing to bend over backwards for you. The Big 5 don't like this situation and would like to see it go.
Originally posted by Chocohead
Are you telling me that Ireland will have exactly the same influence it has now or more, or will it be less?
If its less, how is that a good thing?
Everyone will have less, because there will be more members. More members is a good thing.
Except Germany who lose no MEPs or their right to veto decisions made by the majority of states in the EU.
Are you in a state of denial about the proposed two tier europe? Do you not believe that will be the case?
I do think that the Eastern European states are entering at a disadvantage, and that it'll be decades before they're equivalent economically or politically to the current member states. The same was true for us. I don't think that they're at a disadvantage democratically.
They will not be able to create competitive tax regimes. Perhaps what is potentially the most attractive thing about their economies will driven down as they will have to fall in line with "Europe".
Do you want a United States of Europe? .. theres proof to support that it will exist.
Only if we let it. Nice has nothing to say about that.
That's true, but Nice is certainly about centralising power on the five main states of Europe. This, couple with the effort to bring about an EU president, suggest there are political moves to create something along these lines. Saying No to Nice is an expression that you are against this. Say Yes gives the impression that you don't have an opposition to it.
IS it because a YES vote opens up the assendant countries to exploitation by global corps? wont that mean large corps leaving ireland and fucking off to somewhere else where the labour is cheaper?
In that case, why would the Irish government be campaigning for it? Also, like I said elsewhere, individual countries have the right to set the price of their labour and court international investment. Are you arguing for common wages across the EU, or common corporate taxation rates? Isn't there a contradiction there with your fear of a United States of Europe? After all, even in the USA, individual states set their own tax rates.
Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Spain are all dead against our 10% Corporation Tax - which is a huge advantage in terms of attracting businesses to Ireland. In giving more representation to these countries (which Nice does) and allowing them to veto, coupled with a policy of Tax Harmonisation, it is clear that there is an effort to bring this competitive tax regime to an end in Ireland. They want to bring it in line with the rest of Europe. Indeed, it would be unlikely that the Big 5 will allow countries in Eastern Europe adopt similar tax regimes.
Think about it,.... if you were a business about to invest in Europe, where would you go? To Germany, or to a country with lower wage bills, easier taxes and a government willing to bend over backwards for you. The Big 5 don't like this situation and would like to see it go.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2000
- Messages
- 901
I thought you were were voting No because you are a Shinner, Chocohead.
- Thread starter
- #8
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
what, so I just follow the rules, is that what you're saying?
No t on yer nelly. Im saying no because i dont believe the government is telling us everything about the complications of the nice treaty. You know, some of the most unsheeplike, individual political thinkers i know are shinners
No t on yer nelly. Im saying no because i dont believe the government is telling us everything about the complications of the nice treaty. You know, some of the most unsheeplike, individual political thinkers i know are shinners
kstop
New Member
Telling us everything? Read it yourself then (PDF)
It's a relatively important thing, and not worth potentially messing up because you have a problem with the current government.
I wouldn't worry too much - sure they can just ask us again next year if we mess up....
Essentially, a YES is the economic vote an a NO is a cultural heritage protection vote. We've (sic) already sold 90% of our culture to franchise, and essentially most foriegn invetstment that we 'benefit' from fucks off once they've taken all our tax money and built a few roads on germany's tab or theyve found some other low cost labour to exploit. NICE is a big trade off, short term it wont change anything much here, long term a few folks make some friends round europe, and we'll have to help them out when the fit hits the shan. Ireland is a pisspot in a gym, we cant afford to bail other people out- never mind print out endless bullshit referendum leaflets and posters. whats the point of having one more enterprise funded by "the dole" while slowly sellin the off little bits and peices off the country to external investors, effectively pushing up the price of homes and rented accomodation?
- Thread starter
- #12
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
Yes, but that isnt the original white paper from the government. If you look on the web (I have) you'll find a few variations of the nice treaty which makes me wonder why the white paper is not available from the government so we can all check how much info has been left out of the differing versions on the web.
- Thread starter
- #13
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
btw, i dont really give a shite about the current gvernment, though you dont seem to think so. I didnt vote FF and i think as a country we're pretty stupid being duped into having them talk thru their arses, get reelected and proceed with their whatever it is they do - but that had nothing to do with me since they didnt get my vote in the first place. I dont care what happens bertie .. he doesnt come into any decision I have ever made on voting for anything.
The intention of this thread was to find reasons to vote yes, and so far i havent found any in here.
The intention of this thread was to find reasons to vote yes, and so far i havent found any in here.
silo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,890
ah here.
are you taking the piss?
who are you kidding?
are you holding a baseball bat?
are you taking the piss?
who are you kidding?
are you holding a baseball bat?
Originally posted by Chocohead
You know, some of the most unsheeplike, individual political thinkers i know are shinners
- Thread starter
- #15
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
no im not taking the piss. take yer head out of your arse and have a good look about mister.
whats your problem anyway?
whats your problem anyway?
- Thread starter
- #16
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
why would i be holding a baseball bat anyway? care to explain that one .. or indeed, can you actually explain it.
you've been watching too much tv again havent you .....
you've been watching too much tv again havent you .....
silo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,890
just because a party might have some "unsheeplike, individual political thinkers" doesn't make that an excuse for the party itself being the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the country after fianna fail.
sinn fein opposes the death penalty in other countries, but (in practical terms) not in ireland. sinn fein opposes intimidation, but (in practical terms) not in ireland. sinn fein supports human rights, but (in practical terms) not in ireland.
we rightly castigate george w. for this sort of transparent hypocrisy.
sinn fein opposes the death penalty in other countries, but (in practical terms) not in ireland. sinn fein opposes intimidation, but (in practical terms) not in ireland. sinn fein supports human rights, but (in practical terms) not in ireland.
we rightly castigate george w. for this sort of transparent hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Chocohead
no im not taking the piss. take yer head out of your arse and have a good look about mister.
whats your problem anyway?
- Thread starter
- #18
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
man, but you talk crap .. no offense, but thats about the only comment I can make. You really are detached from the reality of ireland arent you ..
1) When has sinn fein murdered anyone recently? or the ira for that matter?
2) Intimidation? How many people do you know who have been intimidated by sinn fein? what was that? none? .. i thought so...
3) Not supporting human rights in ireland? we obvisouly live in different countries my friend, because they seem quite concerned with human rights where i live.
You remind of the kind of person who has very outdated and unrealistic impressions of sinn fein and republicanism in general. get with the times mr silo and at least have debates using information you can actually back up.
also ..... you arent really considering all the facts either before you've made your staement above. there were times when sinn fein obviously where very much involved in violence, but imho there was no other choice in those times. Certainly bears no resemblence to today.
Are you one of those growing number of people who are afraid of sinn fein becoming 'popular' since it means all those poor working class people who vote for them might actually get a say??
seriously, I'd like to understand your biasedness.
1) When has sinn fein murdered anyone recently? or the ira for that matter?
2) Intimidation? How many people do you know who have been intimidated by sinn fein? what was that? none? .. i thought so...
3) Not supporting human rights in ireland? we obvisouly live in different countries my friend, because they seem quite concerned with human rights where i live.
You remind of the kind of person who has very outdated and unrealistic impressions of sinn fein and republicanism in general. get with the times mr silo and at least have debates using information you can actually back up.
also ..... you arent really considering all the facts either before you've made your staement above. there were times when sinn fein obviously where very much involved in violence, but imho there was no other choice in those times. Certainly bears no resemblence to today.
Are you one of those growing number of people who are afraid of sinn fein becoming 'popular' since it means all those poor working class people who vote for them might actually get a say??
seriously, I'd like to understand your biasedness.
silo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,890
"1) When has sinn fein murdered anyone recently? or the ira for that matter?"
i love the "recently". bloody sunday, therefore, is perfectly justifiable, because, y'know, it's not recent.
"2) Intimidation? How many people do you know who have been intimidated by sinn fein? what was that? none? .. i thought so..."
are you seriously going to try and deny the existence of "punishment" beatings? or, better still, try to justify them by saying that loyalists do more of them?
"3) Not supporting human rights in ireland? we obvisouly live in different countries my friend, because they seem quite concerned with human rights where i live."
see above.
"You remind of the kind of person who has very outdated and unrealistic impressions of sinn fein and republicanism in general. get with the times mr silo and at least have debates using information you can actually back up."
i don't see what's "outdated" here. apart from the concept of the nation-state, but then you'd be in agreement with the front nationale and the british government on that one.
"Are you one of those growing number of people who are afraid of sinn fein becoming 'popular' since it means all those poor working class people who vote for them might actually get a say??"
this is the best one of all. i'll start by mentioning that i'm living in a working-class area (inchicore) with a sinn fein t.d. (aengus o snodaigh). so you assume that i'm some sort of right-wing authoritarian reactionary just because i'm not in agreement with sinn fein? i'm a socialist. that generally has something to do with the working class.
i love the "recently". bloody sunday, therefore, is perfectly justifiable, because, y'know, it's not recent.
"2) Intimidation? How many people do you know who have been intimidated by sinn fein? what was that? none? .. i thought so..."
are you seriously going to try and deny the existence of "punishment" beatings? or, better still, try to justify them by saying that loyalists do more of them?
"3) Not supporting human rights in ireland? we obvisouly live in different countries my friend, because they seem quite concerned with human rights where i live."
see above.
"You remind of the kind of person who has very outdated and unrealistic impressions of sinn fein and republicanism in general. get with the times mr silo and at least have debates using information you can actually back up."
i don't see what's "outdated" here. apart from the concept of the nation-state, but then you'd be in agreement with the front nationale and the british government on that one.
"Are you one of those growing number of people who are afraid of sinn fein becoming 'popular' since it means all those poor working class people who vote for them might actually get a say??"
this is the best one of all. i'll start by mentioning that i'm living in a working-class area (inchicore) with a sinn fein t.d. (aengus o snodaigh). so you assume that i'm some sort of right-wing authoritarian reactionary just because i'm not in agreement with sinn fein? i'm a socialist. that generally has something to do with the working class.
- Thread starter
- #20
Chocohead
I like hotdogs.
fine and excellent, but you still didnt manage to actually answer any of my quieries.
If you dont understand what kind of people get 'punished' in punishment beatings (and actually its something sinn fein has spoken out against) then you should do some research on the state of the policing system in the north, and why normal people make requests to paramilitary groups (loyalist and nationalist) to sort out troublemakers. My point is, educate yourself a bit first before going down that debate route since its very murky territory and not always clear cut
Outdated is your attitude.
You obviously dont like shinners, probably think the north should be sectioned off and let them kill each other and more than likely dont really give a shit since your from the south and people years ago made sarcrifices for your current freedom so who gives a shit eh!
In case youve had your head buried somewhere for the past 7 years, you might have noticed most other people have moved on a bit from the mindless slagging of sinn fein without cause, a tradition well organised in the media, which you seem to like to carry on.
socialism? sin feins a bit weird in that regard .. some are through and through solicaists, others arent. Im not. I just want to see peace in ireland and no other party really seems to be going that route except sinn fein.
Henceforth why I'd like to know why you feel the way you do about it...and why you can assume things and post them at me as though you've a right to look down at me for being a shinner
If you dont understand what kind of people get 'punished' in punishment beatings (and actually its something sinn fein has spoken out against) then you should do some research on the state of the policing system in the north, and why normal people make requests to paramilitary groups (loyalist and nationalist) to sort out troublemakers. My point is, educate yourself a bit first before going down that debate route since its very murky territory and not always clear cut
Outdated is your attitude.
You obviously dont like shinners, probably think the north should be sectioned off and let them kill each other and more than likely dont really give a shit since your from the south and people years ago made sarcrifices for your current freedom so who gives a shit eh!
In case youve had your head buried somewhere for the past 7 years, you might have noticed most other people have moved on a bit from the mindless slagging of sinn fein without cause, a tradition well organised in the media, which you seem to like to carry on.
socialism? sin feins a bit weird in that regard .. some are through and through solicaists, others arent. Im not. I just want to see peace in ireland and no other party really seems to be going that route except sinn fein.
Henceforth why I'd like to know why you feel the way you do about it...and why you can assume things and post them at me as though you've a right to look down at me for being a shinner
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now
