Swampy Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Follow the conversation. Swampy referenced the unionist narrative and rhetoric that would drive down turnout. I assumed he was talking about the mainstream unionist campaign or people that actually had the ability to influence public opinion in any significant way. He wasn't. He was talking about 4 posters on P&B and anonymous people who post under newspaper articles neither of which I believe have any ability to impact turnout. You may disagree Your emotional investment in this is causing you to quite literally see things that aren't there. You did this with the 70% turnout thing as well. You have over the last few days cast yourself as some kind of P&B hero, and it's causing you to dive in two-footed with ridiculous contentions that don't match what anyone's actually said. You need to slow down and count to 10 before you post. I said 'the unionists' had adopted 'a narrative'. You have now on more than one occasion conflated that - possibly deliberately, probably not - with a top-down, singular goal... even though I explicitly said in my very first post that the exact opposite was the case. Now you're talking about how this is going to 'influence public opinion'. Once again, I said very, very early on in this conversation that the official unionist campaign - one opinion-former among many, but one definitely in the top 50% of importance - are doing the exact opposite. When did I say this was being done in an attempt, much less a successful one, to 'influence public opinion'? What I said was that it is a fairly common Unionist view that this is a sideshow and the result is already known. I'm not talking, was never talking, never even came close to talking about this being some kind of public relations campaign. I'm talking about it being an opinion that people already hold that will impact their decision to go to the polls next September. Literally everything else you have quite simply made up. Seriously. Go back and read what I actually wrote. Find the part about 'influencing public opinion'. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. You are no doubt already replying as you read this sentence. Stop. Read my posts. Count to 10. Then reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I don't believe anyone is 'naturally' violent about, well, anything, but history shows that British unionists have form for throwing toys out the pram and running guns to the disaffected. So that's a no, but sort of yes then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Too be honest Swampy I've lost the will to live over that debate. People can read it and judge whatever way they want. Thanks for the heartfelt patronising advice on posting though. Much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Too be honest Swampy I've lost the will to live over that debate. People can read it and judge whatever way they want. Thanks for the heartfelt patronising advice on posting though. Much appreciated. Yes, you said more or less the same thing the last time your bullshit got called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So that's a no, but sort of yes then? Only if you're struggling to read the content of posts before your desperate scrabble to the keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Only if you're struggling to read the content of posts before your desperate scrabble to the keyboard. Ok it's a no then. Glad we got that cleared up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Yes, you said more or less the same thing the last time your bullshit got called. It's like a tag team of nationalists. Quite admirable really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Ok it's a no then. Glad we got that cleared up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 It's like a tag team of nationalists. Quite admirable really Spare the thread your Liverpool-esque victimhood complex, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 It's like a tag team of nationalists. Quite admirable really In this particular case you have engaged with Swampy and VikingTON on different issues so the tag team reference isn't apt for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 In this particular case you have engaged with Swampy and VikingTON on different issues so the tag team reference isn't apt for them it was xbl I quoted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 it was xbl I quoted True. Apologies. Carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie guevara Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 It saddens me that so many lap up and believe these 'Project Fear' type opinions. Somebody on my facebook said he wasn't voting yes because "Salmond is a rip roaring c**t". No other reasons given. That is depressing and shows that people don't actually understand what they're voting for. "I just cannae vote for that wee c**t Salmond, fat wee p***k". You tell them they are not voting for Salmond and even if they were looking at it that way - not voting for Salmond would mean a vote for Cameron. That really confuses them and I'm sure a few heads have exploded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Given the Conservative/Unionist party in the UK started inciting Ulster loyalists to form their own paramilitary organisations to oppose the very sensible measure of Irish Home Rule from 1910, I'm afraid your analysis is wrong and unionists carry the can. The discussion was about lessons from Northern Ireland. 1910 was 12 years before partition so irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 The discussion was about lessons from Northern Ireland. 1910 was 12 years before partition so irrelevant Oh dear. Care to explain how the Tories' illicit funding of paramilitaries in Ulster has had absolutely no bearing upon the events during and after petition? Did 'Northern Ireland' drop out of the sky in 1922 as the world's most unfortunate afterbirth? I'm afraid your attempt to shift the goalposts isn't going to work at all well here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Oh dear. Care to explain how the Tories' illicit funding of paramilitaries in Ulster has had absolutely no bearing upon the events during and after petition? Did 'Northern Ireland' drop out of the sky in 1922 as the world's most unfortunate afterbirth? I'm afraid your attempt to shift the goalposts isn't going to work at all well here. Ulster is not Northern Ireland. You joined a discussion on whether unionists in Northern Ireland were more violent than nationalists. It was you who 'shifted the goalposts' to pre-partition. All completely irrelevant as Enrico clarified he was talking about unionists rioting in 2013 not what happened in the Troubles or back 100 years to 12 years before Northern Ireland even existed as an entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Another Nationalist comfort blanket, "people don't know what they are voting for" and "people are stupid". Keep telling yourselves that, guys, if it lessens the pain of rejection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Another Nationalist comfort blanket, "people don't know what they are voting for" and "people are stupid". Keep telling yourselves that, guys, if it lessens the pain of rejection. I was pointing out that the people saying they can't vote for Salmond because he's a c**t so will be voting No clearly don't know what they are voting for. Are you denying that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Another Nationalist comfort blanket, "people don't know what they are voting for" and "people are stupid". Keep telling yourselves that, guys, if it lessens the pain of rejection. Behave yourself, people who vote No because, and we've all heard it: 'Salmond is a c**t' is patently ridiculous reasoning, same as those who vote Labour 'cos 'mah dads, dads dad voted Labour'..... it's that kind of institutionalised bullshit that needs to be punched through, or are you simply happy with any No voter, even if it is out of ignorant bile against one man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.