Rants,lies and slurs against the no campaigners

lostexpectation

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0821/1224253021117.html

Last Tuesday the CAEUC group also said the electorate was being “threatened, cajoled and lied to” in relation to Lisbon. But who “threatened, cajoled and lied” to the electorate last year? Who said Lisbon would bring euthanasia, abortion, and military conscription to little old Ireland? It was the No campaign. Such honesty! Such refreshing lack of cynicism!

he tries to connect CAEUC to it, but they weren't campaigning on abortion.

you simply can't put the no campaigners all together, how did this even make it to print?

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0821/1224253021117.html


he tries to connect CAEUC to it, but they weren't campaigning on abortion.

you simply can't put the no campaigners all together, how did this even make it to print?

Perhaps because you've over-interpreted it? CAEUC said the electorate was being threatened and lied to, and the author is pointing out that the main users of both lies and threats were the No campaigns. That doesn't specify CAEUC - they just appear as the makers of the statement he's challenging.

cordially,
Scofflaw

is_that_so

He's an odd choice for a piece like seeing that he's their Religious Correspondent. It isn't terribly well-written although his headline of those on the No side is true;it has thrown up some strange bedfellows. Other than that what's the point OP? It's fairly poor, reactionary journalism , something I didn't even finish, and really best ignored.

ei.sdraob

Rants,lies and slurs against the no campaigners

a taste of own medicine so

worldrepublic

I think any wholesale dismissal of no campaigners will only serve to annoy the electorate. Irish people are very cautious regarding political issues, and they will expect a balanced debate and equal airtime for each side. A failure to deliver that could well be disastrous for Fianna Fail and Lisbon.

lostexpectation

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps because you've over-interpreted it? CAEUC said the electorate was being threatened and lied to, and the author is pointing out that the main users of both lies and threats were the No campaigns. That doesn't specify CAEUC - they just appear as the makers of the statement he's challenging.

cordially,
Scofflaw

i don't think i over interpreted, its very clear what he's trying to do and he did it several times in the article cauec didn't complain about military conscription either, what dishonest about what caeuc said?

“threatened, cajoled and lied to”

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

I think any wholesale dismissal of no campaigners will only serve to annoy the electorate. Irish people are very cautious regarding political issues, and they will expect a balanced debate and equal airtime for each side. A failure to deliver that could well be disastrous for Fianna Fail and Lisbon.

Fianna Fail are already an epic fail

they can do the country a favor and go hide for the next few months, for that matter they can do country a bigger favor and call an election

if you want to see "balanced" debates then look at last years "questions & answers" every time Ms Lou was asked a question she would dodge it and go on raving about an unrelated issue, or hold up the thick copy of the treaty in her hand and say "look we the people are too dumb to read and understand this" that was some sight, very condescending

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

i don't think i over interpreted, its very clear what he's trying to do and he did it several times in the article cauec didn't complain about military conscription either, what dishonest about what caeuc said?

“threatened, cajoled and lied to”

If you prefer to be offended, there's certainly no way of persuading you out of it, and it's perfectly possible that the author intended making exactly the link you describe.

It would be fairer, however, to describe CAEUC as threatening voters with the end of neutrality and lying about the legal status of the guarantees - I think it was you, though, who originally pointed out that concerns about 'conscription' tend to be a reflection of fears on neutrality? Which would, if you think about it, make CAEUC part of the 'conscription' issue.

To claim that the No campaign groups are not engaged in threatening, cajoling, and lying is either extremely disingenuous or extremely one-sided. They undoubtedly are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you prefer to be offended, there's certainly no way of persuading you out of it, and it's perfectly possible that the author intended making exactly the link you describe.

It would be fairer, however, to describe CAEUC as scaremongering about neutrality and lying about the legal status of the guarantees - I think it was you, though, who originally pointed out that concerns about 'conscription' tend to be a reflection of fears on neutrality? Which would, if you think about it, make CAEUC part of the 'conscription' issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nope caeuc didn't even say anything about euthanasia either, do you really want me to lists all the things caeuc didnt campaign on. although patsy has done the job already.

conscription was brought up by ff'ers more then it was by caeuc'ers

nope there's few even more wild accusations in there im sure you've read in the article which i won't try to argue with in my posts.

scaremongering about neutrality, again are we neutral? (i don't think so)

i consider it a fact that we're not neutral even if a few ff tds pretend we are.

its not scaremongering if you think lisbon continues the direction the country was going in anyway re neutrality.

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

nope caeuc didn't even say anything about euthanasia either, do you really want me to lists all the things caeuc didnt campaign on. although patsy has done the job already.

conscription was brought up by ff'ers more then it was by caeuc'ers

nope there's few even more wild accusations in there im sure you've read in the article which i won't try to argue with in my posts.

scaremongering about neutrality, again are we neutral? (i don't think so)

i consider it a fact that we're not neutral even if a few ff tds pretend we are.

its not scaremongering if you think lisbon continues the direction the country was going in anyway re neutrality.

I would say that if you have an issue with the specific accusations you feel were levelled against CAEUC in that piece, this isn't really the place to complain. If you want to make a more general point about the casting of aspersions, work away, although it's hardly a new topic. If you want to discuss neutrality, then perhaps we should discuss that in a thread of its own.

Alternatively, we could discuss what is, and isn't, scaremongering. If you think Lisbon continues the erosion of Irish neutrality, then I can see how you think that's not scaremongering. If, on the other hand, one feels - as I do - that it has absolutely no impact on the kind of neutrality that Ireland actually espouses, then one might say that you're scaremongering.

Similarly the other way round with other impacts. I genuinely believe that a second No will have a huge and practical impact on our international attractiveness to business, on our goodwill in the EU, and on our general ability to get what we want for Ireland from the rest of the world - you might feel I'm scaremongering, but I'm not, for exactly the same reasons as applies to you and neutrality.

On balance, though, I'm not sure what the actual aim of this thread is - did you actually start it just to deny the slurs you feel were made in the article you cited?

cordially,
Scofflaw

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Fianna Fail are already an epic fail

they can do the country a favor and go hide for the next few months, for that matter they can do country a bigger favor and call an election

if you want to see "balanced" debates then look at last years "questions & answers" every time Ms Lou was asked a question she would dodge it and go on raving about an unrelated issue, or hold up the thick copy of the treaty in her hand and say "look we the people are too dumb to read and understand this" that was some sight, very condescending

Evidence/sources please? Making sweeping and dismissive statements hardly constitutes debate. Tactics like that will only irritate the electorate further.

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Evidence/sources please? Making sweeping and dismissive statements hardly constitutes debate. Tactics like that will only irritate the electorate further.

evidence of FF failure? look around the country is a mess or open any newspaper


as for M Lou on RTE's Q&A before last years referendum, maybe check the RTE site, they could have archives for last years programs

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

evidence of FF failure? look around the country is a mess or open any newspaper


as for M Lou on RTE's Q&A before last years referendum, maybe check the RTE site, they could have archives for last years programs

Perhaps you (I take you are representing/defending Scofflaw's sweeping assertions) could provide a video link here, and we can start a discussion/analysis of the program?

Scofflaw

worldrepublic wrote: »

Evidence/sources please? Making sweeping and dismissive statements hardly constitutes debate. Tactics like that will only irritate the electorate further.

Everyone else on boards.ie is also a member of the electorate, with, one presumes, the right to decide what annoys them. I don't recall voting for you to represent us all, I'm afraid, but perhaps it was a particularly secret ballot?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

if you dont' disagree with me feel free to say nothing scofflaw

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0824/1224253135989.html

now tony kinsella compares no campaigners to terrorists( lockerbie bomber) narco-arms deals, ethnic cleansers and more terrorists.

all an accident im sure.

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

if you dont' disagree with me feel free to say nothing scofflaw

I wasn't sure what your point was - however, the additional post clarifies it a bit.

lostexpectation wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0824/1224253135989.html

now tony kinsella compares no campaigners to terrorists( lockerbie bomber) narco-arms deals, ethnic cleansers and more terrorists.

all an accident im sure.

Are you trying to make the point that name-calling is restricted to one side of the debate only? If so, you're on a hiding to nothing. Any organisation or individual that's had the temerity to support a Yes has been relentlessly attacked, doubt repeatedly cast on their motives and bona fides, and the assumption invariably made that they're in it for money or political favours - unions, independent campaign groups, charities, businesses, academics. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB

Considering the utter failure last time around of the Yes Side to effectively win the campaign by pointing out Sinn Fein's links to a terrorist organisation [Who killed more catholics in the troubles than anyone], or Libertas who allegedly [albeit with no proof] were said to have dodgy business connections, I find it particuarly funny that the No Side are now desperately, desperately, attempting to tar any Yes side with a similar tactic.

You'd think they'd have learnt the last time that it doesn't work too well, especially when its bull****.

P. Breathnach

lostexpectation wrote: »

... now tony kinsella compares no campaigners to terrorists( lockerbie bomber) narco-arms deals, ethnic cleansers and more terrorists...

No, he doesn't.

The piece cautions against making "arguments that have no basis in reality". It is a wonderful irony that you misrepresent what he said.

ei.sdraob

he did nail something on the head that NO campers glossover all the time here

Those who oppose the Lisbon Treaty argue that it is identical to the proposed constitutional treaty rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums. The first part of that argument is highly questionable, the second highly selective. Lisbon differs from the rejected treaty in several ways, but perhaps most importantly of all in that it is not proposed as a constitutional text. The No argument also skips over the awkward reality that voters in Spain and Luxembourg did endorse the constitutional treaty by referendum.

and this sad but true observation

We now face what is either a new challenge, or one recycled from the dark ages of human ignorance and illiteracy – fact-free arguments. Protagonists now feel free to advance arguments that have no basis whatsoever in reality in the belief that nobody can, or will, challenge them. More worryingly it seems that numbers of our fellow humans unquestioningly accept such fabrications as truth.

pretty much sums up the NO campaign up to date, and this can be seen here on boards:

* every few days a new member pops in
* posts a rant with no references or just outright lies
* members proceede with great patience to debunk and explain the flawed reasoning or point out the facts which state otherwise
* this new member either dissapears or starts soaboxing and eventually gets banned for breach of forum charter or rules

i even coined a name for it "Guerrilla pie throwing"


actually all one has to do is look at the comments in that article, it just further highlights the tactics of deception used

K-9

In a democratic dialogue the role of those on the other side is to reinsert the deleted facts into the debate.

A thankless task though.