90 thoughts on “No Drama

    1. LiamZero

      Why you there, you seem like a fair and balanced chap. Please allow me to try to convince you to vote for my preferred referendum choice.

      1. Lorcan Nagle

        d4n – the arguement being that if you’re removing or defacing the other side’s posters, you’re refusing them the right to get their arguement out there in the same manner you are with your posters.

        I’m not sure to what level I agree with the sentiment.

        1. d4n

          I don’t agree with it at all, at least not as it’s happened in this referendum, this is just people showing their annoyance, it’s not a campaign to silence anyone.
          To be clear tho, I was only asking newsjustin because he keeps posting soundbytes supporting the no side while claiming to be a yes voter, so far all his objections that I’ve seen are complete nonsense, and I’d like to see him actually defend some of the things he says, or even show some understanding.
          Cheers for the explanation tho’. (not sarcasm)

          1. newsjustin

            d4n – you don’t want my answer, I know. But…..

            I think this kind of thing is undemocratic because it’s vandalising (in a permanent or semi-permanent way) someone else’s property to take away their voice (albeit just in that particular place) and insert yours.

            Lorcan has a point though (and you) – it’s not like it silences a particular point of view….not in any grand way…unless it was planned and managed and done in large numbers.

          2. d4n

            newsjustin, if I didn’t want your answer I wouldn’t have asked.
            So basically you think it’s undemocratic because it takes people’s voice away, even tho it clearly doesn’t. So you really are just concern trolling.

    2. Lush

      No more anti-democratic than tearing down the No posters.
      Though two wrongs do not a right make.

          1. d4n

            @Don Pidgeoni Yeah I know, it’s worth pointing it out tho, and since when he does answer he does so with a load of irrelevant questions then vanishes I thought I’d follow up elsewhere.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            I’ve been trying for weeks. He always convienently disappears when his logic comes up flawed even though he is here for the “debate”

          3. newsjustin

            Don, remember the question I posed last night?

            Tell us all what is the title of Article 41? The one we’re proposing the change. You know, the question you wouldn’t answer. (I believe someone else may have done it for you).

          4. Don Pidgeoni

            Ah here now news. I have previously answered on multiple occasions as have multiple other posters. You on the other hand owe about 5090 answers.

          5. newsjustin

            No you haven’t. You’ve never told us what the title of Article 41 is. The one we’re hoping to change. Could you tell us now?

          6. Don Pidgeoni

            I’m not getting into anything with you. It’s not worth my energy to be honest.

          7. newsjustin

            Yeah, I though not.
            Just tell us what the name of Article 41 is?

            Or tell me what are some of the questions I’ve not answered for you?

          8. newsjustin

            Ladies and Gentlemen – I give you Don: Talks a great game until cornered to answer a single, factual question that she’s worried will reflect badly on her side of the argument.

          9. Joe the Lion

            What’s that you were saying about bullies Justin?
            You’re a feeble-minded individual playing the big lad bullying lasses round midnight on t’internet. You have no argument in this moot point as the referendum as everyone as pointed out is not providing a redefinition of the family in the context of marriage, but a new definition reflecting modern ordinary meaning of the term.

          10. Don Pidgeoni

            It’s not even doing that Joe, the definition of family won’t change as it’s not defined. Marriage isn’t defined either so nothing is changing in the constitution. News is lying. Again. Just like the whole no side are. I mean, they can’t even come up with an actual factual reason! Lol. Mort. O. These dweebs are just fixated by this idea of change where there is none because they are scared and tragic.

            Plus, I’d like to see him yet to bully me

          11. newsjustin

            Jesus Joe! Bring gender into it why don’t you. People are free to accuse me of not answering questions and can get away scot free without answering questions I pose.

            Tragic.

            Can anyone admit that Article 41 is called “the Family”? No?

          12. Joe the Lion

            I don’t quite agree Don but I would have to consult with LCD etc. I imagine that even if it’s not in Bunreacht explicitly, the defining characteristics of marriage in the heterosexual case has been set out in case law precedents.

            @ Justin – thank dog the people are going to vote next week to define the characteristics of marriage in a broader sense than merely heterosexual. Your entire presence on this site is a byword for the creepy, seditious, heteronormative peasant pig-in-the-parlour mentality that has bedevilled aspects of life here since Cromwell. A weird unbenign sort of useless idiot who collides with reason on a daily basis and always comes out second best. The type who would sell his own granny to Queen Elizabeth/ Ronnie Reagan/ Obama/ Merkel if they will leave you and your ilk free rein to enslave your own people like the prisoner of the intellect you yourself are.

          13. newsjustin

            “Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence”

            Joe – you may be happy to accept unquestioningly that the proposed constitutional change will bring nothing but sweetness and light. I’d like to interrogate it a little further. Forgive me.

            When you have people like Don saying (at 11.05): “Nothing is changing in the constitution,” one realty has to pause and consider who’s fooling themselves about a referendum to change the constitution.

          14. Lorcan Nagle

            The strength of Don’s argument or lack thereof doesn’t change one thing though. Your insistence that the name of the article to be amended is totally unimportant. If article 41 as called “caterpillars” and it contained the same text .

            The text to be amended simply says that marraige will be defined as a union of two adults regardless of gender. That’s all. No amount of goalpost shifting, obfuscation and misdirection will change that/

          15. Don Pidgeoni

            Maybe Joe but that is not what news is claiming. He is obsessed by the constitution but I don’t think he has even read it. My points stand as far as the wording of the constitution exists today.

          16. newsjustin

            And yet your afraid to mention the name of Article 41. The Article that dare not speak it’s name.

          17. newsjustin

            “We’re not changing anything!”
            Yet we’re adding 17 words to the constitution.

            “It has nothing to do with The Family!”
            Yet it’s in the Article called “The Family” (It’s ok Don, you can say it)

            No wonder the Yes side is nose-diving in the polls. Down by 13 points according to one poll this morning.

            I was laughed at when I said that the Yes side were haemorrhaging support this week. Looks like I was right. You only have yourselves to blame, against a feeble No side.

          18. Lorcan Nagle

            So Justin, do you have any reasoning as to why the title of Article 41 is in any way relevant, or somehow more important than the actual text to be amended?

        1. newsjustin

          It’s not more important. It’s just relevant.

          Ivan Yates got it so right in his Indo piece yesterday.

          1. newsjustin

            Because the proposed amendment is to the Article on the family. But you know this. That’s why you won’t even admit the title of the Article.

          2. newsjustin

            Polling day can’t come soon enough for you guys, huh? Losing numbers EVERY day at this stage.

          3. Lorcan Nagle

            That doesn’t explain why the title of the article is relevant. Does Article 41 being valled “the family” give the proposed amendment some more power that’s somehow hidden?

            Would the amendment be more or less powerful if Article 41 was titled “The Larch.”?

        2. d4n

          newsjustin so just to be clear, the reason you don’t answer questions is because Don Pidgeoni won’t repeat the name of article 41 the family, even though everyone knows that’s what it’s called, other people have answered you, and it’s not even relevant to the referendum.
          Good to know.

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            I hope I’m not be bullying him by not answering his irrelevant question. They do like to throw this accusation around

          2. d4n

            Oh come off it Don, you know full well that your existence is bullying. And as for your war on Christmas…

          3. Don Pidgeoni

            On my wedding night I stole a babby right from its mother’s arms just like the geys will. I’m a monster!!

          4. d4n

            Nah that’s fine, you’re married, so you’re practically obliged to kidnap babies.
            You are Catholic right??

          5. Don Pidgeoni

            I bought five today from a nun down the road.

            I am so catholic the pope calls me up for advice. We are playing the long game with the old Catholics here just basically waiting for them to die so we can get shit done

          6. d4n

            ‘And the religious bigotry arrives just on time. What classy people.’ Yes, after much time waiting for you to answer questions, we’re now poking fun at people who claim to be incredibly worried about children, but also invented the concept of the ‘illegitimate’ child, sold children, and hid. enabled, and, defended massive numbers of child molesters.
            It’s purely bigotry, and nothing to do with pointing out hypocrisy.

            It is kinda predictable tho, so as soon as you come up with some kind of answers for our questions we’ll stop. I will anyway. Maybe.

          7. newsjustin

            I’ll happily answer any question once Don answers mine.

            Otherwise I’ll be back here on the 23rd. If the referendum has passed, great. If, as seems more and more likely by the day, it doesn’t, I’ll be ever so keen to hear your feedback on what a stellar campaign the Yes side has run.

          8. Nigel

            Your genuine and heartfelt concern is touching, but I don’t think defacing posters is officially part of either campaign.

    1. yrtnuocecnareviled

      and we have a biter.

      My heart goes out to our friends and family who came out
      To this.

      Stay Strong

      Keep the Faith

  1. LiamZero

    Why you there, you seem like a fair and balanced chap. Please allow me to try to convince you to vote for my preferred referendum choice.

    1. yrtnuocecnareviled

      touché
      Got all journal.ie

      I’ll go back outside, that’s going well.

          1. LiamZero

            Maybe I didn’t fit in to Broadsheet’s secret anti-Yes agenda. Yeah, we know what’s *really* going on on this site.

  2. Paul

    Well in fairness the yes side have been ripping down posters left and right. Nothing new here.
    Can’t wait till this referendum is over, big spoiled children on both sides.

    1. Grace

      Any evidence of that Paul? As far as I am aware, the Yes side has a clear policy of telling supporters to not interfere with the stupid lying No posters at all -let’s not give the No side the chance to whinge and play the victim card any more than they already are.

        1. Grace

          So you know for a fact that Yes Equality people are taking them down? Interesting assumption. My money is on drunken students. Posters always get interfered with by people out on the piss in town, at every election and this ref is no different.

  3. Kieran NYC

    Campaign posters for all votes should be banned anyway. Can anyone point to research proving they make a difference?

    Eyesores.

  4. Lilly

    People on both sides of this are getting terribly hot under the collar. Why can’t we just respect everyone’s democratic right to vote as they see fit. I’m voting yes but I have a few friends and family members voting no. I don’t grab them by the throat and show them the error of their ways. Calm and tolerance needed all round.

    1. Ppads

      I understand why people are getting wound up about this. I get angry when I see those No posters because they are offensive and I can see why people would not want to be staring at them every morning. They are playing on base homophobic prejudices rather than the real issue of extending marriage rights to all.

      Still, at least this sort of thing will stop the Nos from whinging about their posters being taken down. To say their campaign is disingenuous is an understatement. They are linking in issues which we all know have nothing to do with the referendum and the damage they doing to vulnerable young gay people is disgraceful.

      1. Lilly

        I agree but any reasonably intelligent people will see that and vote accordingly. Their posters are an own goal.

          1. Ppads

            I expect the mental health services are on high alert right now because young gay people really are taking a battering. It is probable that a few may even attempt to take their lives. That is the reality of this No campaign, people are getting hurt.

  5. Terry

    Both sides doing this – makes little difference, just makes both sides look petty. Looking forward to voting no and moving on. Best.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie