Loafing Oaf wrote: » Incredibly stupid stunt though. If her sign got the media attention it was designed to, someone would surely recognize her...
Oldtree wrote: » Whatever her real agenda, one can only suppose that personal attention seeking is at the base of it.
dav3 wrote: » That's a very low turn out for such a well publicised event so close to the referendum. The organisers certainly aren't happy.
Oldtree wrote: » Rte now down to "in excess of 15,000 with no official figures", changed their article in the last 4 minutes. Edit: but not the heading of the article. "Tens of thousands"
Bannasidhe wrote: » Perhaps they are all pregnant and counting the unborn as being there campaigning against Repeal because everyone knows a Yes vote will make abortion compulsory :pac:
[Deleted User] wrote: » do you lean a particular way yourself
pleas advice wrote: » old news, I thought this was from the other day
pitifulgod wrote: » https://twitter.com/saoleoin/status/972514919806636033 Well, the photo was from the pro choice march last year but there she is at the march for life..... She was literally a plant for pro lifers to complain about last year.
Oldtree wrote: » Rte, The Journal and Independent all reporting tens of thousands marched today. Times reporting thousands. Times have posted a video of the thousands.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/thousands-taking-part-in-anti-abortion-rally-for-life-1.3422543 Independent video herehttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/thousands-march-in-dublin-calling-for-the-eighth-amendment-to-be-retained-36690818.html
splinter65 wrote: » What makes you think that they’re not happy with the turn out?
pitifulgod wrote: » Because they're obsessed with bigging up the numbers, clearly have far less activist support than the repeal movement. Repeal has considerable support is the reality that they're facing.
mzungu wrote: » Aye, but most people won't be on forums/social media hence it goes mostly unchecked. People will see the sign on the street and assume she is part of the Repeal movement. Very underhand tactic.
Rubberchikken wrote: » Im irish. I love my country. Not a big fan of some of my country men/ women but that's another thread. But i do not want to see any more women having to leave this country to avail of a service that in 2018 should be here, be legal, be safe and be capabke of being availed if without shame.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » You reckon it was only aimed at passers-by and wasn't intended to attract media attention? Well that makes some sense I suppose. Still only a very ill-informed person would think that was a genuine pro-choice slogan...
Oldtree wrote: » I'm not sure I understand what you mean by leaning?
mzungu wrote: » I'd be quite certain. It would make no sense to aim for national media, because it would be easily exposed and end up making their organisation look both foolish and dishonest. By going for street exposure it lessens the risk of being exposed and it even if caught out (as happened) it makes little difference because it's confined to forums like this and social media etc. On the other hand, it could just be an extreme case of switching allegiances that would put any good film noir to shame!
Rezident wrote: » Why should a baby termination "service" be available in Ireland because it's 2018? How can you justify killing the only people on the planet that are innocent? If abortion without shame was possible then the pro-abortion lobby would at least be able to call themselves 'pro-abortion' but even they can't use the word, they have to go with the misleading title of 'pro-choice', that's a sign that they are hiding something. Abortion is obviously wrong, no reasonable person would want someone they loved to go through an abortion. You know that some babies survive the abortion, and must be left to die of neglect, it's called 'comfort care'. And as for the dead babies that you de-humanise as if they are some pest to be removed by a "service", what about them? Do you just not think about them? Pretend that they are not human? How do you do it?
[Deleted User] wrote: » sorry, came out abrupt if your conclusion to a pro-life plant posing as a deliberately inflammatory pro-choice slogan wielding ringer in order that the image be circulated across right wing blogosphere to stoke outrage is that she must be an individual out seeking personal attn then you are being outrageously...i mean outrageously...generous to the pro-life crew because to most ppl that looks like pretty offensive, subversive and at a very mild use of language dishonest behaviour that disgraces anyone who wouldnt condemn it sorry if ive picked your comments up wrong but....
Oldtree wrote: » No worries, clarity is key. I'm not sure how you took that out of my post. I don't know the lady in question, but it appears to me that she is out playing a very public role on both sides of the fence. I don't think we can take either of her public self portrayals as genuine. And that being the case, she is doing damage to both opinions. I don't understand her agenda, other than she is seeking self publicity for some very wierd reason. I condone neither of her roles, nor do I find her two faced inflammatory behaviour acceptable.
[Deleted User] wrote: » i dont see how steward for one side equates to parody-level inflammatory signwaver at an event for the other
January wrote: » This. If she was marching with an inflammatory sign at the March today then I'd take it that she was just a **** stirrer but the fact she's actively volunteering for the anti choice side and not matching with signs tells a lot.
david75 wrote: » As with the fascist placards being handed out by the guy at the Repeal march the other night, it’s simply to make Repeal look bad any way at all possible. So if they’re resorting to such pathetic and transparent tactics you know they’re on the ropes and desperate. The public aren’t stupid. It’s treating them like they are that’ll lose it as it lost it for them in marref