Poll: Ireland East constituency (Euro elections)... who would you vote for?

PaulHughesWH

Only ten can fit... therefore only ten are going in.

I vote Justin Barrett, because I can see through media spin. Now it's up to everyone to vote for their alternative. It is a democracy, after all.


Apologies to Liam O Gogain, Seanan O Coistin and Joe Neal for their omission...

Sean1916

Justin Barrett is the new rock n roll in Irish Politics you couod'nt ask for a better candidate :cool:

spongebob

Not another poll <sigh> but at last we got a comment from sean 1856

sceptre

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=161715

You forgot the "not another bleedin poll" option.

MrPudding

Could we have an "anyone that doesn't have connections with ultra right wing nazi groups and who doesn't think a man should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body" option. I would pick that.:)

MrP

ishmael whale

I'd like an "anyone that doesn't have connections with ultra right wing nazi groups and who thinks a man should be able to recognise a fully grown woman's body" option.

arcadegame2004

I will vote Avril. I voted FF before but punishment is required.

PaulHughesWH

Originally posted by MrPudding
Could we have an "anyone that doesn't have connections with ultra right wing nazi groups and who doesn't think a man should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body" option. I would pick that.:)

MrP

Would that be your idea of democracy, my friend? I think that's called crass majoritarianism.

I recognise a fully grown woman's right to look after her own body. We all have the right, and in fact the obligation, to look after our own bodies. But squashing the brain of a live foetus is murder, and has nothing to do with looking after the human body.

MrPudding

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
Would that be your idea of democracy, my friend? I think that's called crass majoritarianism.

I recognise a fully grown woman's right to look after her own body. We all have the right, and in fact the obligation, to look after our own bodies. But squashing the brain of a live foetus is murder, and has nothing to do with looking after the human body.

Two things,

1. It is murder in your opinion. This is an opinion not shared with everyone.
2. I am not, as far as I am aware, your friend.

MrP

PaulHughesWH

I don't hang around with Reds, anyway, MrP.

And as far as I remember, murderers are the very people who always see some justice in their actions.

slartibardfast

I love Justin's posters, I mean choosing yellow over red and black is just classic!

The surrealism of the man knows no bounds.

sceptre

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
I don't hang around with Reds, anyway, MrP.

:rolleyes:


Try to go one thread without insulting someone without any foundation. Politeness is so cheap that it might be a worthwhile investment for whatever cause you've got going.

gandalf

Can people try not calling each other names and discuss points etc. If I see another "Red" comment I will ban that person.

I have edited the poll to include those that were missed from your original post Paul.

PaulHughesWH

Thanks Gandalf, I thought it would be unfair if the others were excluded.

But however, if you're going to ban me for throwing the "Red" label, why won't u ban people who call opponents of immigration and abortion here "fascists"? It works both ways, Gandalf. As long as I am labelled, I will continue to label.

PaulHughesWH

Originally posted by slartibardfast
I love Justin's posters, I mean choosing yellow over red and black is just classic!

The surrealism of the man knows no bounds.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, or what has it got to do with the thread?

Anyone who says things like that is another one of those ill-informed "sheeple" media-slaves who have jumped on the "Nazi" bandwagon - and are just criticising JB for the sake of criticising him. Is it the cool thing to do?

Since this discussion has nothing to do with the thread, I will end it here.

slartibardfast

Visual design of posters is important to me. From your red comment colour is important to you too.

I ain't no slave to the media either. I find many of the mans policies offensive, but seen as this discussion has been 'ended' by you who am I to reopen it.

PaulHughesWH

Originally posted by slartibardfast
Visual design of posters is important to me. From your red comment colour is important to you too.

Then I'm sure you'll find Peter Cassells' poster fairly bland (or monochrome), Avril Doyle's too dark, and Eoin Dubsky's... wait a minute, where are Eoin Dubsky's posters?!

Originally posted by slartibardfast I ain't no slave to the media either. I find many of the mans policies offensive, but seen as this discussion has been 'ended' by you who am I to reopen it.

I'm sure you'll find plenty of other threads to divulge your reasons for finding Justin's perfectly normal and necessary points of view "offensive." But I suspect the reason you find them offensive is your due to preconception built up by the media. In case you haven't notice, he's in second place - obviously there are more people than me who can see through the spin.

This is a poll without political agendas - so if you don't mind, refrain from turning it into a slagging match about Justin Barrett's campaign practices. In that case why not also criticise the establishment? Mairead McGuinness, running on the grounds of her celebrity among the farming population? And could you get anyone more off the page than Eoin Dubsky?

MadsL

And could you get anyone more off the page than Eoin Dubsky?

You haven't met his brother, Paul. Runs a bar in Prague.

Victor

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
I'm sure you'll find plenty of other threads to divulge your reasons for finding Justin's perfectly normal and necessary points of view "offensive."

Actually either the author or subject of this piece should do comedy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2765-1119910,00.html

Sunday - Ireland
May 23, 2004
Campaign to halt immigration has few takers

THERE is no National Front in the elections next month, and no equivalent of the British National Party. But there is somebody who appears even more extreme — Justin Barrett, writes Siobhan Maguire.

The 33-year-old anti-abortion campaigner is running as an independent candidate in the East constituency and, while he claims not to be a single-issue candidate, his virulent anti-immigration stance overshadows everything else in his manifesto.

In his recent book, Barrett described immigration as “genocidal” and compared the “influx of foreigners” to the Plantation of Ulster. It was not an economic question as to whether Ireland could bear the influx of refugees, but a “biological one”.

Out canvassing in Ardee, Co Louth on Friday night, Barrett was not exactly toning down the rhetoric. “Non-nationals are putting a huge strain on hospitals in Ireland,” he said. “We need to demand that Irish people are given priority in all new jobs, insist that all false asylum seekers be sent home immediately, and campaign so that only Irish citizens have the vote in Irish elections.”

Barrett believes a multicultural society will never work and once immigration laws are further tightened, legal immigrants and “genuine” asylum seekers must be “Irishified”.

He said: “The only country where immigration really has worked is America and that is because immigrants knew that the only way to succeed was to become as American as the Americans themselves.

“The same system must be introduced in Ireland where immigrants must learn to adapt to the Irish way of life, adopt our standards and never try to create their own identity. Immigration policy needs to be controlled with limitations.”

Barrett, the former Youth Defence leader and “No to Nice” campaigner, has declared his intention to establish “a national opposition movement” against immigration into Ireland. But instead the Cork-born, Co Longford-based candidate is languishing among the also-rans at 1% of the vote, according to a poll published yesterday.

The pro-family candidate is flanked on the campaign trail by Bernadette, his wife, and his three children. Barrett has about 20 disciples, mostly pensioners.

The European elections on June 11 coincide with the government’s referendum on citizenship, with the proposal that babies born in Ireland do not automatically become Irish citizens.

“Fianna Fail has failed to promote the citizenship referendum and its importance for Ireland,” he said. “They need to apply the same strategy used during the Nice Treaty referendums to highlight the need for a yes vote. The way things are going, the yes vote is going to lose its voice because people do not understand what it is about — that would be a great mistake for Ireland.”

Nobody brings it up on the doorstep, but Barrett urges them for a yes vote on the basis that this is a pro-immigration vote which will save the lives of immigrant mothers and their unborn children.

“We can’t afford to put the lives of heavily pregnant immigrant women at risk by letting them travel into Ireland,” he said. “We have had a situation where immigrant mothers have died because it was too dangerous for them to travel. By voting yes we can ensure this will not happen.”

Such views seem strange from a man who has been branded a racist, but Barrett insists his views are “fundamentally pro-immigrants”.

“It is illegal immigrants who must be sent home,” he says. “The system cannot go on being abused. This is not about being a racist.”

If elected, Barrett wants to “give the people what they want”, to “bring democracy back to the people and away from the government”. But the people will have the ultimate say on June 11, and they seem set to deliver a resounding No to Barrett.

PaulHughesWH

I see no "resounding No vote" in this poll. I also know for a fact that the Times journalist in question accompanied JB on his canvassing tour in Ardee, and commented on how impressed she was at the positive reaction he received. She also pointed out that he had been largely misunderstood in the public domain.

Obviously, such notions were well and truly fried out of her by the totally impartial editorial staff at the Times before going to print. Notice it's the same old vitriol - no examination of other issues JB promises to address, like lobbying the E.U. for a fairer deal for Irish families, or campaigning against the baneful proposed E.U. constitution.

I do not find it surprising that the elite media will always push the establishment parties (i.e. FF, FG, Labour and the PDs) in the polls. The Irish Examiner poll, for example, polled 500 people in the Leinster constituency; Justin Barrett ended up with 2% of a total of about 5% for the Independent candidates. I find it incredibly hard to believe that this will be the case come June 11. Are we really supposed to buy the notion that the establishment parties still hold the last word? I bet if 500 people ended up contributing to this poll, JB and even Eoin Dubsky would clock up higher percentages. When the establishment dictates the terms of newspaper and MRBI polls, there is no fair assessment.

Barrett has about 20 disciples, mostly pensioners.

If Ms. Maguire had opted for a non-poisoned pen, she would have relayed the truth - that on the campaign trail in Ardee, JB had between 30 and 40 supporters, many of whom were in their twenties, and most of whom were under the age of 45. Lies, lies and damned Times lies. And as for the "pensioners", perhaps Ms. Maguire would do well to harness her ageism and learn something from her elders.

Then again, who'd expect anything different from an establishment rag?

slartibardfast

What of it, campain supporters are pale in comparison to policies.

"Irishified" sounds very close to a favorite policy of Stalin. Irony would appear to be wasted on Justin and his supporters.

bonkey

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
This is a poll without political agendas

/me falls of his chair in disbelief.

Paul - imagine yourself walking down the street, only to be stopped by someone saying the following :

"Hi. I'm interested in finding out who you will vote for in the coming election. I should admit that I'm a firm supporter of one of the candidates, but I'd like to reassure that this poll is in no way politically motivated."

Just how credible would you consider what that person to be saying to be?

No poltiical agenda? You don't have a single political agenda in trying to gauge support for your candidate of choice? Nothing at all to try and give you more leverage - as you've already been doing - to argue how unfair people here are being in their hostility towards Mr. Barrett given his "clear" support in these polls?

You're not doing any of that at all???

Or when you said "no political agendas" surely what you really meant us to understand was "no political agendas other than those of me, the thread starter" ???

If not, then could you possibly explain how you - a clear supporter of one of the people on the poll - have no political agenda in this poll. How you have no interest in seeing how Mr. Barrett stacks up, at all.

Because quite frankly, I'm utterly at a loss how you could possibly make that statement honestly.

jc

PaulHughesWH

Don't be so absurd.

If I had been anti-democratic, fascist, politically motivated or whatever you want to call me, I wouldn't have included poll-topper Mairead McGuinness, now would I?

More luck to her. :cool:

bonkey

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
Don't be so absurd.

Well then could you explain to me what your non-political motivation was in determining the voting tendancies of people on this forum in an upcoming election is?

If I had been anti-democratic, fascist,

I am getting really tired of you putting words in other people's mouths like this.

Shortly after joining the forum, you were making allegations that people were making "nazi" allegations when they weren't. Now you're insinuating that I made either anti-democratic or fascist allegations about you when I didn't.

Do you think we're blind and won't notice this? Can you not argue your case on its own merits, and counter mine on its flaws, rather than having to resort to putting distasteful words into my mouth??? Or - as I've more or less asked in another thread - is it unreasonable to ask you to give the fair and balanced treatment to others that you claim is constantly and unfairly being denied to Mr. Barrett?

If you can't be honest in your portrayal of others, what possible grounds (other than hypocritical ones) do you have for criticising those who do likewise to Mr. Barrett???

politically motivated or whatever you want to call me,

I haven't called you anything. I have simply pointed out that your claim that there is no political agenda at work behind this poll is almost entirely guaranteed to be bogus.

I wouldn't have included poll-topper Mairead McGuinness, now would I?

Well, it would be difficult to judge where Barrett stands in relation to the more-likely-to-be-popular candidates when you don't include them....so yes, you would have included her actually.

Not only that, but leaving out any strong contenders would clearly show the poll to be biased in the first place, which would undermine any point in running it in the first place. I said you had a politcal agenda - a politically motivated reason - for this poll. I didn't say you were stupid, no more than I said you were facist nor anti-democratic.

So, given that you co,mpletely avoided the question last time round...I'll repeat it, lest you think you've somehow dodged it :

Could you possibly explain how you - a clear supporter of one of the people on the poll - have no political agenda in this poll. How you have no interest in seeing how Mr. Barrett stacks up, at all.

Absurd? The only thing that would be absurd would be if you thought your reply was seriously going to deter me from looking for an answer to this question.

jc

MrPudding

I heard Justing on Newstalk 106 yesterday. He said that he would like to see more money being spent on the family. Now I support this but I fear my family would not be one that Justin was thinking of. Now here is where it gets interesting. He was asked where he would get this money. His reply was that he would cancel wasteful government projects, something else I agree with. When asked for an example he said that he would not have built the Luas, instead he would have built a Metro. Now given that a metro would be massively more expensive than the Luas how exactly would this free up money for the family?

Does he actually have any thought through policies or is he just a non-too-bright government basher?

By the way, I am not really a supporter of the current government. Oh. Am contrary to my "friend" Paul's opinion I am also not a "red"

MrP

PaulHughesWH

If I had been anti-democratic, fascist, politically motivated or whatever you want to call me, I wouldn't have included poll-topper Mairead McGuinness, now would I?

Maybe not me, but people on here have a penchant for calling JB a fascist without elaborating on the point.

therecklessone

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH

But however, if you're going to ban me for throwing the "Red" label, why won't u ban people who call opponents of immigration and abortion here "fascists"? It works both ways, Gandalf. As long as I am labelled, I will continue to label.

I'd be inclined to label you a fascist because of comments like:

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
I probably need to start remembering I'm not Indymedia. You have to be heavy handed with those shower.

and

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
I don't hang around with Reds, anyway, MrP.

I'm still waiting for you to clarify what you mean by "heavy handed" in that first quote, despite asking you twice.

bonkey

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
Maybe not me, but people on here have a penchant for calling JB a fascist without elaborating on the point.

I'm not sure why you had one of your own posts quoted above this, but again....you seem to be refusing to dodge the original question regarding the lack of political agendas.

May we take this to be aggrement that you cede the point, and acknowledge that there must be room, therefore, for political agendas in a thread such as this?

jc

TwoShedsJackson

Eoin Dubsky obviously isn't doing enough to campaign as I've never heard of him - what's his agenda?

arcadegame2004

Eoin Dubsky is a pacifist and a hard-leftie. Did he have something to do with the attack on the US plane in Shannon?

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Eoin Dubsky is a pacifist and a hard-leftie. Did he have something to do with the attack on the US plane in Shannon?

Yes, thats him! But I think you knew that already.

His web page http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~slack/