NationStates Jolt Archive

This afternoon I made an interesting discovery. If anyone has free time and the inclination to do so, might I direct you to the Wikipedia article on the people called Scotch-Irish Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American)?

Scotch-Irish (the historically common term in North America) or Scots-Irish refers to inhabitants of the United States and, by some, of Canada who are of Ulster Scottish descent.

...

Roughly a quarter of a million Ulster Scots migrated to the Americas between 1717 and 1776. As a late arriving group,they found that land in the coastal areas of the English colonies was either already owned or too expensive, so they quickly left for the hill country where land could be had cheaply. Here they lived on the frontiers of America. Early frontier life was extremely challenging, but poverty and hardship were familiar to them. The word "hillbilly" has often been applied disparagingly to them, this word having its origins in Ireland, always in reference to the Ulster Scots. The name derives from the conflict between the protestant supporters of King William and Queen Mary and the Roman Catholic supporters of the deposed King James II of England. Supporters of King William were Billy's boys who fought on the winning side in the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 during the Glorious Revolution, wearing red handkerchiefs around their necks to signify their Presbyterian faith. The names hillbilly and redneck stuck and are used to the present day.

...

From 1717 to the next thirty or so years, the Scots Irish radiated westward across the Alleghenies, as well as into Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

The Scotch-Irish soon became the dominant culture of the Appalachians from Pennsylvania to Georgia. Author (and U.S. Senator) Jim Webb puts forth a thesis in his book Born Fighting to suggest that the character traits he ascribes to the Scots-Irish such as loyalty to kin, extreme mistrust of governmental authority and legal strictures, and a propensity to bear arms and to use them, helped shape the American identity.
So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the shit half of America - from Guns and Xenophobia to religious fundamentalism and White Trailer Trash.

Why am I not remotely surprised?

It could be that the deeply seated roots of division in the USA that we see today, that divides Republican and Democrat so fiercely, that has given rise to the disastrous last 8 years of American policy, is exactly the same as that which grips Ulster. And maybe, since the common link can be so easily drawn, we have to think; maybe it's all the fault of the attitudes and geneology of the Northern Irish People.

Would the human history have been better off without our influence? Is the existence of the Northern Irish people the entire reason for ongoing global conflict? Should we have been killed off for the greater good?

You mean all this time ive been blaming Canada for nothing?

This afternoon I made an interesting discovery. If anyone has free time and the inclination to do so, might I direct you to the Wikipedia article on the people called Scotch-Irish Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American)?


So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the shit half of America - from Guns and Xenophobia to religious fundamentalism and White Trailer Trash.

Why am I not remotely surprised?

It could be that the deeply seated roots of division in the USA that we see today, that divides Republican and Democrat so fiercely, that has given rise to the disastrous last 8 years of American policy, is exactly the same as that which grips Ulster. And maybe, since the common link can be so easily drawn, we have to think; maybe it's all the fault of the attitudes and geneology of the Northern Irish People.

Would the human history have been better off without our influence? Is the existence of the Northern Irish people the entire reason for ongoing global conflict? Should we have been killed off for the greater good?

And what my I ask, is wrong with our guns? Mine work just fine.

YES!! Someone to blame. Sweet. :cool:

You mean all this time ive been blaming Canada for nothing?

Blaming Canada is it's own reward.

*hides Timbits*

I can't blame the rednecks, they outnumber me.

And they have lots of guns.

YES!! Someone to blame. Sweet. :cool:

Yes, but pasty white people just aren't as much fun to mock and blame as the brownies.

Yes, but pasty white people just aren't as much fun to mock and blame as the brownies.

Clearly you have never tried to blame Canadians. Endless hours of fun.

This afternoon I made an interesting discovery. If anyone has free time and the inclination to do so, might I direct you to the Wikipedia article on the people called Scotch-Irish Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American)?


So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the shit half of America - from Guns and Xenophobia to religious fundamentalism and White Trailer Trash.

Why am I not remotely surprised?

It could be that the deeply seated roots of division in the USA that we see today, that divides Republican and Democrat so fiercely, that has given rise to the disastrous last 8 years of American policy, is exactly the same as that which grips Ulster. And maybe, since the common link can be so easily drawn, we have to think; maybe it's all the fault of the attitudes and geneology of the Northern Irish People.

Would the human history have been better off without our influence? Is the existence of the Northern Irish people the entire reason for ongoing global conflict? Should we have been killed off for the greater good?

It is pure foolishness to blame a country's problems upon its religion.

You mean all this time ive been blaming Canada for nothing?
Oh, don't worry. There're some Scotch-Irish in Canada. But they came from Ulster too. 0.o

It is pure foolishness to blame a country's problems upon its religion.
Oh, sorry. I'm more talking about the ethno-cultural group of Ulster-Scots than I am about a religious division. In Northern Ireland, to use "Protestant" and "Catholic" is more often to describe a social group rather than a religion, and old habits die hard.

The fact that they are Protestant Christians may or may not be a defining characteristic of them, but in a sense it's just one particular trait. The beef is with the cultural mix rather than explicitly the Religion.

It is pure foolishness to blame a country's problems upon its religion.

I have to disagree.

Oh, sorry. I'm more talking about the ethno-cultural group of Ulster-Scots than I am about a religious division. In Northern Ireland, to use "Protestant" and "Catholic" is more often to describe a social group rather than a religion, and old habits die hard.

So, you are upset over the infestation of America by the Irish, and you are blaming anything wrong with America upon the Irish and the Scottish? This sounds a tad xenophobic; if it was not for the the Scottish, America would be missing something very important: myself.

Clearly you have never tried to blame Canadians. Endless hours of fun.

With their flapping heads all full of lies?

I just sex them.

I have to disagree.

Abolishing religion would not do a thing for the U.S. As much as idealistic intellectuals like to believe that the common man can be moral without the fear of God(s), I see this as romantic nonsense. Every great ruler, many of whom were agnostics or atheists, understood the importance of religion, and supported it vigorously.

This sounds a tad xenophobic
Point the first: I'm Northern Irish, so I can't be xenophobic - if anything, it's autophobia.

Point the second: It's not the Irish or the Scottish. It's a particular subsection of culture that meets at their intersection with the British Empire; the Ulster Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots_people). Essentially, this is the group of people (probably all related by family) that took advantage of British colonial expansion to settle in the north of Ireland.

Point the third: The culture they brought with them seems to typify that which is repugnant in American political and social policy - namely, a refusal to accept anyone not in their social group, the glorification of violence, total environmental irresponsibility, selfishness in business and an incapability to acknowledge uncertainty in religion and philosophy. Whether or not they gave spawn to you or I does not really make up for the potential harm they may have done to the way the world works today.

Point the third: The culture they brought with them seems to typify that which is repugnant in American political and social policy - namely, a refusal to accept anyone not in their social group, the glorification of violence, total environmental irresponsibility, selfishness in business and an incapability to acknowledge uncertainty in religion and philosophy.

How many 19th century European cultures were different?

How many 19th century European cultures were different?
How many stayed that way?

Abolishing religion would not do a thing for the U.S. As much as idealistic intellectuals like to believe that the common man can be moral without the fear of God(s), I see this as romantic nonsense. Every great ruler, many of whom were agnostics or atheists, understood the importance of religion, and supported it vigorously.

He said nothing of abolishing religion, or that it wasn't important, or anything else like what you responded to. He said that religion can be to blame for a nations problems. The Roe v. Wade issue, creationism in classrooms, gay marriage, supporting war with eerily crusade-esque language...these issues stem from the given religion of the country.

How many stayed that way?

The French ?

The French ?
*Thinks that one over*

Yes, but pasty white people just aren't as much fun to mock and blame as the brownies.

They're hard to single out and persecute too.

Abolishing religion would not do a thing for the U.S. As much as idealistic intellectuals like to believe that the common man can be moral without the fear of God(s), I see this as romantic nonsense. Every great ruler, many of whom were agnostics or atheists, understood the importance of religion, and supported it vigorously.

Only because religion and fear of eternal damnation keeps the masses in line. A man with no fear is a dangerous man to power.

Yes, but pasty white people just aren't as much fun to mock and blame as the brownies.
Feh, I'm not picky. ;)

EDIT: Actually it can be more fun to mock and blame pasty white people because of that cute "Huh, wha?" expression they get.

So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the best half of America

There. Fixed. Don't feel bad, though, those typos will just sneak up on you from out of nowhere. And on behalf of my great-grandfather and his friends, who were hardline Ulster Protestant immigrants, I accept the 'blame.'

It is pure foolishness to blame a country's problems upon its religion.

People seem to forget this when it's convenient, such as when going on a rant about the inherent badness/evilness of Islamic nations.

There. Fixed. Don't feel bad, though, those typos will just sneak up on you from out of nowhere.
Sorry about that. Darned Northern Irish education system, you know? Can't tell my two noses apart, some days.

Sorry about that. Darned Northern Irish education system, you know? Can't tell my two noses apart, some days.

You never answer my question. Whats wrong with my guns?

You never answer my question. Whats wrong with my guns?

they're american?

they're american?

*sob* You're right, that's wrong with them... *Buys a Desert Eagle and an AK-47*

they're american?

And? Guns are still one of Americas best products, now that we've lost cars, industrial goods, electronics, ect.

And? Guns are still one of Americas best products, now that we've lost cars, industrial goods, electronics, ect.

Ah, but you've forgotten what we still have other then guns!

...

Erm...Uh... We can export our freedoms! And give our guns some use in the process! :p

You never answer my question. Whats wrong with my guns?
Aside from their sole purpose of exerting indiscriminate lethal force at a distance at the push of a button, they're basically tied to the idea of meeting fire with fire, and consequently, the refusal to treat self-defense technology in any way other than conservatively. The proliferation of firearms and the culture thereof stunts the potential for non-lethal methods for ranged take-down, because the weapons manufacturers are not only happy but encouraged to keep doing what they've always been doing and turn huge profits for it.

There could be much better ways of either sport shooting or self defense. The problem is that people want to do both in the way they've always done them. And that means guns stay at the expense of progress.

Aside from their sole purpose of exerting indiscriminate lethal force at a distance at the push of a button, they're basically tied to the idea of meeting fire with fire, and consequently, the refusal to treat self-defense technology in any way other than conservatively. The proliferation of firearms and the culture thereof stunts the potential for non-lethal methods for ranged take-down, because the weapons manufacturers are not only happy but encouraged to keep doing what they've always been doing and turn huge profits for it.

There could be much better ways of either sport shooting or self defense. The problem is that people want to do both in the way they've always done them. And that means guns stay at the expense of progress.

Whats wrong with Lethal force? Fire with Fire is a good thing. Self defense is the ability to defend your self. Someone shoots at me, I'll shootback.

Whats wrong with Lethal force? Fire with Fire is a good thing. Self defense is the ability to defend your self. Someone shoots at me, I'll shootback.
The point is that if it weren't for the proliferation of the gun culture, you might be able to deal with someone that shoots at you in a way that disarms and disables them, keeps you and everyone around you safe and still preserves the life of the attacker. But not enough time and effort is devoted to researching that possibility because the gun lobby are so entrenched in business and politics.

See what I'm getting at?

The point is that if it weren't for the proliferation of the gun culture, you might be able to deal with someone that shoots at you in a way that disarms and disables them, keeps you and everyone around you safe and still preserves the life of the attacker. But not enough time and effort is devoted to researching that possibility because the gun lobby are so entrenched in business and politics.

See what I'm getting at?

Go ahead then. if you find a weapon that deals out enough pain/drugs to incapacitate/knock out an attacker with the same speed of a gun, that does not require any more physical strength then a gun, and doesn't have a 10,000+ price tag, you tell me.

Go ahead then. if you find a weapon that deals out enough pain/drugs to incapacitate/knock out an attacker with the same speed of a gun, that does not require any more physical strength then a gun, and doesn't have a 10,000+ price tag, you tell me.
Sure thing.

EDIT: Derailing my own thread? 0_o

And? Guns are still one of Americas best products, now that we've lost cars, industrial goods, electronics, ect.

How long before we start outsourcing that to China? That's when gun control advocates can truly say "Guns Kill People. Especially Their Owners."

Sure thing.

EDIT: Derailing my own thread? 0_o

Easier said than done. Guns are good. Do you support freedom? If you wish to control guns and support freedom, you are a hipocrit.

Sure thing.

EDIT: Derailing my own thread? 0_o

I'm waiting.

Do you support freedom?
Not on principle. I do not support the idea of a system of freedom that is incoherent and self destructive. So since I support the freedom to life (for at least post-natal human beings, anyway), I oppose the freedom to take such life (through unwilling force upon the owner of said life), and would die (though not kill) in opposition to that freedom if I had to.

I'm waiting.
Hold on, I'm in the process of diverting weapons and military R&D into the right channels.

Hold on, I'm in the process of diverting weapons and military R&D into the right channels.
Woah, you want this for the MILITARY too? Do you have any IDEA what that would entail? Not everyone's such a pacifist!

Whats wrong with Lethal force? Fire with Fire is a good thing. Self defense is the ability to defend your self. Someone shoots at me, I'll shootback.
"Shoot back" is two words.

Easier said than done. Guns are good. Do you support freedom? If you wish to control guns and support freedom, you are a hipocrit.
It's spelled "hypocrite." But the statement is hilarious despite that. Thanks. :D

Sorry, but I'm rather proud of my Ulster heritage. Clan MacMurchie (itself a sub-clan of Clan Buchanan) is where my maternal great-grandparents came from. As such, I take great pride in wearing orange on St. Patrick's Day. I held off for the first two years I taught at a Catholic university (choosing not to wear green either), but when I was leaving, I thought, why not? Nobody said anything to me directly, but the looks I was getting from the older staff. I was pleased.

That said, I'd never lift a weapon in that particular conflict. Mostly because it's an argument over whose interpretation of scripture is right, and that's just plain silly. However, jolting those who expect a sea of green? Fun stuff. I am, thankfully, not stupid enough to try it in, say, an Irish pub. I like stirring things up, not getting my ass thrashed.

Woah, you want this for the MILITARY too? Do you have any IDEA what that would entail? Not everyone's such a pacifist!
It's a slow process. :p

"Shoot back" is two words.


It's spelled "hypocrite." But the statement is hilarious despite that. Thanks. :D

Thats just semantics.

Thats just semantics.
:D Nope, it's spelling. Semantics is something else. :D

:D Nope, it's spelling. Semantics is something else. :D

Nope, its a joke.

Nope, its a joke.
Really? Are you sure?

(I knew that. I was kidding, too.)

Come now, we can't really be blamed for all the ills of the USA, I mean we didn't even exist until the twenties.

Come now, we can't really be blamed for all the ills of the USA, I mean we didn't even exist until the twenties.

bah, like we're gonna let a little thing like temporal placement get you off the hook

:D Nope, it's spelling. Semantics is something else. :D

*Points* You're antisemantic!

You know, I was this close to blaming the inscrutable Jews but I have no doubt someone beat me to it...

You know, I was this close to blaming the inscrutable Jews but I have no doubt someone beat me to it...

You can still blame the Dutch...

And? Guns are still one of Americas best products, now that we've lost cars, industrial goods, electronics, ect.

but,german guns are better.especially Heckler & Koch.

When looking at the history of Ulster and its people, I find it funny that many catholics fought on the side of William of Orange, while James III's army was 50% Irish and 50% French.... and there was many protestants among them. :p

However , blaming the Ulster scots for the USA's problems is wrong because we all know who to blame

<<points at the Spanish :D

the solution is obvious we must have a regime change in norther Ireland. Send the troops NOW.

Conversely, everything wrong with Northern Ireland is the US' fault for aiding the IRA.

Woah, you want this for the MILITARY too? Do you have any IDEA what that would entail? Not everyone's such a pacifist!

Funny, the US military is spending quite a bit developing nonlethal weapons for troops.

Conversely, everything wrong with Northern Ireland is the US' fault for aiding the IRA.

which is the British's fault for invading the island and forcing another group of people to move there in hopes of quelling the Irish.

Funny, the US military is spending quite a bit developing nonlethal weapons for troops.

Like that microwave gun thing.

which is the British's fault for invading the island and forcing another group of people to move there in hopes of quelling the Irish.
Not really, it's more the fault of Americans trying to pretend that they're Irish/Scottish/Italian or whatever.

Racist! Oh, wait, you're blaming teh whities. Never mind, carry on. You're only racist if you blame blacks or hispanics. *nods*

People seem to forget this when it's convenient, such as when going on a rant about the inherent badness/evilness of Islamic nations.

No, Republicans do; but many Democrats forget it about the U.S.

Only because religion and fear of eternal damnation keeps the masses in line. A man with no fear is a dangerous man to power.

An unintelligent man without fear is a danger to everybody.

An unintelligent man without fear is highly amusing to everybody.
They do give us the likes of Jackass afterall.

They do give us the likes of Jackass afterall.

Or the current Presidency.

So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the shit half of America - from Guns and Xenophobia to religious fundamentalism and White Trailer Trash.

Guns and freedom of religion are GOOD things about America. :)

The point is that if it weren't for the proliferation of the gun culture, you might be able to deal with someone that shoots at you in a way that disarms and disables them, keeps you and everyone around you safe and still preserves the life of the attacker. But not enough time and effort is devoted to researching that possibility because the gun lobby are so entrenched in business and politics.

See what I'm getting at?

The most effective way to deal with an attacker is by brandishing a GUN, because if he knows you're gonna kill him if he attacks you, then he's more likely to think twice before attacking you, and thus you have psychologically (for lack of a better word) accomplished all three things that I bolded in your above post:
1. The attacker is psychologically (FLOABW) disarmed and disabled from attacking you, i.e. he decides not to do so
2. You and everyone around you are kept safe
3. The attacker's life is preserved

All of which is achieved by simply letting the attacker know that you:
1. Have a GUN
2. Know how to use it
3. Aren't afraid to use it


Conclusion: GUNS are not a bad thing, nor is the constitutional right to keep and bear them.

Guns and freedom of religion are GOOD things about America. :)

Note that he said religious fundamentalism, not freedom of religion.

There. Fixed. Don't feel bad, though, those typos will just sneak up on you from out of nowhere.

QFT. Ditto here. :D

Note that he said religious fundamentalism, not freedom of religion.

I know that, but it has been my experience that the people who most vehemently object to "religious fundamentalism" use that term when what they really mean is just simply "religion", per se, and seem to have very little, if any, tolerance for religion and religious people.

And they leave me with the impression that, if THEY (the anti-religious fundamentalism people) ran this country, that they would curtail the First Amendment and outlaw religion entirely.

Racist! Oh, wait, you're blaming teh whities. Never mind, carry on. You're only racist if you blame blacks or hispanics. *nods*

I hope you're being sarcastic, because THIS very thing, this "unspoken rule", this hypocritical double standard, makes me VERY angry.

It's just as racist, and wrong, to blame "whitey" as it is to blame blacks, Hispanics, or any other ethnic group.

This afternoon I made an interesting discovery. If anyone has free time and the inclination to do so, might I direct you to the Wikipedia article on the people called Scotch-Irish Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American)?


So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the shit half of America - from Guns and Xenophobia to religious fundamentalism and White Trailer Trash.

Why am I not remotely surprised?

It could be that the deeply seated roots of division in the USA that we see today, that divides Republican and Democrat so fiercely, that has given rise to the disastrous last 8 years of American policy, is exactly the same as that which grips Ulster. And maybe, since the common link can be so easily drawn, we have to think; maybe it's all the fault of the attitudes and geneology of the Northern Irish People.

Would the human history have been better off without our influence? Is the existence of the Northern Irish people the entire reason for ongoing global conflict? Should we have been killed off for the greater good?


Speaking as a person of scotch-irish descent:

No.

The point is that if it weren't for the proliferation of the gun culture, you might be able to deal with someone that shoots at you in a way that disarms and disables them, keeps you and everyone around you safe and still preserves the life of the attacker. But not enough time and effort is devoted to researching that possibility because the gun lobby are so entrenched in business and politics.

See what I'm getting at?

Why the hell would someone want to use nonlethal force to defend themselves? If someone shoots at you- shoot back. Shoot to kill. Even if the person survives you'll have taught them a lesson. And honestly, nobody gives a flying fuck about the lives of attackers.

This afternoon I made an interesting discovery. If anyone has free time and the inclination to do so, might I direct you to the Wikipedia article on the people called Scotch-Irish Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American)?


So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the shit half of America - from Guns and Xenophobia to religious fundamentalism and White Trailer Trash.

Why am I not remotely surprised?

It could be that the deeply seated roots of division in the USA that we see today, that divides Republican and Democrat so fiercely, that has given rise to the disastrous last 8 years of American policy, is exactly the same as that which grips Ulster. And maybe, since the common link can be so easily drawn, we have to think; maybe it's all the fault of the attitudes and geneology of the Northern Irish People.

Would the human history have been better off without our influence? Is the existence of the Northern Irish people the entire reason for ongoing global conflict? Should we have been killed off for the greater good?

You know, some guy in Germany said the same thing about my people and killed several million of them along with others in death camps for "the greater good."

I blame the Canadians... Their accents are goofy and they have a leaf on their flag... They must be up to something.

I know that, but it has been my experience that the people who most vehemently object to "religious fundamentalism" use that term when what they really mean is just simply "religion", per se, and seem to have very little, if any, tolerance for religion and religious people.

Sorry, the rest of us weren't following your inner monologue.

And they leave me with the impression that, if THEY (the anti-religious fundamentalism people) ran this country, that they would curtail the First Amendment and outlaw religion entirely.

Oddly enough, that's not the case. I'm one of those "anti-religious fundamentalism" people and don't mind in the slightest if people are religious. I just don't want people to impose their religion or the tenets of their religion on me.

There's a book called The Island at the Centre of the World about the original Dutch colony in Manhattan that ends with the suggestion that Dutch values of the time, free commerce, liberal values etc., also had a huge influence on America as legacies.

They found all these 'lost' documents of New Amsterdam, which has given us great insight into the times.

So one might say it's a fight between those straight-laced Scots-Irish and the fun-loving criminals that are the Dutch.

EDIT: An excerpt from a review: Its capital was cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic, and its citizens valued free trade, individual rights, and religious freedom. Their champion was a progressive, young lawyer named Adriaen van der Donck, who emerges in these pages as a forgotten American patriot and whose political vision brought him into conflict with Peter Stuyvesant, the autocratic director of the Dutch colony. The struggle between these two strong-willed men laid the foundation for New York City and helped shape American culture.

I hope you're being sarcastic, because THIS very thing, this "unspoken rule", this hypocritical double standard, makes me VERY angry.

It's just as racist, and wrong, to blame "whitey" as it is to blame blacks, Hispanics, or any other ethnic group.

Me? Sarcastic? On NSG? Perish the thought!

I don't care for the tone of this thread. Its shallow and discriminatory. Also, we know its the Brits to blame for it all.

Why the hell would someone want to use nonlethal force to defend themselves? If someone shoots at you- shoot back. Shoot to kill. Even if the person survives you'll have taught them a lesson. And honestly, nobody gives a flying fuck about the lives of attackers.
I'd respond to this seriously, but your name does you a disservice, and I won't give you the benefit of the doubt.

You know, some guy in Germany said the same thing about my people and killed several million of them along with others in death camps for "the greater good."
Notice I said "Should we have been" rather than "Should we be". I'm not suggesting doing it now (since it's too late anyway); merely supposing that you might have been better off without us.
I don't care for the tone of this thread. Its shallow and discriminatory. Also, we know its the Brits to blame for it all.
Shallow and discriminatory? Oh, how you cut me so!

I admit to finding certain long-running concepts in American culture less than desirable, and holding something of a disdain for certain trends in Northern Irish politics. I merely found the connection between the two worth pointing out, primarily because of the agreement of many others with the former.

So essentially, hardline Ulster Protestantism is pretty much entirely to blame for the shit half of America - from Guns and Xenophobia to religious fundamentalism and White Trailer Trash.

um...not so simple?

i'll grant that this could have been a major contributor, but:

i still have to think that the english puritan heritage has caused---and continues to cause---even more crap.

bah, like we're gonna let a little thing like temporal placement get you off the hook

Ah yes, the three great Northern inventions: the pneumatic tyre, the Kelvin scale and time travel.

Not really, it's more the fault of Americans trying to pretend that they're Irish/Scottish/Italian or whatever.

so your saying the occupation of Ireland was justified?


(ships some firearms to Ireland)

so your saying the occupation of Ireland was justified?
No, not at all.

I'm just saying that the fact that The Troubles lasted so bloody long was due in no small part to very wealthy Americans with some kind of misplaced loyalty to The Irish sending money and guns to the IRA.

No, not at all.

I'm just saying that the fact that The Troubles lasted so bloody long was due in no small part to very wealthy Americans with some kind of misplaced loyalty to The Irish sending money and guns to the IRA.

Well known and prominent Irishman Muammar al-Gadaffi had a few things to do with it too....

A lot of them are descended from Reivers so by that light they've actually settled down tremendously. And given the history its understandable that they are a little pissy.

And you wouldn't have had Nixon without them.

Why rednecks rule the earth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7600000/7600592.stm
Guns, cars and deep fat frying

Why rednecks rule the earth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7600000/7600592.stm
Guns, cars and deep fat frying
Wow, that came out on the same day of my Wiki discovery. Isn't that a curious coincidence?

actually its the fault of a 17th century italian fascist named makiavelli. along with that ditzie map maker who never saw the place that the western hemispher some absurdly loonilly how, has since gotten itself named after.

actually its the fault of a 17th century italian fascist named makiavelli...

C17th? Shurely not.

Well known and prominent Irishman Muammar al-Gadaffi had a few things to do with it too....

Yeah, but he at least had a green flag.

Cue the 'are you a Catholic Muslim or a Protestant Muslim' discussion.

Blaming Canada is it's own reward.

*hides Timbits*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uh5KbIOmQg

Yeah, but he at least had a green flag.

Cue the 'are you a Catholic Muslim or a Protestant Muslim' discussion.


No pinstripe, no horse...must be a Fenian....