Lisbon will undo 'convenant between Ireland and Our Lord'

Scofflaw · 01-10-2009 4:43pm #1

Another one from the loony fringes of the No campaign:

A group of Catholics, the United Hearts of Jesus, are calling on the Irish people to reject the Lisbon treaty as it will "undo the covenant between Ireland and Our Lord first established by St. Patrick."

...

”This treaty is bad for Ireland. It is driven by the Masons who are seeking to destroy the church.”

The group draw heavily from the messages of French woman Agnes Marie who reports to have had visions of Our Lady, Mary over the course of a ten year period.

In a letter to today’s Journal, Mr. Mallet writes: “As Catholics of our blessed country Eire, have a duty to our constitution, our sovereignty to vote no to Lisbon. We owe it to ourselves, our families, our saints, our dead patriots, our country and to our children and to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Blessed Mother, Queen of Ireland.”

National spokeperson for The United Hearts and translator of Agnes Marie’s messages from French to English, Peter Rafferty, said: “There are ten years of messages from Our Lady to Agnes Marie and I’m satisfied that these come from the Lord. If we sign the treaty we replace Ireland’s covenant with our Lord with this new union.”

Source

Somewhere out there, I presume, there is some small band of zealots who believe that God wants a Yes vote for equally obscure reasons. Has anyone come across them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Long Onion · 01-10-2009 4:46pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Another one from the loony fringes of the No campaign:

Source

Somewhere out there, I presume, there is some small band of zealots who believe that God wants a Yes vote for equally obscure reasons. Has anyone come across them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I have met them, I group of Knights who commanded me to build them a shrubbery ...

My name is URL · 01-10-2009 4:47pm

Has this got anything to do with the Treaty?

Usually you are very stringent when it comes to the Charter and close pointless or debassing threads

You're really delving deep in order to tarnish the entire No side today, well done

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 4:51pm

Who's Arnold?

humanji · 01-10-2009 4:51pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Has this got anything to do with the Treaty?

Usually you are very stringent when it comes to the Charter and close pointless or debassing threads

You're really delving deep in order to tarnish the entire No side today, well done

FFS, he tries to lighten the mood just a little and you've to jump down his throat? Christ I can't wait for this f*cking vote to be over.

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 4:52pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Has this got anything to do with the Treaty?

Usually you are very stringent when it comes to the Charter and close pointless or debassing threads

You're really delving deep in order to tarnish the entire No side today, well done

Because as everyone knows loony fringes means everybody.

Pull up a seat and relax.

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 4:52pm

Ive also heard that the No side is 95% composed of creationist one legged lesbian vampires.

Scofflaw · 01-10-2009 4:53pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Has this got anything to do with the Treaty?

Yes, they're voting against it, because God wants them to.

My name is URL wrote: »

Usually you are very stringent when it comes to the Charter and close pointless or debassing threads

You're really delving deep in order to tarnish the entire No side today, well done

I'm incredibly sorry - I thought it was funny, and I thought I'd made it sufficiently clear that (a) I consider the people concerned to be on the loony fringes of the No campaign, and (b) I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar Yes group.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Euro_Kraut · 01-10-2009 4:53pm

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Ive also heard that the No side is 95% composed of creationist one legged lesbian vampires.

:mad:Thats a lie!!! Its only about 70%

PopeBuckfastXVI · 01-10-2009 4:54pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Has this got anything to do with the Treaty?

Without commenting on the relevance or otherwise of Scofflaws post to Lisbon I'd just like to point out that it's not the 'treaty' forum.

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 4:55pm

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

:mad:Thats a lie!!! Its only about 70%

Ok OK. Its only 70%

would make a great movie.

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 4:57pm

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Ok OK. Its only 70%

would make a great movie.

Quentin Tarrantino?

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 4:57pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Without commenting on the relevance or otherwise of Scofflaws post to Lisbon I'd just like to point out that it's not the 'treaty' forum.

Does that mean i can start a music to vote to thread without getting banned?

All the arguing over the last 5 days. I need to party a bit.

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 4:58pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Quentin Tarrantino?

Judging by inglorious basterds, i wouldnt let him near such an important film.

ScumLord · 01-10-2009 4:58pm

Maybe their right, I hope their right because that would finally confirm a yes vote in my mind.

Boston · 01-10-2009 4:58pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm incredibly sorry - I thought it was funny, and I thought I'd made it sufficiently clear that (a) I consider the people concerned to be on the loony fringes of the No campaign, and (b) I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar Yes group.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You're assurances are not in the treaty, as such I plan to vote no to Scofflaw as dictated by our lord the queen of Ireland.

Ulster says no to Scofflaw.

smokingman · 01-10-2009 4:59pm

My name is URL wrote: »

You're really delving deep in order to tarnish the entire No side today, well done

I would think they're doing that by themselves and their behaviour to be honest...

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 5:00pm

Boston wrote: »

You're assurances are not in the treaty, as such I plan to vote no to Scofflaw as dictated by our lord the queen of Ireland.

Ulster says no to Scofflaw.

Good to see another rational no voter

sensibleken · 01-10-2009 5:06pm

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

:mad:Thats a lie!!! Its only about 70%

hey. your only telling half the truth. It was 95% and under lisbon its moving to qualified majority vampires. in the first instance its 25% and in the second its 70%. dont believe the coir posters that voting yes will lead to more vampires from romania

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 5:13pm

sensibleken wrote: »

hey. your only telling half the truth. It was 95% and under lisbon its moving to qualified majority vampires. in the first instance its 25% and in the second its 70%. dont believe the coir posters that voting yes will lead to more vampires from romania

Very true.

On the plus side more EU enlargement is a good thing. Whilst i disagree with the structure of the voting proposed within the eu, one finds that migration from eu acession states would let more people from those countries move to Ireland.

People like the ones in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9hazmsUxrM

which i am all for. I find the national dress they have culturally empowering.

brianthebard · 01-10-2009 5:16pm

smokingman wrote: »

I would think they're doing that by themselves and their behaviour to be honest...

What's wrong with my behaviour?

prinz · 01-10-2009 5:19pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Quentin Tarrantino?

How apt that would be.

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 5:20pm

prinz wrote: »

How apt that would be.

I think that was the joke.

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 5:25pm

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I think that was the joke.

Damn. I wish I could say it was.

I was going for the Dusk till Dawn* lesbian vampire angle

*May not include actual lesbian vampires.
**Also don't waste two hours of your life

Scofflaw · 01-10-2009 5:26pm

brianthebard wrote: »

What's wrong with my behaviour?

Nobody said anything about your behaviour. Really, can people stop taking offence at general comments, please?

moderately,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 5:27pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Damn. I wish I could say it was.

I was going for the Dusk till Dawn lesbian vampire angle

You should have claimed it. If you could live with the guilt.

ShooterSF · 01-10-2009 5:28pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Another one from the loony fringes of the No campaign:

Source

Somewhere out there, I presume, there is some small band of zealots who believe that God wants a Yes vote for equally obscure reasons. Has anyone come across them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is the closest thing to getting me to vote yes :pac: unfortunately the FSM told me this morning to vote no or I'm going to hell and no restructure of the EU is worth flat beer.

(This thread is a sign that we should have been allowed discuss Lisbon in AH, it's more fun)

sensibleken · 01-10-2009 5:31pm

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Very true.

On the plus side more EU enlargement is a good thing. Whilst i disagree with the structure of the voting proposed within the eu, one finds that migration from eu acession states would let more people from those countries move to Ireland.

People like the ones in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9hazmsUxrM

which i am all for. I find the national dress they have culturally empowering.

Haha!

i was going to enter the poster business during the Nice campaign with

'Vote yes! so we can finally stop banging our cousins!'

my one for lisbon, based on the coir 1.84 logic

'Pints 25c after lisbon?'

i think its about time we started thinking up mental stuff about croatia.

MrMatisse · 01-10-2009 5:33pm

sensibleken wrote: »

Haha!

i was going to enter the poster business during the Nice campaign with

'Vote yes! so we can finally stop banging our cousins!'

my one for lisbon, based on the coir 1.84 logic

'Pints 25c after lisbon?'

i think its about time we started thinking up mental stuff about croatia.

Pity. Id a voted yes had i known about the 25c pints.

brianthebard · 01-10-2009 5:34pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nobody said anything about your behaviour. Really, can people stop taking offence at general comments, please?

moderately,
Scofflaw

The poster I quoted seemed to be tarring everyone who votes no with the same brush. I'm just trying to point out that the No 'side' is incredibly splintered and really doesn't constitute a side at all. However No voters are constantly described as looney lefties or fundie right wingers which isn't really the case. I wasn't offended by the poster I just wanted to point out their narrow viewpoint.

Scofflaw · 01-10-2009 6:11pm

brianthebard wrote: »

The poster I quoted seemed to be tarring everyone who votes no with the same brush. I'm just trying to point out that the No 'side' is incredibly splintered and really doesn't constitute a side at all. However No voters are constantly described as looney lefties or fundie right wingers which isn't really the case. I wasn't offended by the poster I just wanted to point out their narrow viewpoint.

Everyone already knows that to be the case - at least, everyone here does. Have a little faith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lisbon will undo 'convenant between Ireland and Our Lord'

Comments