Sovereign Independent Newspaper.

Run_to_da_hills

This is the latest national Newspaper to hit the shelves. Published monthly its RRP is 50c but the first 16 page edition is free.

It covers current affairs, swine flu. politics, CFL bulb safety, drinking water, nama and Lisbon Etc.

It is also downloadable in PDF format.

jhegarty

I think calling it a newspaper may be a stretch.

Run_to_da_hills

jhegarty wrote: »

I think calling it a newspaper may be a stretch.

A lot more informative than some of the mainstream rags.

GerardKeating

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A lot more informative than some of the mainstream rags.

It's just a printed version of the CT forum...

OldJay

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is also downloadable in PDF format.

Not PDF format, for a start.

Who is the editor, by the way? I do laugh when the anti-EU 'movement' draws parallels between Ireland and Norway (an EEA) country, giving half the story. Already spotted pockmarked lies in its argument about neutrality beign threatened.

This is not a newspaper. It is a series of conspiracy nut blinkered one-eyed pamphlets with the majority being strangely enough, anti-Lisbon Treaty pieces . . . :rolleyes:

Have just noticed that its a 'Truth Coalition' mouthpiece.
No thanks.

IRE60

Its not worth the 50c - its utter sh1te

Run_to_da_hills

GerardKeating wrote: »

It's just a printed version of the CT forum...

You won't find anything about De Valera's caution about the risks of ceding power to the EU in the CT forum.

IRE60 wrote: »

Its not worth the 50c - its utter sh1te

First issue is free,

I have found that most of those that dismiss it are the same people that don't give it a chance to read it.

My 87yo dismissed it as a propaganda rag until he read the full text of Devs speech on page 5, he then made up his mind to reject this treaty.

The [URL="[url]http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/history-warns-us-about-the-risks-of-ceding-power-to-eu-1817080.html[/url]"]Irish Independent [/URL]had a similar article. "History warns us about the risks of ceding power to EU"

dmigsy

I've just read the whole thing rag. Fear mongering tripe. The About Us section is hilarious. It's claims the newspaper will provide objective news and not personal opinions ; the about us is completely devoted to anti-Lisbon Treaty rhetoric. Complete junk.

Anyone know who is funding this publication? Declan Ganley?

major bill

dmigsy wrote: »

I've just read the whole thing rag. Fear mongering tripe. The About Us section is hilarious. It's claims the newspaper will provide objective news and not personal opinions ; the about us is completely devoted to anti-Lisbon Treaty rhetoric. Complete junk.

Anyone know who is funding this publication? Declan Ganley?

no declan ganley has nothing to do with the paper or the people behind the paper. and about it been a so called rag:rolleyes: the information contained in it is far more truthfull and understandable than some of the scare mongering tripe and bullsh1t information the yes side have been writing.

ballsymchugh

major bill wrote: »

no declan ganley has nothing to do with the paper or the people behind the paper. and about it been a so called rag:rolleyes: the information contained in it is far more truthfull and understandable than some of the scare mongering tripe and bullsh1t information the yes side have been writing.

take the story on water fluoridation, that's total scare mongering. it's been the most successful mass medication scheme in the country apart from adding iodine to salt. the guy who 'wrote' that story should check the york review.

dmigsy

major bill wrote: »

no declan ganley has nothing to do with the paper or the people behind the paper. and about it been a so called rag:rolleyes: the information contained in it is far more truthfull and understandable than some of the scare mongering tripe and bullsh1t information the yes side have been writing.

If it's not Declan Ganley maybe it's David Icke or Jim Corr? Or maybe it's a double bluff and funded by the lizard elite to trick us all into voting yes?

Quick! Tell the guys over in CT!

It's also not quite funny enough to be worth picking up for laughs.

major bill

dmigsy wrote: »

If it's not Declan Ganley maybe it's David Icke or Jim Corr? Or maybe it's a double bluff and funded by the lizard elite to trick us all into voting yes?

Quick! Tell the guys over in CT!

It's also not quite funny enough to be worth picking up for laughs.

lizard elite:D stopped reading your post after that!!!!

major bill

ballsymchugh wrote: »

take the story on water fluoridation, that's total scare mongering. it's been the most successful mass medication scheme in the country apart from adding iodine to salt. the guy who 'wrote' that story should check the york review.

but is it? china dont use flouride in their water or most of main land europe. it would be interesting to compare the cancer rate between the differant countries. back in the 50's 60's the cancer rate in ireland was supposedly 1 in 10 now its 1 in 3. im not saying flouride in water is a direct reason but you cant deny that there is health issues with it.

read your pack of toothpaste when your brushing your teeth tonight, the flouride contained in toothpaste is the same contained in our water and you wouldnt eat your toothpaste.

not bakunin

Smacks of the lizard to me too.

TeRmInAlCrAzY

The content is the least of my problems with the paper. My main issue is with the utterly deceptive tactics being used to promote it.

I was in the canteen in WIT last Thursday, and there were 2 ladies there, offering copies of the paper. I figured out pretty quickly that it was going to be about the Lisbon Treaty. I was not yet certain which way I was going to go on this, and with this in mind asked the lady offering it to me was it pro- or anti- Lisbon, just to get my brain in gear as it were. I was told that it was completely neutral, and just presented the facts, and also talked about other news stories that did not get enough coverage.

As I finished my food, and turned to the paper to have a good read over a mars bar and a coffee, I was aware of the same question being asked by several other people as they were approached, and all were told that "oh, it's completely neutral, we just present the facts".

Well.

The 2 wans must have been taking us for complete gob****es, as it is obvious after a few articles that this paper could by no possible stretch of the imagination be considered as neutral. I was pretty irritated, but I did not say a word,I just tossed the paper. I suppose I could have caused a scene, but that just isn't the way I roll.

I have to say, following that experience, that I have definitely been pushed more to the Yes camp. I do not take kindly to being treated like an idiot, and lied to.

I think that most people would agree with me. If you want to make your case pro or con the Lisbon Treaty, please don't insult my intelligence and lie to me, That's just dumb.

IRE60

you would also have to, in that case, look at who gave then the authority to distribute the papers in WIT.

TeRmInAlCrAzY

OK, this is the sort of stuff that gets my rag.

Followed the link

"EU Charter will draft in the death penalty right across the Euro block "

from the signature, and in the linked page I read:


“b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”

OK, does anybody else see the contradiction here?

Link text says it WILL draft in the death penalty. If you read the actual text, it says that a State MAY make provision for a death penalty.

This is exactly what drives me mental about this whole debate. Please restrict your commentary on the treaty to what it actually says.

PANADOL

TeRmInAlCrAzY wrote: »

The content is the least of my problems with the paper. My main issue is with the utterly deceptive tactics being used to promote it.

I was in the canteen in WIT last Thursday, and there were 2 ladies there, offering copies of the paper. I figured out pretty quickly that it was going to be about the Lisbon Treaty. I was not yet certain which way I was going to go on this, and with this in mind asked the lady offering it to me was it pro- or anti- Lisbon, just to get my brain in gear as it were. I was told that it was completely neutral, and just presented the facts, and also talked about other news stories that did not get enough coverage.

As I finished my food, and turned to the paper to have a good read over a mars bar and a coffee, I was aware of the same question being asked by several other people as they were approached, and all were told that "oh, it's completely neutral, we just present the facts".

Well.

The 2 wans must have been taking us for complete gob****es, as it is obvious after a few articles that this paper could by no possible stretch of the imagination be considered as neutral. I was pretty irritated, but I did not say a word,I just tossed the paper. I suppose I could have caused a scene, but that just isn't the way I roll.

I have to say, following that experience, that I have definitely been pushed more to the Yes camp. I do not take kindly to being treated like an idiot, and lied to.

I think that most people would agree with me. If you want to make your case pro or con the Lisbon Treaty, please don't insult my intelligence and lie to me, That's just dumb.

Strange thing to say given that you have been lied to all your life not to mention treated like an idiot , the sovereign independant deals with the truth ie the real truth , the reason they dismiss it is because it goes against everthing we know incidentally i happen by accident to be reading the sunday independant the sunday before lisbon on their front page they had a feature on k french , some woman from rte and a stupid article by brendan o conner on lisbon iask you a week before lisbon , the girlat the paper told me people were interested in these articles , i asked her if she was and answered yes i then told her education was a waste of time , i then talked to the editor and told him the goverment had told him to keep quite about lisbon, whats my point most papers out there are for zombies at least if under 20 maybe have your time in pop culture we all did . we talk about the dumb americans frankly we are no different please wake up.

PANADOL

jhegarty wrote: »

I think calling it a newspaper may be a stretch.

The sun calls itself a newspaper , you sound like a sun reader

IRE60

"i asked her if she was and answered yes i then told her education was a waste of time"
I'd say that really helped your plight and who , by the way, is this poor unfortunate woman? She, like the fairy godmother has simply appeared in this tale of oppression and the downtrodden.

"i then talked to the editor and told him the goverment had told him to keep quite about lisbon"

WTF are you on - would pass a urine test?!

Finally you article was 'difficult to understand' - did you have a conversation with the editor of the S.I.?

TeRmInAlCrAzY

PANADOL wrote: »

Strange thing to say given that you have been lied to all your life not to mention treated like an idiot , the sovereign independant deals with the truth ie the real truth , the reason they dismiss it is because it goes against everthing we know incidentally i happen by accident to be reading the sunday independant the sunday before lisbon on their front page they had a feature on k french , some woman from rte and a stupid article by brendan o conner on lisbon iask you a week before lisbon , the girlat the paper told me people were interested in these articles , i asked her if she was and answered yes i then told her education was a waste of time , i then talked to the editor and told him the goverment had told him to keep quite about lisbon, whats my point most papers out there are for zombies at least if under 20 maybe have your time in pop culture we all did . we talk about the dumb americans frankly we are no different please wake up.

OK, that wall o'text starts by making assumptions about my ability to discern fact from fiction, then meanders off on a startling tangent about some random articles that you appear to disapprove of, while making absolutely no attempt to address the point I was making.

Impressive.

Come back when you want to talk about the propriety of campaigners misrepresenting the publication they are promoting, and lying about it's contents when asked a direct question. I'm not interested, in this thread, in much else.

Run_to_da_hills

Its Back!!

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/

Truthrevolution

Most of these alternative newspapers tend to sensationalise things that are happening in the world today, you need to keep an open mind when reading this stuff.I do feel sorry for people who cant see whats going on in front of their very eyes.
What concerns me is that people have actually looked into this, read the articles, got freaked out and said to themselves "theres no way these nutcases could actually be right" and flung the paper away.But dont worry folks keep on reading the tabloits, watching the 6 o clock news and everything will be fine.....

Cadiz

It's like an acid-fuelled Daily Mail without the celeb dross.

The website is just pieces harvested from other papers - with their copyright consent, doubtless?