Scaremongering

The Volt

"Minimum Wage after Lisbon €1.84"
"They Won Your Freedom, Don't Throw It Away"
Abortion etc.

vs.

Yes to Jobs
Yes to Recovery


The term 'scaremongering' is being thrown around far too much for my liking by the no side. When a large percentage of the electorate voted No for reasons not associated with the Treaty last time how can they accuse the yes side of scaremongering?:mad:

meglome

I'm afraid many of the No campaigners that we find in here don't understand irony and seem completely blinkered to just how many lies the No side tell.

Red Hand

It works to a certain degree though. I know many people who are taken in by misinformation...some thinking that this treaty will open the way for Turkey to enter the Unuion, when that is a completely seperate issue.

It makes my blood boil to see those Minimum wage= €1.84 after Treaty signs about the place. The other one is the €700 billion lost from fishing-Farming is next. This Coira organisation really needs to be looked at and who exactly is funding their scare-mongering campaign.

I'm just waiting for the Your forcibly aborted babies will be eaten by atheists if this Treaty is passed-Vote No! signs to pop up next.

The Volt

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

This Coira organisation really needs to be looked at and who exactly is funding their scare-mongering campaign.

where out of curiosity?

BlitzKrieg

This Coira organisation really needs to be looked at and who exactly is funding their scare-mongering campaign.

dont bring funding into this. Its a red herring on any discussion on any of the organisations or scaremongering.


I said it on another thread but the no side gets away with it becuase they stick an article number underneath most of their posters which means its not scaremongering its informing. Course what happens most of the time is:

1. They quoting an article that is identical to another article from Nice (people's movement do this alot)

2. They half quote the article ignoring the part that blatantly says their interpetation is incorrect (Joe Higgins does this)

3. The article in question actually puts stricter control on the issue then what was previously there (article 311 notable one since it ups the wording from notifying member states to member states must ratify by constitutional process) Declan Ganley etc love this one.

Problem is on the yes side is they got crap posters (good leaflets though going from labour's and generation yes's) so it looks like scaremongering.

Even though I always assumed scaremongering was saying something bad will happen if you dont/do rather then saying something good will happen if you do. I assume there is a different term then scaremongering? Honey Trap?

PomBear

Both sides are blatantly lying and it's disgusting that politicians lie to the public they're meant to represent

Daftendirekt

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

2. They half quote the article ignoring the part that blatantly says their interpetation is incorrect (Joe Higgins does this)

If you're referring to the thread that was posted in this forum a while back, then Joe Higgins was actually taking it one step further, and changing the text of the Treaty. Not only that, but when he was called out on it, he actually claimed it didn't invalidate his argument.


I really don't get this attitude of dismissing vague slogans like 'Yes to recovery!' as scaremongering, while at the same time turning a blind eye to campaigners like Joe Higgins and Cóir*.


*I was going to slot in a comment there about 'unemployable f*ucking headbangers', but since I've just lost all respect for O' Leary, I'll leave it out.

meglome

PomBear wrote: »

Both sides are blatantly lying and it's disgusting that politicians lie to the public they're meant to represent

A crap slogan that could happen is not a lie.

'1.84 minimum wage after Lisbon' is a lie even if they put a question mark after it.

badinfleunce

Given the chance to votye "95% of Europe would vote No." - Charlie Mc Creevey Fianna Fail

This speaks volumes!

K-9

badinfleunce wrote: »

Given the chance to votye "95% of Europe would vote No." - Charlie Mc Creevey Fianna Fail

This speaks volumes!

It does.

You believe Charlie McCreevey.

Daftendirekt

badinfleunce wrote: »

Given the chance to votye "95% of Europe would vote No." - Charlie Mc Creevey Fianna Fail

This speaks volumes!

Given the chance to vote, 95% of Europe would vote Yes.


There you go. If you want to rely on argument by quotation, then people can now quote me to refute you.

BlitzKrieg

If you're referring to the thread that was posted in this forum a while back, then Joe Higgins was actually taking it one step further, and changing the text of the Treaty. Not only that, but when he was called out on it, he actually claimed it didn't invalidate his argument.

I was actually referring to today where he quoted article 207 but left out the bit where it stated that its powers do not extend to healthcare or education.

Daftendirekt

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I was actually referring to today where he quoted article 207 but left out the bit where it stated that its powers do not extend to healthcare or education.

Ah, I see.

Still, no harm in pointing out his Lisbon rewrite.

Wile E. Coyote

Both sides are full of sh*t and I wouldn't listen to the crap being thrown about by either of them. Read up on the treaty here www.lisbontreaty2009.ie and make your own decision. Don't let other people make it for you!

Sam Vimes

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I'm just waiting for the Your forcibly aborted babies will be eaten by atheists if this Treaty is passed-Vote No! signs to pop up next.

mmmm, baby burgers

Sam Vimes

badinfleunce wrote: »

Given the chance to votye "95% of Europe would vote No." - Charlie Mc Creevey Fianna Fail

This speaks volumes!

Yes it does but that's not what he said. The said 95% of member states would vote no, which could mean 51% of Europe. And as I've said probably 100 times at this stage, he's probably right but because people are so easily convinced by lies on posters, not because the treaty is bad.