'GAA Athletes for a No Vote'

[Jinxy]

Because they are confident that the overall response will be positive and it will make the organisation seem progressive and enlightened.
Are they as confident on this issue?
It's a total hostage to fortune, which is why they should steer clear of this stuff altogether.
If you don't get the response you want, do you then bury the poll?

[thebuzz]

Because they are confident that the overall response will be positive and it will make the organisation seem progressive and enlightened.
Are they as confident on this issue?
It's a total hostage to fortune, which is why they should steer clear of this stuff altogether.
If you don't get the response you want, do you then bury the poll?

That is 100% correct Jinxy.

[Lar Naparka]

Not endorsing a vote either way = not getting actively involved.
Endorsing a vote = getting actively involved.
Just to be clear, I voted yes in the same-sex marriage referendum, and will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum so it's not about which side they came down on.
It's the principle and the precedent that I'm primarily interested in.
Lets say the GPA put the issue of endorsing the upcoming referendum to a vote and it came back 50:50 or even 60:40 against.
Would they report that?

Why not? I see no reason why they shouldn't or wouldn't. There's a  line between publishing the results of a poll that overwhelmingly  back one side in the upcoming election and taking using a GAA pitch without the owners's permission to declare support for any side in this referendum. I'll probably vote like you when he time comes but that's not the reason I object to Mickey's antics. The cynical use of children to push any agenda in any election of any sort is beyond the pale for me.

[BennyCake]

Because they are confident that the overall response will be positive and it will make the organisation seem progressive and enlightened.
Are they as confident on this issue?
It's a total hostage to fortune, which is why they should steer clear of this stuff altogether.
If you don't get the response you want, do you then bury the poll?

Nah, just go again until you get the "right" answer, a la the Lisbon Treaty.

[Syferus]

Because they are confident that the overall response will be positive and it will make the organisation seem progressive and enlightened.
Are they as confident on this issue?
It's a total hostage to fortune, which is why they should steer clear of this stuff altogether.
If you don't get the response you want, do you then bury the poll?

Nah, just go again until you get the "right" answer, a la the Lisbon Treaty.

There's a reason progress is usually the right answer.

[BennyCake]

Because they are confident that the overall response will be positive and it will make the organisation seem progressive and enlightened.
Are they as confident on this issue?
It's a total hostage to fortune, which is why they should steer clear of this stuff altogether.
If you don't get the response you want, do you then bury the poll?

Nah, just go again until you get the "right" answer, a la the Lisbon Treaty.

There's a reason progress is usually the right answer.

And there's a reason why a country/group votes 'No' too.

Anyway, it's a matter of opinion re: progress.

[omaghjoe]

Because they are confident that the overall response will be positive and it will make the organisation seem progressive and enlightened.
Are they as confident on this issue?
It's a total hostage to fortune, which is why they should steer clear of this stuff altogether.
If you don't get the response you want, do you then bury the poll?

Nah, just go again until you get the "right" answer, a la the Lisbon Treaty.

There's a reason progress is usually the right answer.

I knew Syferus was around for a reason....To define the appeal to novelty

[Farrandeelin]

Because they are confident that the overall response will be positive and it will make the organisation seem progressive and enlightened.
Are they as confident on this issue?
It's a total hostage to fortune, which is why they should steer clear of this stuff altogether.
If you don't get the response you want, do you then bury the poll?

Nah, just go again until you get the "right" answer, a la the Lisbon Treaty.

There's a reason progress is usually the right answer.

Vote Yes for jobs.

[Jinxy]

Not endorsing a vote either way = not getting actively involved.
Endorsing a vote = getting actively involved.
Just to be clear, I voted yes in the same-sex marriage referendum, and will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum so it's not about which side they came down on.
It's the principle and the precedent that I'm primarily interested in.
Lets say the GPA put the issue of endorsing the upcoming referendum to a vote and it came back 50:50 or even 60:40 against.
Would they report that?

Why not? I see no reason why they shouldn't or wouldn't. There's a  line between publishing the results of a poll that overwhelmingly  back one side in the upcoming election and taking using a GAA pitch without the owners's permission to declare support for any side in this referendum. I'll probably vote like you when he time comes but that's not the reason I object to Mickey's antics. The cynical use of children to push any agenda in any election of any sort is beyond the pale for me.

It would make them look bad, that's why.
This is all hypothetical, but it's a bit like people being hugely in favour of free speech unless the person speaking disagrees with them.
Look at the abuse Ger Brennan got for endorsing a 'No' vote in the same sex marriage referendum.
Now imagine instead of one individual, it was a players association drawing the ire of every self-righteous clown on social media.
The GPA's 'commercial partners' would have to take on extra staff to handle all the phone calls demanding they disassociate themselves.
My argument is, why set the precedent?
If you were advising them Lar, knowing that they took a position on the last referendum, would you say it was a good move to take a position on this referendum?

[sid waddell]

The cynical use of children to push any agenda in any election of any sort is beyond the pale for me.

Sneak preview of this weekend's publicity stunt by Mickey Harte:

[longballin]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

[Jinxy]

If I had to put money on it, I would say the GPA will do the same as last time and endorse a 'Yes' vote.
They may wait to see how favourable the wind behind them is first.
Or, will the GAA lean on them to sit this one out perhaps?

[Rossfan]

The GPA have said nothing to date.
Jinxy seems obsessed over that.

[Lar Naparka]

Not endorsing a vote either way = not getting actively involved.
Endorsing a vote = getting actively involved.
Just to be clear, I voted yes in the same-sex marriage referendum, and will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum so it's not about which side they came down on.
It's the principle and the precedent that I'm primarily interested in.
Lets say the GPA put the issue of endorsing the upcoming referendum to a vote and it came back 50:50 or even 60:40 against.
Would they report that?

Why not? I see no reason why they shouldn't or wouldn't. There's a  line between publishing the results of a poll that overwhelmingly  back one side in the upcoming election and taking using a GAA pitch without the owners's permission to declare support for any side in this referendum. I'll probably vote like you when he time comes but that's not the reason I object to Mickey's antics. The cynical use of children to push any agenda in any election of any sort is beyond the pale for me.

It would make them look bad, that's why.
This is all hypothetical, but it's a bit like people being hugely in favour of free speech unless the person speaking disagrees with them.
Look at the abuse Ger Brennan got for endorsing a 'No' vote in the same sex marriage referendum.
Now imagine instead of one individual, it was a players association drawing the ire of every self-righteous clown on social media.
The GPA's 'commercial partners' would have to take on extra staff to handle all the phone calls demanding they disassociate themselves.
My argument is, why set the precedent?
If you were advising them Lar, knowing that they took a position on the last referendum, would you say it was a good move to take a position on this referendum?

NO, I'd tell them to shut the f**k up and stay outa it!
I never meant to imply that the GPA was right in publicly endorsing one side or the other.
I thought we were comparing the lengths both parties went to get their respective messages across to the public and here I feel Mickey & Co. went away beyond the bonds of acceptable behaviour.

It's bad enough that this shower should use a GAA ground, without the club's permission, to promote their message but to use children in a cynical way to do this is wholly unacceptable by any standard.

[manfromdelmonte]

Not endorsing a vote either way = not getting actively involved.
Endorsing a vote = getting actively involved.
Just to be clear, I voted yes in the same-sex marriage referendum, and will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum so it's not about which side they came down on.
It's the principle and the precedent that I'm primarily interested in.
Lets say the GPA put the issue of endorsing the upcoming referendum to a vote and it came back 50:50 or even 60:40 against.
Would they report that?

Why not? I see no reason why they shouldn't or wouldn't. There's a  line between publishing the results of a poll that overwhelmingly  back one side in the upcoming election and taking using a GAA pitch without the owners's permission to declare support for any side in this referendum. I'll probably vote like you when he time comes but that's not the reason I object to Mickey's antics. The cynical use of children to push any agenda in any election of any sort is beyond the pale for me.

It would make them look bad, that's why.
This is all hypothetical, but it's a bit like people being hugely in favour of free speech unless the person speaking disagrees with them.
Look at the abuse Ger Brennan got for endorsing a 'No' vote in the same sex marriage referendum.
Now imagine instead of one individual, it was a players association drawing the ire of every self-righteous clown on social media.
The GPA's 'commercial partners' would have to take on extra staff to handle all the phone calls demanding they disassociate themselves.
My argument is, why set the precedent?
If you were advising them Lar, knowing that they took a position on the last referendum, would you say it was a good move to take a position on this referendum?

NO, I'd tell them to shut the f**k up and stay outa it!
I never meant to imply that the GPA was right in publicly endorsing one side or the other.
I thought we were comparing the lengths both parties went to get their respective messages across to the public and here I feel Mickey & Co. went away beyond the bonds of acceptable behaviour.

It's bad enough that this shower should use a GAA ground, without the club's permission, to promote their message but to use children in a cynical way to do this is wholly unacceptable by any standard.

just look at the NO posters and the use of images of children on them