gandalf wrote: » Well they have to spend that "donated" American evangelical money somehow
wexie wrote: » I don't get the logic of voting against what you initially thought was right just because you don't agree with the tactics/behaviour of other people who also think it's right but just express it in a different way or came to the conclusion in a different way. It's not a sign of a well thought out opinion is it?
Beechwoodspark wrote: I was going to vote yes but after seeing and hearing some of their more extreme supporters I want nothing to do with them.
suicide_circus wrote: » George Soros you mean?
Nermal wrote: » We should encourage it as much as possible. They'll tear down one another's posters and the rest of us will benefit from less visual pollution.
Boom_Bap wrote: » Ban All Posters
Mrhuth wrote: » To force their views on everyone else.
CeilingFly wrote: » That was always the big danger for the yes campaign particularly when the militant feminists got involved and their only argument is to attack the no side and alienate many who are not on the coalface of the issue who may decide it not an issue they want to vote upon.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Well I think they should be banned in general actually. It’s more or less a human pissing on lampposts, literally for territory. I can’t imagine that minds are ever changed. Maybe in general elections you increase some name recognition. But in referenda? However until they are, no vigilantism.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I’m not sure if I can answer that given the mod decision on what should be discussed. My decision is in fact well thought out, however. To me anyway.
gandalf wrote: » I would say from a visual inspection alone the no side have a lot more cash available to them and they are not very forthcoming on where that came from? Where do you think the cash they are splashing on from a straw poll here largely unwanted and potentially misleading posters came from? Didn't Amnesty have to hand back that cash as well, damn them and their transparency.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » Amnesty did not hand back the cash. Colm O'Gorman is going to fight the SIPO decision through the courts,
Mrhuth wrote: » Don't litter the streets with useless sings. Who's paying for that? The ratio of yes to no vote signs is like 20 to 1. I've actually only seen vote yes sign once but vote no is on every street and there is one on every lamp post just so it doesn't get missed. You don't get to brainwash people.
Beechwoodspark wrote: Actually your attitude is enforcing my decision to not vote yes.
Tigger wrote: » Math fail!!
Coffee Fulled Runner wrote: » I'd prefer if all election and referendum posters were banned. Its a dated form of media at this stage
Jimbob1977 wrote: We're going down a dangerous road where a group of 100 people ('randomly selected') are given that influence.
Mrhuth wrote: » Good, I'll be taking them all down in my street.
sbsquarepants wrote: » I agree with your sentiment but I don't think you have a good grasp of the democratic process. Allowing one side of a debate only is not democracy, no matter how benevolent you think your actions. This is the very basis of the idea that power corrupts - you don't get to decide what is acceptable and what is not, that way lies tyranny! I'll be voting yes, and I agree with you that the no side can be a bit pontificating and annoying not to mention downright dishonest - but since when was politics, religion or society in general ever any different. They have their views / beliefs and they are fully entitled to them and even fully entitled to encourage others to also live by them. What they aren't entitled to is their own facts - facts are facts, they don't have any ideology. I have to say although I've seen many times more no posters than yes, I haven't personally seen anything I'd find particularly objectionable, like those youth defence cretins last time around.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Any thoughts on the topic of the thread? Or are you lost?
sbsquarepants wrote: » like those youth defence cretins last time around.
Jimbob1977 wrote: Keep the posters. For both sides.
wexie wrote: » Having said that, I'd agree with you that the yes-side aren't doing themselves (or their cause) many favours. Let's leave it at that though, you're very right.
CeilingFly wrote: » I don't think I've heard any actual argument for a yes vote other that "the no side are wrong".
kylith wrote: » How aren’t they doing themselves any favours? What have they done that’s worse than the No campaign: using fake doctors, using a fake nurse, misrepresenting themselves as midwives while canvassing, handing out signs with fascist logos to unknowing teenagers at repeal rallies, using anti-repeal plants with revolting slogans at repeal rallies so they can photograph them and misrepresent the repeal side, lying about what is involved in an abortion at 12 weeks, lying about the terms of the referendum, putting graphic poster outside schools and in places where children are likely to see them, not reporting where funding comes from, inflating numbers at anti-repeal rallies, and illegally not putting supplier information on posters.
