optogirl wrote: » You wrote 'But lines like that make me think I might not vote'.
DickSwiveller wrote: » Not just on their appearance - though that is part of it. It's the way they act, their miserable, po faced look. I couldn't care less about appearance but I think you'd find it hard to argue that the crowd at the repeal marches aren't the most pleasant individuals. They are a minority of the pro choice voters. I know lots of people in work who are voting to remove the 8th and don't like the people leading the campaign.
optogirl wrote: » are you seriously saying you 'don't like' someone based on a photo of them at a march? If my 6 year old came out with that he'd be getting a good talking to about his lack of maturity.
Delirium wrote: » yeah, really strange that they're not smiling ear-to-ear about being denied bodily autonomy :rolleyes:
Penn wrote: » That doesn't change the question being asked in the referendum. It has no effect on it. If you choose to vote against your own ideals and what you think the result should be for the benefit of yourself, your family and for everyone in Ireland, simply because you perceive a small section of repeal voters to be "crazy left wing rad fems", then you are far more crazy than those people. Quite frankly that type of attitude disgusts me. Regardless of which way you vote I believe your vote should be your answer to the question being asked, and nothing more. It's not about politics or left wing or right wing or anything like that. It's about the question being asked and what answer you think is most beneficial to the country and its inhabitants.
DickSwiveller wrote: » I didn't say I don't like them. I don't know them. I'm saying the optics aren't great.
optogirl wrote: » Well I must remember to get dolled up next time I'm marching through the rain asking our government to allow us to vote on our own healthcare. It's not a BOOTS ad they're in - they have no obligation to make themselves pleasing to your eye.
....... wrote: » Sure - just like you can make a lot of assumptions about people from what they actually say. One set of assumptions is likely to be incorrect, I am sure you know which one. Although given the evidence here, perhaps not.
drunkmonkey wrote: » You can safely assume there angry feminists with megaphones, best avoided in my book. Not the kind of people I'd support.
drunkmonkey wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » As drunk monkey and thuerry14 both demonstrate in their own way, it’s really important to reiterate the question in the referendum. The only thing it's demonstrated is the wrong people are pushing for a yes in the media. I won't be supporting someone I disagree with every time they open their mouths.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » As drunk monkey and thuerry14 both demonstrate in their own way, it’s really important to reiterate the question in the referendum.
DickSwiveller wrote: » I don't disagree with anything you say here. I'm merely saying that it has an effect on voters who aren't sure which way to vote. It's just reality, whether we agree or not.
lawred2 wrote: » Nice attempt at distancing yourself from your own comments
DickSwiveller wrote: » I'm not distancing myself. It doesn't have any effect on me because I know which way I'm voting, but somebody who is undecided could be turned off by that crowd.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » You won’t agree with them even when you agree with them? You’re willing to say you’d not agree wit them just because they said it?You’re giving them way too much influence over your thoughts. That’s not very clever, is it?
....... wrote: » I think most intelligent people make up their minds based on the facts. However, as has been demonstrated very clearly in this thread, there ARE some people who are really too immature to have a vote and they might be influenced by such irrelevant matters. But such people probably havent the capability to make an informed vote ANYWAY and would be voting no for any number of different nonsensical reasons. Such is democracy, every uninformed moron gets a vote and his vote is worth as much as the vote of an educated informed and reasonable person. The only thing I will say is that a lot of the mouthy immature types are also immature in other areas of life and have not in fact managed to get themselves onto the register as they are not responsible adults.
drunkmonkey wrote: » You used caps. All your missing now is the pink hair dye and the megaphone.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » you should google images of the anti choice marches, plenty of angry looking folk there with megaphones too. Does this mean you won't be voting at all?
SusieBlue wrote: » You're the one that sounds triggered, to be fair.
drunkmonkey wrote: » I just did, there a lot more balanced looking.
thierry14 wrote: » Don't think a man should have a vote Neither should women over 50 Not going to affect them
thierry14 wrote: » They dont speak for nieces, daughters, granddaughters They will get their chance in the future Alot of elderly women have been brainwashed by the church and they won't be carrying children again, not going to affect them physically We don't need old grannies blighting the vote Should be an age demographic vote imo for those physically affected Thats what I think anyway Men don't carry the child so of course they shouldn't get a vote
naughtb4 wrote: » 100% I am usually Pro-Choice in everything as its up to the person themselves to choose not the state to determine or support what they decide. I dont think the matter is a female only one as many many men are also affected by the issue be it a wife who dies due to a birth (exceptional) or a pregnant girlfriend having an abortion when he wants to keep it (or vice versa). There is alot more to nurturing and parenting then carrying a child, it goes on beyond childbirth But lines like that make me think I might not vote
