Why would you want a crown, a Zionist star and two red hands on Any fleg FFS?
And as Bonnie says why no Saltire?
As for the Tricolour, apparently it already offends too many unionists.
Maybe it's just too orange?
Printable View
Why would you want a crown, a Zionist star and two red hands on Any fleg FFS?
And as Bonnie says why no Saltire?
As for the Tricolour, apparently it already offends too many unionists.
Maybe it's just too orange?
Where did I say change? More goalposts being moved.
I would gladly keep the trickler but would also accept the Four Provinces or Saltire. I don;t think there's many who would find either offensive in any context. Perhaps some Republicans would get miffed at the saltire. but feck them.
How have I moved goalposts? I merely anticipated future demand for supposedly all-inclusive symbols and poked gentle fun at it.
I don't dislike the Saltire symbol, it just looks a bit odd.
So why not answer the points made above then?
And have this feeling the Saltire is not the only odd looking thing on this MB.
I don't usually answer your posts (and nor does anyone else) because they're almost always moronic, abusive, trolling, or all three. Do us all a favor and fcuk off, there's a good lad.
http://nowolves.com/glow%20in%20the%20dark%20600.png
I agree Gather, that's someone who uses Vox as a source, that's all ye need to know. Vox!
Charming, though clearly the education system has failed in the North on the basis of GR's spelling...
And clearly doesn't do irony.
Given their blatant hypocrisy.
The Detail (or someone sounding like Newtown Emerson) outlines an alternative take on the Irish government's negotiating/bargaining position:
https://vimeo.com/211773119
Four IRA men give their various opinions on the state of play presently in the I.T. today.
Link - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...guff-1.3041131
My own effort. Nods to the Trickler, Union Fleg, and using the same design as South Africa will give the Shinners the chance to remind everyone how they were mates with Nelson Mandela which should get them on board.
Attachment 2548
I just came across the highly-rated Bobby Sands: 66 Days documentary on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDiQrifqCzY
It's sure to be of interest to a few of yous.
I see the same YouTube user who uploaded 66 Days has also uploaded Voices from the Grave (along with numerous other documentaries covering politics and conflict in the north):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCZShda0Oq4
Voices from the Grave is very insightful and well worth a watch. It is based primarily on the "Boston tapes" interviews (overseen by journalist Ed Moloney) with former-IRA volunteer Brendan Hughes and ex-UVF volunteer and PUP leader David Ervine conducted before they died.
From IMDB:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Moloney
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDB
A really refreshing and progressive approach to the question of possible Irish unity outlined by unionist/loyalist Sophie Long (who recently left the PUP after provoking controversy within the loyalist community upon tweeting condolences to the "family, friends and comrades" of Martin McGuinness) on BBC Radio Ulster's Talkback programme this afternoon as she urged fellow unionists to start preparing for what she now regards as a "slightly more likely" united Ireland and to start outlining what sort of settlement or arrangement would be most palatable for them. Listen here from 7m50s: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ljfn9
She admits that, given the recent electoral blow dealt to unionism, rather than battening down the hatches, unionists need to look outward and must strategise in preparation for what will be a "unionist apocalypse". Long refers to herself as a "pragmatic unionist" and describes her approach as a "contingency plan" or "insurance policy"; essentially, to paraphrase, she's saying that if unionists plan for unity, they can at least have a seat at the table and will have their voices heard so as to help ensure they won't be absorbed into a political territory that they had no role in shaping. I would very much welcome such dialogue, debate and discussion. A united Ireland will be one of compromise, and that's something a lot of nationalists and republicans will have to come to terms with too if we're to realise it.
For what it's worth, here are some recent tweets from Long on the matter:
Quote:
A forward-looking Unionism could and should outline its vision of a United Ireland inc links to UK and Commonwealth, minority rights etc.
Quote:
Refusing to acknowledge demographic shifts and the impact of Brexit is not political strategy or principledness. Its a lack of vision.
Quote:
"Never, never, never" worked so well last time. What could possibly go wrong?
Quote:
Alternatively, there's always non-territorial autonomy. Plenty of political options for Unionists to avail of. None of which are saying "No"
Quote:
We aren't in 1913 and won't see a cross-class alliance of militant Unionists. Any solutions must be political, non-violent and creative.
Quote:
Even pockets of organised violence will be quickly stymied. In a post 9/11 security setting no major operations will be successful.
'Roadmap to a united Ireland revealed in new report by leading Irish politicians': http://www.irishcentral.com/news/pol...sh-politicians
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheila Langan
This piece also contains some very interesting graphics of the shifting population trends based on the various census counts since 1971 and their impact on how things might be about to unfold, the main thread is the still largely divided society in housing and education particularly - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...land-1.3030921
http://www.independent.ie/life/irish...-35621422.htmlQuote:
An increase in the number of Protestant immigrants, particularly from Africa and India, has helped to re-energise some parishes, and there has also been an influx of worshippers who grew up as Catholics.
One parishioner from Lucan estimates his local church-going population as 50pc traditional Church of Ireland, 25pc African or Indian, and 25pc people who were baptised as Catholics.
"There are a number of people from a Catholic background who feel more comfortable in the Church of Ireland at the moment, but I would not see this as a form of competition," says Patrick Comerford.
This is consistent with the fact there are more Northern Catholics who would rather remain in the union than there are Northern Protestants who desire unification.
:confused:
I'm just hoping that someone can explain to me the supposed connection or "consistency" between a number of Catholics in Lucan converting to Anglicanism and the fact that a higher proportion (37 per cent) of Catholics in the north of Ireland may prefer to maintain a political union with Britain than the proportion (5 per cent) of northern Protestants who'd vote for Irish re-unification.
Does it make me a bad Irishman if I would welcome a United Ireland more for the opportunity it would bring to tear down and rebuild the rotten political system in the Republic than anything to do with nationalism and territorial integrity?