Referendum 2012: It's On (1 Viewer)

[rettucs]

But what credibility had the Yes side?

No credibility either. But they control the media so it was hard not to hear what they had to say.

Reminder, I voted No.

 

[pete]

http://twitpic.com/9rjkab

 

[Psycho Punk]

No credibility either. But they control the media so it was hard not to hear what they had to say.

Reminder, I voted No.

Don't mind me. Last nights pints and curry are affecting my humour. MIB 3 was great fun though. Confirmed all of my fears regarding how our Alien Overlords will act once the Yes vote is in.

 

[Deadmanposting]

No credibility either. But they control the media so it was hard not to hear what they had to say.

Reminder, I voted No.

Every broadcast had equal time. Come on.

People who say 'they control the media' sound a bit off. Both sides got their say fairly.

The Yes side was supported by the established parties and the No side had Shinners, Ganley and the ULA. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[Psycho Punk]

Every broadcast had equal time. Come on.

People who say 'they control the media' sound a bit off. Both sides got their say fairly.

The Yes side was supported by the established parties and the No side had Shinners, Ganley and the ULA. That's a pretty big difference.

But all of the Main Stream print media supported the Yes side.

 

[maims bond]

But all of the Main Stream print media supported the Yes side.

Yep, and most of mainstream Ireland consume the mainstream media and most of mainstream Ireland have voted yes.

 

[Deadmanposting]

But all of the Main Stream print media supported the Yes side.

Editorially, yes.

The coverage has been balanced though, I would say.

 

[rettucs]

Every broadcast had equal time. Come on.

People who say 'they control the media' sound a bit off. Both sides got their say fairly.

The Yes side was supported by the established parties and the No side had Shinners, Ganley and the ULA. That's a pretty big difference.

even the impartial referendum commission put out information booklets about the 'Stability Treaty'.

this was the most fucked up referendum ever. Full of mistruths and underhandedness. Kind of like what might happen in Russia.

 

[rettucs]

Editorially, yes.

The coverage has been balanced though, I would say.

especially the Irish Times editorial a few weeks back calling for a Yes vote.

very balanced

 

[Deadmanposting]

especially the Irish Times editorial a few weeks back calling for a Yes vote.

very balanced

Did I not just say that?

The editorials called for a Yes, they take a side in most issues.

But the Op-ed pieces and actual news coverage have been balanced.

 

[therealjohnny]

. Kind of like what might happen in Russia.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Deadmanposting]

Well, I think it's a great result.

Shambolic, embarrassing turnout.

 

[Jim Daniels]

this was the most fucked up referendum ever. Full of mistruths and underhandedness. /QUOTE]

From both sides....

 

[rettucs]

From both sides....

yes, thats fully what I meant

 

[Jim Daniels]

yes, thats fully what I meant

Yeah, it's been unbelievable carry on. I actually found myself agreeing with Shane Ross, who suggested that it should be deferred until there was more clarity (particularly with the new French situation).

 

[Deadmanposting]

Like Fonzie, motherfuckers. Like Fonzie.

 

[pete]

eeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[Jill Hives]

What is going on with the dude's hand in the background?

Also, it must be cold out.

 

[ann post]

Every broadcast had equal time. Come on.

People who say 'they control the media' sound a bit off. Both sides got their say fairly.

The Yes side was supported by the established parties and the No side had Shinners, Ganley and the ULA. That's a pretty big difference.

Branding a fiscal agreement a 'stability treaty' and making approving so called 'stability treaty' be a 'yes' vote is inherently biased.

I read the thing a few times in the end, basically what it boils down to is that they are creating an unelected (hand picked by elected govt's) circle which will be also attended by the ecb that will decide our budgets from here out. Now if the thing was phrased honestly it would have been sorta like:

"Do you approve of a your govt hand picking an unelected person to oversee the budget minimum twice a year with members of the ecb and other hand picked unelected guys in europe who can fine your whole country for not doing what they advise treaty."

It was biased from the outset.

 

[washingcattle]

"Do you approve of a your govt hand picking an unelected person to oversee the budget minimum twice a year with members of the ecb and other hand picked unelected guys in europe who can fine your whole country for not doing what they advise treaty."

Ah now hang on a second, the ECB members are actually going to be economists right ? I'd prefer a non-elected professional over an elected
amateur. For example Brian Cowen was a TD at 24 why do we assume that because someone knows how to be elected means he knows how to balance a budget ?