General / Off-Topic The battle within the left

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

"Oh, my Holy Book said that? Well, you shouldn't take that part literally!"
"Oh, Sam Harris said that? Well, you shouldn't take that part literally!"

When some ISIS member says:"We should wipe out innocent civilians!" you yell "See, I told you!". When your heroes state the exact same thing you say "haha, dont worry, he didn't mean it, and if he did I dont really agree with that little bit!"

Ofcourse, religious people cant pick & chose what they like about their specific Holy Book. "Thats hypocrisy!" you said numerous times in other topics. Yet curiously the same does not go for you. You oppose 'the Islam', as if it is one specific idea shared by all Muslims. But your ideology, the left, is ofcourse super-diverse, with lots of room for independent disagreements between people. Sounds fair.

The difference between Harris and Islamic extremists, is that Harris wasn't stating a goal of world domination, and he wasn't saying that we should nuke anyone, he was opening up the question, should we do it if all else fails ? Thereby opening up a debate in which you and me can say no, we can't and won't do it. You can have a debate with Sam Harris, try having a debate with an Islamic extremist.
As for religion itself, if you read what i say you will understand that i know they are not all the same, not all bad. But why should that stop me from opposing an idea that i believe is wrong ? Such as the bible, koran, or mein kampf, all of which demand submission in the most un liberal fashion.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Thanks for the in depth answer. Yes, let's get to it, just a couple of points.
1. Bill Maher and people like him have been trying to help the voices within those groups that we talk about, let's take Majid Nawaz, he'a a very brave Musllim reformer, works with an anti extremist organisation, you would think that the progressives (again, i'm progressive) would be praising him, not the case. Then there is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a very brave former Muslim who has had death threats for speaking against Islam, she is largely critisised by the left. It's a real tragedy, because if people like this had more support, then the many secretly gay or atheist Muslims would feel able to have a role model, yet they see these brave peope are hit fom three sides, far right, prrogressive left, and religious fundamentalism.
2. Forgive me, but when i say i oppose Islam i mean exactly that, i don't oppose anyone based on their faith whether they are Musliim or Christian etc , but i do oppose the ideas of all organised religion (Islam, Christianity etc) in much the same way that we all oppose the ideas of fascism and communism. I reject racism and bigotry, and i want a truly secular society where Muslims, Christians and anyone else can be who they are, have equal rights, but without being pandered to.
o7, thank you for readng, i look forward to feedback.

Edit: i'm still a progressive politically, but i'm unsettled with some of the regressive attitudes shown when dealing with religion.

If you want a secular society where people of any faith can be who they are and have equal rights, I think it's essentially inaccurate to say you oppose the idea of organized religion. It would be entirely fair to say that you do not subscribe to it, or that you believe that it introduces a number of a potential problems in thought, or something like that, but to declare that you "oppose" means that there is some sort of active opposition. It's a verb, after all.

I'm not trying to tell you what you "really think" and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am suggesting that your statements on the matter seem... underdeveloped. And yes, I recognize that I'm saying that as the guy who just praised the value of the tension created between opposing viewpoints. I'm fully willing to accept though that my understanding of how the concepts I raised are related is itself underdeveloped. I'm sure that's the case, as I myself have at times been able to state my views better. I'm comfortable with those claims as a "high-level" overview of my ideas, but would happily deconstruct them if asked to go into detail. But that seems like it would be getting somewhat sidetracked (although I'm happy to go into it if asked).

Back to your claim of active opposition and a desire for coexistence though, that simply doesn't work. Unless you're incredibly apathetic in your opposition, I suppose, but I'd then point out that you're not really opposing at that point either.

Essentially, to me your claim of that you "oppose" is the same sort of "high level overview" language I used when I stated my views on, say, intolerance of intolerance - potentially good for a surface understanding, but not really accurate if you want to dive deeper. If that's the case however, I'd also argue that making a claim that you "oppose Islam" - if you in fact mean something more nuanced - isn't a good surface understanding given that we do have, in both our countries (running on that assumption that you're from the UK) problems with genuine violent anti-Islam bigotry. Because of that social context, careless language about "opposing" bolsters and lends (presumably) inadvertent support to the real bigots and also contributes to an atmosphere of fear and oppression among Muslims. While in many cases a broad brush is totally acceptable, in some situations, greater caution and nuance is the wiser option.

This is all assuming you do truly want a society where those who want to be religious are free to practice their faith. The other possibility, and to my eyes, the one I don't want to believe without further evidence, because it casts you in more negative light, is that the other of your two claimed values take precedence - that is, that you oppose Islam more than you value a society with freedom of religion. That's a lot more simple, because that's just a mix of authoritarianism and bigotry. I don't want to assume that of you though, so I won't.

To me, that seems to cover all the options. Am I missing a third way here?

I'm curious. You say you are progressive. What does that mean to you?

/As a potential aside, the value of nuance seems to often be one of the main indicators in how liberal or conservative someone is. It seems like the the more liberal someone is, the more they place importance in nuance in both language and understanding of society and culture, whereas the more conservative one is, the more one prizes bold and brash blanket statements (until it comes to a field that person has a lot of expertise in, of course). Kind of interesting.

 

[FuzzySpider]

and he wasn't saying that we should nuke anyone, he was opening up the question, should we do it if all else fails ?

If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime -- as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day -- but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.

How does "nuclear first strike" morph into "all else fails"?

Your defense of genocide is hardly endearing.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

The difference between Harris and Islamic extremists, is that Harris wasn't stating a goal of world domination, and he wasn't saying that we should nuke anyone, he was opening up the question, should we do it if all else fails ? Thereby opening up a debate in which you and me can say no, we can't and won't do it. You can have a debate with Sam Harris, try having a debate with an Islamic extremist.
As for religion itself, if you read what i say you will understand that i know they are not all the same, not all bad. But why should that stop me from opposing an idea that i believe is wrong ? Such as the bible, koran, or mein kampf, all of which demand submission in the most un liberal fashion.

Your statements seem to become misleading here due to unnecessary qualifiers. "try having a debate with an Islamic extremist" is specific to the point of manufacturing bigotry. Is it not the specific brand of extremism that makes one closed to civil debate. It's extremism itself.

The statement should be "try having a debate with an extremist", which to my eyes, reinforces Sleutelbos's argument.

That's why I think that verbal nuance can be incredibly important. Sometimes, a misplaced word corrupts not only other's understandings of our thoughts, but can corrupt our entire thought process.

Also your claim that the Bible and the Koran "demand submission in the most un liberal fashion" reinforces my initial suspicion that you don't really understand what you're claiming you oppose. You oppose some specific interpretation of those texts, yes. Others have different interpretations though. The ones you oppose are not the only ones - and especially to you as a religious outsider there - none of those claims are "right". You are, again, painting with far too broad a brush.

It's as irrational as those on the right in the United States who claim to "oppose socialism", when in fact there's plenty of socialistic systems they support. Or those on the left who claim "I oppose capitalism", but similarly support plenty of capitalistic systems. Their real meanings are "I oppose what I understand to be socialism", "I oppose socialism in this specific area", or "I oppose these capitalist power structures". Nuance and specificity creates avenues for debate and reason, whereas a too-broad brush just shuts it down.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

How does "nuclear first strike" morph into "all else fails"?

Your defense of genocide is hardly endearing.

I have never defended any genocide, i have specially stated that i (obviously) oppose Sam Harris on that issue, assuming that he wants to do that.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

If you want a secular society where people of any faith can be who they are and have equal rights, I think it's essentially inaccurate to say you oppose the idea of organized religion. It would be entirely fair to say that you do not subscribe to it, or that you believe that it introduces a number of a potential problems in thought, or something like that, but to declare that you "oppose" means that there is some sort of active opposition. It's a verb, after all.

I'm not trying to tell you what you "really think" and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am suggesting that your statements on the matter seem... underdeveloped. And yes, I recognize that I'm saying that as the guy who just praised the value of the tension created between opposing viewpoints. I'm fully willing to accept though that my understanding of how the concepts I raised are related is itself underdeveloped. I'm sure that's the case, as I myself have at times been able to state my views better. I'm comfortable with those claims as a "high-level" overview of my ideas, but would happily deconstruct them if asked to go into detail. But that seems like it would be getting somewhat sidetracked (although I'm happy to go into it if asked).

Back to your claim of active opposition and a desire for coexistence though, that simply doesn't work. Unless you're incredibly apathetic in your opposition, I suppose, but I'd then point out that you're not really opposing at that point either.

Essentially, to me your claim of that you "oppose" is the same sort of "high level overview" language I used when I stated my views on, say, intolerance of intolerance - potentially good for a surface understanding, but not really accurate if you want to dive deeper. If that's the case however, I'd also argue that making a claim that you "oppose Islam" - if you in fact mean something more nuanced - isn't a good surface understanding given that we do have, in both our countries (running on that assumption that you're from the UK) problems with genuine violent anti-Islam bigotry. Because of that social context, careless language about "opposing" bolsters and lends (presumably) inadvertent support to the real bigots and also contributes to an atmosphere of fear and oppression among Muslims. While in many cases a broad brush is totally acceptable, in some situations, greater caution and nuance is the wiser option.

This is all assuming you do truly want a society where those who want to be religious are free to practice their faith. The other possibility, and to my eyes, the one I don't want to believe without further evidence, because it casts you in more negative light, is that the other of your two claimed values take precedence - that is, that you oppose Islam more than you value a society with freedom of religion. That's a lot more simple, because that's just a mix of authoritarianism and bigotry. I don't want to assume that of you though, so I won't.

To me, that seems to cover all the options. Am I missing a third way here?

I'm curious. You say you are progressive. What does that mean to you?

/As a potential aside, the value of nuance seems to often be one of the main indicators in how liberal or conservative someone is. It seems like the the more liberal someone is, the more they place importance in nuance in both language and understanding of society and culture, whereas the more conservative one is, the more one prizes bold and brash blanket statements (until it comes to a field that person has a lot of expertise in, of course). Kind of interesting.

Your kind of reply is what i was hoping for. I'll clarify, i oppose all religious ideas because in my opinion they are all untrue. I do not seek to oppose the existence of religion, because it would be both impossible and inhumane as Stalin proved. In fact i'm not only happy to co exist with my religious friends, i'd also proudly call them friends, whilst opposing their ideas in a civil manner (so long as they are civil), allthough when it comes to laws of the land, i oppose any religious involvement at all. Perhaps you are right and my language seems more aggressive that i intend.
And by progressive, in the political sense, i believe in getting money out of politics, an end to racial and religious discrimination, an end to homophobia, action on climate change, taxing corporations and the extremely wealthy, i also believe in healthcare for all, we have that here in the UK, you will have it one day if the Sanders momentum continues. I think i'm progressive by the American definition but you can tell me if i'm wrong.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I have never defended any genocide, i have specially stated that oppose Sam Harris on that issue, assuming that he wants to do that.

Yet you claim him as one of the great left-liberal examples. You cant add a little 'except for the genocide bit' disclaimer. Or rather, you can, but that is exactly why people call you an extremist. A reasonable person, left or right, would not just oppose any call for genocide, but also instantly distance themselves from that person. Its not a minor flaw. Genocide is not a simple 'agree to disagree' matter.

The difference between Harris and Islamic extremists, is that Harris wasn't stating a goal of world domination

Oh, that makes genocide perfectly all right then. I thought reasonable people on the left were against genocide on general principle, but apparently it depends on the motivation.

he was opening up the question, should we do it if all else fails ? Thereby opening up a debate in which you and me can say no, we can't and won't do it.

The 'I am just opening a debate' is the tell-tale sign of someone not owing up to their words. But I guess if you are consistent it means you are totally fine with a religious extremist saying "Should we kill all atheists? I am not saying we should, just asking the question and opening the debate on whether we should."

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Yet you claim him as one of the great left-liberal examples. You cant add a little 'except for the genocide bit' disclaimer. Or rather, you can, but that is exactly why people call you an extremist. A reasonable person, left or right, would not just oppose any call for genocide, but also instantly distance themselves from that person. Its not a minor flaw. Genocide is not a simple 'agree to disagree' matter.


Oh, that makes genocide perfectly all right then. I thought reasonable people on the left were against genocide on general principle, but apparently it depends on the motivation.



The 'I am just opening a debate' is the tell-tale sign of someone not owing up to their words. But I guess if you are consistent it means you are totally fine with a religious extremist saying "Should we kill all atheists? I am not saying we should, just asking the question and opening the debate on whether we should."

Have you seen any of the videos where he clarifies his comments ? If i thought he genuinely wanted to do a genocide against muslims, then i would distance myself from him, because that would make him the same as those who wish to kill all atheists. I'd link you a TYT interview and a Rubin report interview in which Sam Harris clarifies himself, but i can't do it from my xbox.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Have you seen any of the videos where he clarifies his comments ? If i thought he genuinely wanted to do a genocide against muslims, then i would distance myself from him, because that would make him the same as those who wish to kill all atheists. I'd link you a TYT interview and a Rubin report interview in which Sam Harris clarifies himself, but i can't do it from my xbox.

Lovely.

You have a video were an extremely partisan "journalist" gives Harris a platform to pretend he didn't say that we should consider wiping out tens of millions of people in minutes. That's dandy.

You've also told everyone to get off Bill Mahers case. Other than Wakefield, nobody has done more to advance anti-vaccination. He goes on Larry King and advises elderly people to avoid the flu vaccine, because he says it will give them Alzheimer's. Potentially fatal advise. Why on earth would anyone reasonable not want that idiot called out for his awfullness? But you seem to want him given a pass because he's an atheist?

This sounds a lot like a cult to me.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Your kind of reply is what i was hoping for. I'll clarify, i oppose all religious ideas because in my opinion they are all untrue. I do not seek to oppose the existence of religion, because it would be both impossible and inhumane as Stalin proved. In fact i'm not only happy to co exist with my religious friends, i'd also proudly call them friends, whilst opposing their ideas in a civil manner (so long as they are civil), allthough when it comes to laws of the land, i oppose any religious involvement at all. Perhaps you are right and my language seems more aggressive that i intend.
And by progressive, in the political sense, i believe in getting money out of politics, an end to racial and religious discrimination, an end to homophobia, action on climate change, taxing corporations and the extremely wealthy, i also believe in healthcare for all, we have that here in the UK, you will have it one day if the Sanders momentum continues. I think i'm progressive by the American definition but you can tell me if i'm wrong.

Those claimed values sound progressive to me, yes.

I do think your language is creating conflict where none need exist. It kind of loops back to my previous statement of needless specificity creating, or creating the appearance of, bigotry.

I'll try to clarify here that to my understanding, bigotry is something inherent in all people, and something we all need to constantly be on guard against - it's less a specific crime like assault, and more a negative trait we all have to some degree, like greed. So I think it's really important to be on guard against ways we might inadvertently succumb to it ourselves.

Where you say you oppose all religions, I would probably agree with your underlying sentiment, but I would phrase it as something like "I support evidence-based thinking".

If your goal is to promote truth and a scientific, rather than magical, mindset, I think this accomplishes that. However, where "I oppose religion" creates inherent conflict with the religious, "I support evidence-based thinking" creates avenues for cooperation - you'll find plenty of religious people who also support evidence-based thinking. The former is inherently exclusive, the latter is open and inclusive.

The more we can state our aims in a positive manner - that is, in terms of what we are for rather than what we are against - the more we find friends and allies in the most unexpected places.

The way that our language choice and our thought both influence each other is really fascinating to me, and I think that you'll find that when you're able to identify (and if you choose to change) these seemingly minor phrasing choices, that it really opens up new insights and understandings.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Those claimed values sound progressive to me, yes.

I do think your language is creating conflict where none need exist. It kind of loops back to my previous statement of needless specificity creating, or creating the appearance of, bigotry.

I'll try to clarify here that to my understanding, bigotry is something inherent in all people, and something we all need to constantly be on guard against - it's less a specific crime like assault, and more a negative trait we all have to some degree, like greed. So I think it's really important to be on guard against ways we might inadvertently succumb to it ourselves.

Where you say you oppose all religions, I would probably agree with your underlying sentiment, but I would phrase it as something like "I support evidence-based thinking".

If your goal is to promote truth and a scientific, rather than magical, mindset, I think this accomplishes that. However, where "I oppose religion" creates inherent conflict with the religious, "I support evidence-based thinking" creates avenues for cooperation - you'll find plenty of religious people who also support evidence-based thinking. The former is inherently exclusive, the latter is open and inclusive.

The more we can state our aims in a positive manner - that is, in terms of what we are for rather than what we are against - the more we find friends and allies in the most unexpected places.

The way that our language choice and our thought both influence each other is really fascinating to me, and I think that you'll find that when you're able to identify (and if you choose to change) these seemingly minor phrasing choices, that it really opens up new insights and understandings.

I understand what you are saying, and i'm certain you are right when it comes to my phrasing, perhaps i have spent too much time admiring the works and debate styles of the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

Lovely.

You have a video were an extremely partisan "journalist" gives Harris a platform to pretend he didn't say that we should consider wiping out tens of millions of people in minutes. That's dandy.

You've also told everyone to get off Bill Mahers case. Other than Wakefield, nobody has done more to advance anti-vaccination. He goes on Larry King and advises elderly people to avoid the flu vaccine, because he says it will give them Alzheimer's. Potentially fatal advise. Why on earth would anyone reasonable not want that idiot called out for his awfullness? But you seem to want him given a pass because he's an atheist?

This sounds a lot like a cult to me.

Just to clarify, i also said i opposed Maher on vaccines, when i said he should be "given a break" i meant regarding religion.

 

[verminstar]

Are you saying if you were offered a billion you would not take it?

Absolutely yes...money doesnt buy happiness and contentment...never has and never will ^

 

[verminstar]

It's all you can do. Unless you don't vote at all or vote for some other party - but that's helping the Shinners. So I can see how you're stuck. And that's what happens when the issue of who 'owns' NI is always number one.

Tribal politics...there are literally no other parties to vote for because the last election wiped them out. They dont hold a single seat between them...not one. If ye live here now, yer one side or the other...there is no middle ground and even less chance of either side compromising. Both are hardline and both are as opposed to each other as its possible to get without actual violence.

Thats our political scenario in a nutshell...ergo why Ive lost all hope in it ^

The threat of a united ireland united a divided unionism...thats what fear does, what it will always do. Fear drove us to that...and desperation. After this, the choices get even more limited...one is not hopeful that the ceasefires can hold much longer...theres a lotta anger right now that has no outlet and its the start of the orange marching season. If anything is gonna happen, itll be very soon ^

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Tribal politics...there are literally no other parties to vote for because the last election wiped them out. They dont hold a single seat between them...not one. If ye live here now, yer one side or the other...there is no middle ground and even less chance of either side compromising. Both are hardline and both are as opposed to each other as its possible to get without actual violence.

Thats our political scenario in a nutshell...ergo why Ive lost all hope in it ^

The threat of a united ireland united a divided unionism...thats what fear does, what it will always do. Fear drove us to that...and desperation. After this, the choices get even more limited...one is not hopeful that the ceasefires can hold much longer...theres a lotta anger right now that has no outlet and its the start of the orange marching season. If anything is gonna happen, itll be very soon ^

The situation is terrifying, if troubles stir up again we can blame the Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit. (and the republicans and unionists themselves).

 

[verminstar]

The situation is terrifying, if troubles stir up again we can blame the Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit. (and the republicans and unionists themselves).

Terrifying is a very strong word...Id would say apprehensive, but not overly troubled. The blame here will always fall on republicans...everything that happened since the executive first collapsed can be traced back to them and their refusal to work with someone they dont like. We dont like them very much but we are willing to sit down and work with them...but no doubt the outside world judge us on how they percieve the DUP so the outside world can spit fer all I care. Blame us if ye want...wont make any difference either way to me because I already know who is to blame ^

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Terrifying is a very strong word...Id would say apprehensive, but not overly troubled. The blame here will always fall on republicans...everything that happened since the executive first collapsed can be traced back to them and their refusal to work with someone they dont like. We dont like them very much but we are willing to sit down and work with them...but no doubt the outside world judge us on how they percieve the DUP so the outside world can spit fer all I care. Blame us if ye want...wont make any difference either way to me because I already know who is to blame ^

Understood, i hope things work out though, i guess that means Sinn Fein need to be more positive.

 

[Arry]

Terrifying is a very strong word...Id would say apprehensive, but not overly troubled. The blame here will always fall on republicans...everything that happened since the executive first collapsed can be traced back to them and their refusal to work with someone they dont like. We dont like them very much but we are willing to sit down and work with them...but no doubt the outside world judge us on how they percieve the DUP so the outside world can spit fer all I care. Blame us if ye want...wont make any difference either way to me because I already know who is to blame ^

I understood that there was some kind of 'fraudulent overpayments regarding a fuel scheme' which was overseen by the first minister (DUP), who then A. Refused to acknowledge there was a problem and then B. Wanted to defer the suspension of the scheme to a later date and then when it was fully established that there was a problem, that was costing hundreds of thousands; said first minster refused to take any responsibility for it. I also understand that the second minister refused to work with said first minister and so the whole thing has collapsed. I also understand, that if the said first minister resigned, then the other party would be happy to work with whom ever replaced her.

Now however: The DUP would be happy if things are again run from Westminster and are basically doing everything they can to see it happen.

 

[verminstar]

I understood that there was some kind of 'fraudulent overpayments regarding a fuel scheme' which was overseen by the first minister (DUP), who then A. Refused to acknowledge there was a problem and then B. Wanted to defer the suspension of the scheme to a later date and then when it was fully established that there was a problem, that was costing hundreds of thousands; said first minster refused to take any responsibility for it. I also understand that the second minister refused to work with said first minister and so the whole thing has collapsed. I also understand, that if the said first minister resigned, then the other party would be happy to work with whom ever replaced her.

Now however: The DUP would be happy if things are again run from Westminster and are basically doing everything they can to see it happen.

That was what I supported in the last two elections and see that as our only hope of staying within the UK. I even said as much on another thread months ago...although my reasons arent so black and white. I simple see our own politicians as being too inept and utterly corrupt to be trusted to the power the executive had...their corruption was what started this whole sorry affair in the first place, followed swiftly by their very public court case to try and silence the papers to hide their dirty little secrets...they lost the case which was amusing to watch.

Who is to blame? The very DUP whos now pulling Mays strings in westminister and is currently fleecing the brits out of another billion to keep us happy and sweet. Absolutely priceless...ye really couldnt find a more hilarious punchline when ye think about the potential consequences. Im fairly sure even the brits dont truly comprehend whats gonna happen next here and how what happens next could tip the apple cart again.

Theres a very good reason why the DUP are pushing extra hard fer direct rule from westminister...a reason the english dont know about because its hasnt been spoken of on the big nationals. The outside world has been so used to ignoring us that they ddnt quite understand how things work here, so theres gonna be certain details which simply will not occur to them because they dont know the background.

So ask yerself again...why are the DUP pushing so hard fer direct rule from westminister? Ill give ye a clue...its got absolutely nothing to do with the protection of the union whatsoever. Moonax might know if hes reading but Im almost loathe to even mention his name...sparks always fly when we on the same thread so...sorry in advance ^

It is quite the novelty knowing that on this occasion, our opinions have become very much relevant on UK wide politics...sorry fer finding it so funny...but it is absolutely deleriously delicious right now watching the tories squirm. I know its at you guys expense but still...funny as anything

 

[Arry]

That was what I supported in the last two elections and see that as our only hope of staying within the UK. I even said as much on another thread months ago...although my reasons arent so black and white. I simple see our own politicians as being too inept and utterly corrupt to be trusted to the power the executive had...their corruption was what started this whole sorry affair in the first place, followed swiftly by their very public court case to try and silence the papers to hide their dirty little secrets...they lost the case which was amusing to watch.

Who is to blame? The very DUP whos now pulling Mays strings in westminister and is currently fleecing the brits out of another billion to keep us happy and sweet. Absolutely priceless...ye really couldnt find a more hilarious punchline when ye think about the potential consequences. Im fairly sure even the brits dont truly comprehend whats gonna happen next here and how what happens next could tip the apple cart again.

Theres a very good reason why the DUP are pushing extra hard fer direct rule from westminister...a reason the english dont know about because its hasnt been spoken of on the big nationals. The outside world has been so used to ignoring us that they ddnt quite understand how things work here, so theres gonna be certain details which simply will not occur to them because they dont know the background.

So ask yerself again...why are the DUP pushing so hard fer direct rule from westminister? Ill give ye a clue...its got absolutely nothing to do with the protection of the union whatsoever. Moonax might know if hes reading but Im almost loathe to even mention his name...sparks always fly when we on the same thread so...sorry in advance ^

Very nicely said sir.

The DUP and the Tories have always been hand in glove with each other and a united and fully integrated Ireland, is not what both parties want.

As to the consequences: The troubles as I prefer to call the situation. Is what I would consider, the greatest threat, to the UK or better still; the English main land and will make the latest black P.J. brigade, look like the true amateurs they are. Any backward steps, with the good Friday agreement and we all might as well go back to the stone age, because it will take another 10 years to get back on track.

 

[verminstar]

Very nicely said sir.

The DUP and the Tories have always been hand in glove with each other and a united and fully integrated Ireland, is not what both parties want.

As to the consequences: The troubles as I prefer to call the situation. Is what I would consider, the greatest threat, to the UK or better still; the English main land and will make the latest black P.J. brigade, look like the true amateurs they are. Any backward steps, with the good Friday agreement and we all might as well go back to the stone age, because it will take another 10 years to get back on track.

Some things have changed since the good friday agreement was signed...while some things havent. The way in which the agreement was made left a lotta unhappy folks who have had to live with the consequences ever since...not easy seeing the man convicted of certain crimes against an entire community who should have been locked up fer life, on the 6 oclock news smiling and shaking hands with suits.

Good salary, and all the perks of being a politician in this country. The very definition of rubbing salt into the open wound that has festered fer 18 years...make no mistake some of us had to give up much when that despicable thing was signed, but in other respects, it has meant the anger never really went away, just buried deep fer the sake of peace. Fer the benefit of all in this wretched hateful place.

And fer what? Fer this? Never used to be this complicated or stressful in the old days. Stay safe old man, Im off to play something violent ^