8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

wexie

theballz wrote: »

Grabbed my arm and stepped on of me. She said something along the lines of “It’s people like you who are the reason for this vote” and was visibility angry

that's entirely out of line :mad:

erica74

theballz wrote: »

Grabbed my arm and stepped on of me. She said something along the lines of “It’s people like you who are the reason for this vote” and was visibility angry

Jaysus there's no need for that. The Yes side in particular have facts on their side, they've more than enough in the arsenal to debate with, there's no need to resort to that sort of thing, leave it to the No side.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

I have spun nothing. Just read the tweet again, the reaction to the tweet is rather stupid.
https://twitter.com/AilbheConneely/status/996052100160327682

It doesn't say they are for retain, just want the president to stop campaigning.

It's been mentioned on RTE news that he has been asked to step aside on a temporary basis until after the referendum because they believe the IMC should be impartial.

A little bit different to what you are implying Robert.

theballz

erica74 wrote: »

Jaysus there's no need for that. The Yes side in particular have facts on their side, they've more than enough in the arsenal to debate with, there's no need to resort to that sort of thing, leave it to the No side.

It doesn’t matter who believes in what. You don’t treat people in that manner

RobertKK

wexie wrote: »

What rubbish?

You're posting this like 15 is somehow a significant number yet you can't tell me what % those 15 represent.

Ever consider you and 1 or 2 others jumped to a conclusion? Where did I post they are No supporters?

https://twitter.com/AilbheConneely/status/996066769709223937

eviltwin

theballz wrote: »

Grabbed my arm and stepped on of me. She said something along the lines of “It’s people like you who are the reason for this vote” and was visibility angry

Report her, that's completely unacceptable.

It wasnt me123

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe Leo Varadkar thinks the referendum will fail?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/proposal-to-allow-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-may-be-a-step-too-far-/QUOTE]

Ah here Robert, that article is from January 2018 - we've moved on a bit from there. Can you not get a more recent article to peddle your lies?

Try harder

Ave Sodalis

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

She was probably being sarcastic, that's about her limit.

Well done in trying to cover everything, I wouldn't even have known where to start. Any chance you could share it with Together for Yes so that we can all pick it up and share it. Hopefully the undecideds and not bothereds will read it and it will make them think.

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

I tagged them at the end of the post, hopefully they can see it!

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

It's been mentioned on RTE news that he has been asked to step aside on a temporary basis until after the referendum because they believe the IMC should be impartial.

A little bit different to what you are implying Robert.

But where did I imply that?

January replied and jumped to a conclusion...with her 1,000 medical Yes people which implied they were No.

Paranoid Bob

wexie wrote: »

I have this itch to go out carrying the skinny end of a fishing rod...:o

That is a fabulous expression. I never heard it before.:D

erica74

theballz wrote: »

It doesn’t matter who believes in what. You don’t treat people in that manner

Did I say otherwise?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

I have spun nothing. Just read the tweet again, the reaction to the tweet is rather stupid.
https://twitter.com/AilbheConneely/status/996052100160327682

It doesn't say they are for retain, just want the president to stop campaigning.

I'm looking at the reactions, broadly supportive of the letter

Frankly this is the only rubbish I saw https://twitter.com/TomFurbo/status/996060057442947072


Any chance you could clarify your point so it's not three pages of you telling people they've missed your unspecified point?

January

RobertKK wrote: »

But where did I imply that?

January replied and jumped to a conclusion...with her 1,000 medical Yes people which implied they were No.

I didn't jump to any conclusion, I replied to the first part of your post, which was an outdated article from when Leo was 'on the fence' about the referendum and then added the second part myself...

January

eviltwin wrote: »

Report her, that's completely unacceptable.

I'd agree with this.

_Dara_

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

Hoyden is another semi-arcane word that goes very well with obstreperous.

Obstreperous hoydens for repeal!

I love the word 'obstreperous'. This is all highly amusing.

_Dara_

RobertKK wrote: »

Still stands as it is is gaining No voters.

So 1,000 out of over 20,000, so 5%.

And what percentage of 20,000 is 15, Robert?

_Dara_

theballz wrote: »

In the space of 2 mins I was stopped by 4 people canvassing for the Yes campaign. One of them got slightly aggressive with me, it’s so over the top and I feel like it’s being shoved down our throats

Im voting yes either way but I don’t agree with how they are going about this campaign

Meanwhile, I experienced Yes campaigners outside Heuston Station last week who could not have been more calm and chilled out if they tried.

It's almost as if campaigners are not a homogeneous group of people.

Grayson

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

I'm looking at the reactions, broadly supportive of the letter

Frankly this is the only rubbish I saw https://twitter.com/TomFurbo/status/996060057442947072


Any chance you could clarify your point so it's not three pages of you telling people they've missed your unspecified point?

I took a look at some of that guys tweets. In one about abortion he used an Ed Sheeran hash tag to try and get it more noticed.

frag420

_Dara_ wrote: »

And what percentage of 20,000 is 15, Robert?

Me me me me.....Its .075%!!

Such a large percentage wouldn't you agree Robertkk!?

pleas advice

ye have the wrong end of the stick, but shur lets run with it anyway...

Pac1Man

The propaganda is strong in this thread.

_Dara_

pleas advice wrote: »

ye have the wrong end of the stick, but shur lets run with it anyway...

Yes, lets. If Bobert can’t post in a clear manner and isn’t gutsy enough to make clear what his point is, that’s what will happen.

Anyhoo, what’s this Claire Byrne show on TV3?

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Ever consider you and 1 or 2 others jumped to a conclusion? Where did I post they are No supporters?

https://twitter.com/AilbheConneely/status/996066769709223937

So... really only 10?
https://twitter.com/AilbheConneely/status/996082122774499328

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe Leo Varadkar thinks the referendum will fail?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/proposal-to-allow-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-may-be-a-step-too-far-taoiseach-1.3351057



Meanwhile 15 obstetricians from the south/southwest hospital group have written to Dr Peter Boylan to stop campaigning for repeal or else step down as president of the institute of obstetricians and gynaecologists.

https://twitter.com/AilbheConneely/status/996052100160327682

From RTE:

Dr Boylan said he had received the letter and seven of the signatories were not members of the institute.

More liberties with the truth? I guess the gynos in question might be members of the hospital group but not the institute of obstetricians and gynaecologists. Why would that be? Not qualified?

I really would like to see these letters and names posted. I know I wouldn't support any NO signatories as solicitors/barristers or certainly doctors. Actions have consequences.

SusieBlue

RobertKK wrote: »

But where did I imply that?

January replied and jumped to a conclusion...with her 1,000 medical Yes people which implied they were No.

Hi Robert, good to see you back on the thread. Just wondering if you’ve had a chance to answer the question I’ve asked you 4 times yet?

You know, the one where I asked you to tell me why it’s a good thing that should I get pregnant, the 8th will stop me from getting a termination to continue treatment to prevent cervical cancer?
You know, the cervical smear scandal you were so outraged by last week?
Thanks.

Macha

When you put your specific situation into the debate, they never want to answer, SusieBlue. I asked twice and didn't get an answer either from another poster.

Overheal

I think it would be nice if posters on the thread stopped dignifying RobertKK with responses until he responds to SusieBlue with an answer to that rather important question.

erica74

Pac1Man wrote: »

The propaganda is strong in this thread.

What propaganda would that be?

wexie

Macha wrote: »

When you put your specific situation into the debate, they never want to answer, SusieBlue. I asked twice and didn't get an answer either from another poster.

They don't like talking about actual cases because they inevitably point out the flaws in the reasoning ( if that's what we're calling it).

The arguments really don't stand up to close scrutiny of any kind

frag420

Ah jaysus, I cant keep recalculating these vast numbers...

However in this instance iI am happy to help, the new percentage is...wait for it...wait for it...


0.349%

frag420 wrote: »

Me me me me.....Its .075%!!

Such a large percentage wouldn't you agree Robertkk!?

January wrote: »

So... really only 10?
https://twitter.com/AilbheConneely/status/996082122774499328