Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: "No" campaigns launched

  1. #1

    Default "No" campaigns launched

    The first was a Christian alliance comprising the Christian Solidarity Party, Parents for Children and the Alliance for Parents against the State, who consider the State would over-encroach on parents' rights. (Kathy Sinnott, who was advocating a No vote in Tralee last night, is presumably in this camp, on the basis of her previous campaigns)

    The second group, Two Rights Now, makes the same contention, but from the opposite end of the religious spectrum, their most prominent spokesman, Dick Spicer, being a leading figure in Irish humanism.
    My political compass:
    Economic Left/Right: -5.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Seriously, has anyone found anyone to even vote against it never mind spend money nominally opposing it ? How much is this (apparently ?) no-brainer referendum costing us ? In these economic circumstances what clueless moron decided to waste so much public money on printing, returning officers, counters, premises hire etc never mind allowing the self-promoting political establishment spend more tax-payers funded expenses “impressing us” with their high moral ground stances.

    Surely there are enough real issues (genuine political reform anyone ?) requiring urgent referenda that should have at least been scheduled to coincide with this ? How about ones that would help the economy ?

    Reduction in number of TDs to 50
    Retrospective claw back of over generous TDs and Minster’s pensions (rather than ask and be ignored)

    You get the idea, please feel free to add your own, what referenda would be worth paying tax payers money on ?
    Last edited by changeit; 24th October 2012 at 12:17 AM.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    489
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think the turnout will be the lowest in the history of the state.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    meath
    Posts
    576
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by changeit View Post
    Seriously, has anyone found anyone to even vote against it never mind spend money nominally opposing it ? How much is this (apparently ?) no-brainer referendum costing us ? In these economic circumstances what clueless moron decided to waste so much public money on printing, returning officers, counters, premises hire etc never mind allowing the self-promoting political establishment spend more tax-payers funded expenses “impressing us” with their high moral ground stances.

    Surely there are enough real issues (genuine political reform anyone ?) requiring urgent referenda that should have at least been scheduled to coincide with this ? How about ones that would help the economy ?

    Reduction in number of TDs to 50
    Retrospective claw back of over generous TDs and Minster’s pensions (rather than ask and be ignored)

    You get the idea, please feel free to add your own, what referenda would be worth paying tax payers money on ?

    There was a thread on this recently where I made some comments. The thread seemed to die a sudden death at that point. I would ask people to do the following

    1.. Read the Amendment very very carefully and then answer the question.

    If this provision had been part of the Constitution in 1940's and 1950's Ireland, would more children or fewer children have been put in institutions.?????????????

    2..... Study the Amendment and decide , does it give rights to children or power to the state, and is this a good thing.


    One further point.... what law can be written that will give the same rights to a 16-year-old child that has a child??????.

    Do not forget that we have a Government that suffers from delusions of competence.

  5. #5

    Default

    I don't agree that this referendum is unimportant at all, its clearly a power grab by the state snatching rights traditionally held by parents and possibly with major long term implications. I wonder if what is going on here is similar to what was outlined in this document leaked in Canada and representing the views of some globalists who met in Toronto in 1967:
    "In the "Charter", laboriously developed in our "Lodges", we will finally wipe out any parental authority by breaking the family into people fiercely opposed to each other to protect their interests. It will encourage children to report parents who are too authoritarian as being too traditional, too religious. It will thus contribute to subject parents to a "Collective Psychosis of Fear"; this will inevitably give rise, generally in society, to a relaxation of parental authority. Thus we will have succeeded, initially, to produce a society like that of Russia in the 50s where children denounced their parents to the state, and this without anyone noticing.

    In thus transferring to the State the "Parental Role", it will be easier, then, for us to grab, one by one, all the responsibilities that had been, to date, the sole responsibility of the parents. So that we can have it considered by all as an abuse against the child, religious instruction of traditional Judeo-Christian origin.

    At the same time but at another level, we will include in the highest Laws of Nations, that all Religions, Cults and religious Practices of all kinds, including "Sorcery and Magic", must all be met in the same way as each other.

    It will be profitable later to transfer the role of the State in relation to the child to the highest international bodies, such as the United Nations.

    Understand this well: "Our goal is not to protect children, or anyone from another, but to cause the collapse and subsequent fall of Nations which are a major obstacle to the implementation of our "New World Order." That is why the "Office of Child Protection" must be invested with absolute legal authority. They must be able, as they see fit, but always under the pretext of protecting the child, to remove them from their original home environments and place them in family backgrounds or foreign government centres that have been established for our internationalist principles and religions. Therefore, it will complete the final breaking of the "Western Family Unit". For without the protection and monitoring of their original parents, these children will be permanently handicapped in their psychological and moral development, and consequently represent natural prey, easily adaptable to our global aspirations.

    For success to be achieved by such an enterprise, it is essential that staff working in these 'Offices" in the service of the state, are young people without experience, imbued with theories that we know are empty and ineffectual, and especially, are obsessed with the missionary spirit as great protectors of children at risk. For them, all parents must represent potential criminals, potential hazards to the welfare of the child, here considered a "God."

    An "Office of Child Protection" and a "Charter of the Rights of the Child" have no reason to be without children at risk [i.e. there can be real examples to justify them]. In addition, exceptions and the historical examples used in their [i.e. the Office and the Charter] creation would sooner or later disappear if they were not constantly fed with new cases occurring on an ongoing basis. In this sense, we must infiltrate the "Education System" of Nations to make disappear, under the cover of "Modernity" and "Evolution", the teaching of Religion, of History, and Good Manners, while diluting at the same time, under an avalanche of new experiments in the milieu of Education, that of language and mathematics.

    In this way, by depriving the younger generations any grounding in and any frontier to morals, any knowledge of the past (and therefore any national pride), all respect for others, power through knowledge of language and science (and thus of the reality), we will help build a youth largely prepared for all forms of delinquency. In this new world fragmented by fear of parents, and their abandonment of any responsibility for their children, we will open the way to train in our own way and according to our primary objectives, a youth where arrogance, contempt, and humiliation of others, will be considered as the new basis of "Affirmation of Self" and "Freedom"."
    (A leak of the real plan of the Globalist Elite? The Toronto Protocol)

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Munster
    Posts
    7,120
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default

    I am trying to figure out the meaning behind 3.1 in Article 41:
    "The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
    To me that sounds like a preliminary attack against gay marriage, and I would hate to see that ingrained in law. Who now is attacking marriage? Why does marriage have to be guarded?
    For this provision alone, I think I will be voting No.
    People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do - Isaac Asimov

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by man-in-street View Post
    I made some comments. The thread seemed to die a sudden death at that point.
    With all due respect, are you genuinely surprised ?

    The points you make are worthy, valid, and (despite some noise from empty vessels since) largely incontestable, but you can relax, nothing will defeat this referendum. The point being discussed in this particular thread is not about that, it is attempting to discuss any possible organised opposition to it. I’ve attempted to hijack that somewhat because I do not believe there can be a (genuine) opposition to it. At the same, I still think it is ludicrous that so much (scarce) public money is being spent on this when there are so many at least as-urgent changes needed in our constitution, never mind affording the opportunity to our parasitic political classes to self promote, claim progress, and distract from the very pressing issues.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,414
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Zordan View Post
    I think the turnout will be the lowest in the history of the state.

    I would be greatly surprised if the turnout was anything but very low. This is not a child friendly Country, The evidence is all around us. to our shame.....

  9. #9
    MrFunkyBoogaloo
    Guest

    Default

    I'm still very mixed about this question. Currently about 55/45 in favour of a No.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member gloria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrFunkyBoogaloo View Post
    I'm still very mixed about this question. Currently about 55/45 in favour of a No.
    Really? where did you hear this information?

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •