Election

Michael G

There are three openly anti-Catholic parties: Labour (Senator Joe O'Toole, Senator Ivana Bacik and Deputy Ruairi Quinn who alleged in the Dail – but was too much of a coward to say it outside – that there was a Catholic conspiracy in the Department of Education to hide the abuse of children) and Sinn Fein and the Greens (both pro-abortion and in favour of "Gay rights"). That leaves us with Fianna Fail or Fine Gael. Fianna Fail seem to have no values; all we have from them is the retiring Minister Dermot Ahern's view that a politician should leave his or her values at the door when going into the Dail chamber. But they will go with whichever way the wind is blowing. Fine Gael, on the whole, seem to be the best bet for Catholics; but they will not have enough seats to get a majority.

So who should Catholics vote for? Fine Gael probably, but with second preferences for Fianna Fail. I think that for Catholics the best outcome would be a minority Fine Gael government with support from Fianna Fail. But to achieve that, I think we need to tell canvassers from both of those parties what we want from them.

Manach

Whilst social/moral issues are important when deciding voting intention, I will primarily be using this election cycle as a measure on how fast I can unleash my hounds on the canvassers, of any political stripe, which call on my door - purely agnostic in that fashion.
BTW - I think Catholic only responses are barred, the moderators might confirm that.

CiaranMT

Debate is needed on the topic of abortion, and I think it should be said that those parties you mentioned would be pro choice, rather than pro abortion. As for 'Gay Rights', as you put it, this is hardly still an issue in this day and age?

IIIOIII

There is a push for gay 'marriage' and gay adoption, so there are still issues at large.

The Irish people I suppose have to make decisions about what sort of country they want to live in...

Michael G

Manach wrote: »

Whilst social/moral issues are important when deciding voting intention, I will primarily be using this election cycle as a measure on how fast I can unleash my hounds on the canvassers, of any political stripe, which call on my door - purely agnostic in that fashion.
BTW - I think Catholic only responses are barred, the moderators might confirm that.

I think they do allow Catholic-only threads, but if not I will let you know.

CiaranMT

And what's wrong with gay marriage and/or adoption?

Point me to societies that have crumbled as a result of the introduction of legislation supporting these.

PDN

Michael G wrote: »

I think they do allow Catholic-only threads, but if not I will let you know.

I'm afraid they are not allowed. This is not a decision of the moderators of this forum, but rather of the owner of boards.ie.

Michael G

Manach wrote: »

Whilst social/moral issues are important when deciding voting intention, I will primarily be using this election cycle as a measure on how fast I can unleash my hounds on the canvassers, of any political stripe, which call on my door - purely agnostic in that fashion.

I am going to the http://www.dspca.ie shelter on Saturday with my nieces and I hope to adopt one or two dogs of a militant disposition. With the help of God and whatever encouragement I can give them, they will tear the hole off some Labour, Green or Sinn Fein canvassers in the next three months.

Fanny Cradock

Michael G wrote: »

IWith the help of God and whatever encouragement I can give them, they will tear the hole off some Labour, Green or Sinn Fein canvassers in the next three months.

That made me laugh.

Michael G

PDN wrote: »

I'm afraid they are not allowed. This is not a decision of the moderators of this forum, but rather of the owner of boards.ie.

There was a discussion about that a few weeks ago and it seemed clear that the "catholics-only" facility was available. What happened? Catholics still have the option of the Irish Catholics' Forum at http://irishcatholics.proboards.com/.

Fanny Cradock

You can read all about it here. Let's reserve this thread for the topic it was created for.

prinz

Fianna Fáil - Eh, no more thanks.

Fine Gael - Possibly, depending on the character of those running

Labour - Haven't noticed a particular "anti-Catholic agenda", as for what Quinn said - is it any wonder? There most definitely was blind eyes turned in the Church and the State to abuse by Catholics back in the days and not a lot would appear to have changed.

Greens - See F.F.

Sinn Féin - If they get into government, worrying about gay rights will be the last thing on my mind. Saying what I really think of them would probably get me banned.

Ivana Bacik - not my cup of tea...or coffee..or anything else for that matter.

Well I haven't made up my mind yet, but either way I will rest somewhat easy with a copy of the Bunreacht under my pillow, safe in the knowledge that no party will be fooling around with that without my express vote on the matter.

As for what Dermot Ahern said...I think we can see where it got us. However I can also understand where he is coming from. Our political system is not designed to allow people follow their own convictions in the Dáill, so in that sense to be a successful parliamentarian in this State there is an element of leaving your personal 'values' at the door sadly.

Michael G

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That made me laugh.

I'm very glad it did. May we all laugh often.

Onesimus

I've yet to meet a politician who does not have an Anti-Catholic trace running through him to be honest. But have only met one from the Greens.

As for the greens. I think this poster would be appropriate to send them seeing as they never voice their opinion and make a stance against abortion. But to be honest, I've met a green counciler who is very pro-life and Catholic. The only problem is that the person in question and his party will not speak out against it. We live in a world of Judas's who are more worried about their vote than about the people. In saying all of that I think I'll be voting Green seeing as we must use our vote some way or another.

IIIOIII

Onesimus wrote: »

I've yet to meet a politician who does not have an Anti-Catholic trace running through him to be honest. But have only met one from the Greens.

As for the greens. I think this poster would be appropriate to send them seeing as they never voice their opinion and make a stance against abortion. But to be honest, I've met a green counciler who is very pro-life and Catholic. The only problem is that the person in question and his party will not speak out against it. We live in a world of Judas's who are more worried about their vote than about the people. In saying all of that I think I'll be voting Green seeing as we must use our vote some way or another.

That's a great poster.

I wonder how many Catholic voters care enough about pro-life though to make an issue of it at election time?

Onesimus

IIIOIII wrote: »

That's a great poster.

I wonder how many Catholic voters care enough about pro-life though to make an issue of it at election time?

you should attend one of the youth defences Irish pro-life demonstrations. You will see a lot of caring Catholic voters in attendance of it who clearly care about life in the womb.

Many Catholic voters probably do not think of it. That is more or less our fault for not making the awareness of it strong enough. Many Catholics care but through ignorance of the subject fail to think about it.

wolfsbane

Onesimus said:

We live in a world of Judas's who are more worried about their vote than about the people.

On Facebook I put up:
Wishes for 2011 that aren't going to be fulfilled:
1. Politicians telling the truth, even about their opponents.

___________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

Michael G

CiaranMT wrote: »

And what's wrong with gay marriage and/or adoption?

Point me to societies that have crumbled as a result of the introduction of legislation supporting these.

I have no problem with people, whether in a sexual relationship or not, being enabled to form civil partnerships giving them the same rights in some respects as married couples. What I do object to is the assertion that homosexual couples are entitled to all the same rights in every respect as married or indeed unmarried homosexual couples.

Michael G

prinz wrote: »

Labour - Haven't noticed a particular "anti-Catholic agenda", as for what Quinn said - is it any wonder? There most definitely was blind eyes turned in the Church and the State to abuse by Catholics back in the days and not a lot would appear to have changed.

There were certainly blind eyes turned to it. But Quinn was more specific; he alleged that members of Opus Dei within the Department of Education conspired to cover it up. Whether or not there were any members of Opus Dei in the Department at that particular time, I do not know; if there were, however, his allegation would have been potentially defamatory of such individuals if he had had the balls to make it outside the Dáil. Nasty, cowardly little man.

Implosiony

Onesimus wrote: »

As for the greens. I think this poster would be appropriate to send them seeing as they never voice their opinion and make a stance against abortion. But to be honest, I've met a green counciler who is very pro-life and Catholic. The only problem is that the person in question and his party will not speak out against it. We live in a world of Judas's who are more worried about their vote than about the people. In saying all of that I think I'll be voting Green seeing as we must use our vote some way or another.

Isn't the whole point of a democratic politician to be a person to represent their constituents? Not themselves. Sure, they may have opinions, and have preference over certain subjects, but at the end of the day, we the people are paying them to represent the majority - ie, the side of every argument that recieves the most votes.

What you sem to be wishing for is a system like the US, where many politicians have specialist agendas, and insane projects. By voting for a person who happens to share in common with you that special topic, you undermine the whole system, and neglect the best of interest for your area, and your people.

Implosiony

Michael G wrote: »

I have no problem with people, whether in a sexual relationship or not, being enabled to form civil partnerships giving them the same rights in some respects as married couples. What I do object to is the assertion that homosexual couples are entitled to all the same rights in every respect as married or indeed unmarried homosexual couples.

Because some people are just more equal than others.

Or as Jesus put it; Love your neighbours as yourself. But love the ones with the most in common with you a bit more.

Sorry for double post.

PDN

Implosiony wrote: »

Isn't the whole point of a democratic politician to be a person to represent their constituents? Not themselves. Sure, they may have opinions, and have preference over certain subjects, but at the end of the day, we the people are paying them to represent the majority - ie, the side of every argument that recieves the most votes.

No, I don't think we are. We elect people to lead us, and sometimes a leader would recognise that the majority are wrong.

For example, if the majority want to see all gypsied deported from Ireland, I would hope our elected leaders would have the balls not to pander to that kind of stuff.

Implosiony

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't think we are. We elect people to lead us, and sometimes a leader would recognise that the majority are wrong.

For example, if the majority want to see all gypsied deported from Ireland, I would hope our elected leaders would have the balls not to pander to that kind of stuff.

Hmm, I'll admit my use of the word "every" was a bit too absolute, but I really think the gypsy example was a bit of a strawman argument.

I guess what I mean is that a politician should be skeptical and employ critical thinking. Know when rubbish is trying to be passed, yet also not try to push for their own brand of rubbish which often does not have their constituents at heart.

Onesimus

Implosiony wrote: »

Isn't the whole point of a democratic politician to be a person to represent their constituents? Not themselves. Sure, they may have opinions, and have preference over certain subjects, but at the end of the day, we the people are paying them to represent the majority - ie, the side of every argument that recieves the most votes.

What you sem to be wishing for is a system like the US, where many politicians have specialist agendas, and insane projects. By voting for a person who happens to share in common with you that special topic, you undermine the whole system, and neglect the best of interest for your area, and your people.

And voting for a politician who will see an end to abortion is whats best for the people.

But I vote for those not whom I have something in common with, but for the best Politician who is going to do good for the people.

Not just because he is Catholic ( anyone can make that claim ) but because I see the evidence of those Catholic values being practiced in his manner of doing things. Thats who I vote for.

If a politician told me to vote for him and if we did we'd all receive a million euros in our bank account, but at the same time told me on the other hand abortion will be made legal. I'd rather be pennliess knowing that life in the womb was being protected at all costs.

In saying that, are you pro-choice? and if so, would you vote for someone who was pro-life? ( now lets see whose living up to their ''dont vote for those you have something in common with'' maxim ) :rolleyes:

the defence of life in the womb is not an idea or a theory its a fact. It has nothing to do with ''you like jammy dodgers and I like mars bars so were even''.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Implosiony

Onesimus wrote: »

And voting for a politician who will see an end to abortion is whats best for the people.

But I vote for those not whom I have something in common with, but for the best Politician who is going to do good for the people.

Not just because he is Catholic ( anyone can make that claim ) but because I see the evidence of those Catholic values being practiced in his manner of doing things. Thats who I vote for.

If a politician told me to vote for him and if we did we'd all receive a million euros in our bank account, but at the same time told me on the other hand abortion will be made legal. I'd rather be pennliess knowing that life in the womb was being protected at all costs.

In saying that, are you pro-choice? and if so, would you vote for someone who was pro-life? ( now lets see whose living up to their ''dont vote for those you have something in common with'' maxim ) :rolleyes:

the defence of life in the womb is not an idea or a theory its a fact. It has nothing to do with ''you like jammy dodgers and I like mars bars so were even''.

Oh wow, those are some massive, massive claims. Firstly, yeah, I guess you could consider me pro-choice. I mean, I personally disagree with abortion, but I would never even dare assume that I had higher knowledge that would take away the chance for others to make their own personal decisions. This is an extremely personal topic. You can take the path you have chosen, but to force others against their will to follow you down it is irresponsible to free will.

But this is probably not the place for such a debate, and I doubt anything I say could change your mind anyway, so it would probably be fruitless.

Also, no, I would not vote for someone just because they were specifically pro-choice. The most well-rounded and sane candidate, and if they're pro-choice all the better.

Implosiony

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would have to disagree. The problem I see is that people vote for the party rather than the person. So many people I know say "Oh well, my family has always voted for X so I guess I will too." Which is absolutely ridiculous. No person can ever fully agree with a party's policies. You're more likely to find a reasonable human being than a organisation who aims to please all. If anything, voting for a party only is what causes cronyism and back-scratching! It's when a government is crowded with yes men from the same party that problems arise.

Also, you run the risk of what we see more of in the US, where the political parties may aswell be football teams and the voting publin has become entrenched not over policy, but over tradition and pride.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, I was probably a bit too populist in that post. You make valid points. Yet I believe party-voting has a hand in the stagnation of Fianna Fail, and you admit so yourself here. Whether this was FF's fault is another matter. Sure, they didn't stop it, but nobody can say that this would never happen if Fine Gael or X party was in office.

Plowman wrote: »

If "specialist agendas" mean issues that require national coordination like specific economic policies, specific education reforms, support for particular infrastructural projects, specific health system reforms, etc, then these represent particular party policies which should inform one's vote. Meanwhile "the best interest for your area and your people" should be an issue for local councillors, not national representatives. This is something that frustrates me about Irish political life - voters end up being swayed by promises to fill potholes and the like when they should be electing their national parliamentarians based on national (and not necessarily popular) policies.

Although, I have yet to see any potholes filled out here . But I still believe TDs should at least have a hand in local politics. If an individual supports key points of their party's policies, then that's fine. But I still prefer to vote for someone that will speak out when they disagree with their party, than one who will blindly follow along.

Onesimus

Implosiony wrote: »

Oh wow, those are some massive, massive claims. Firstly, yeah, I guess you could consider me pro-choice. I mean, I personally disagree with abortion, but I would never even dare assume that I had higher knowledge that would take away the chance for others to make their own personal decisions. This is an extremely personal topic. You can take the path you have chosen, but to force others against their will to follow you down it is irresponsible to free will.

But this is probably not the place for such a debate, and I doubt anything I say could change your mind anyway, so it would probably be fruitless.

Also, no, I would not vote for someone just because they were specifically pro-choice. The most well-rounded and sane candidate, and if they're pro-choice all the better.

Ah so the law that tells me I dont have a choice when it comes to killing someone is forcing me against my will? :rolleyes:

Thats what people are doing when they abort a baby in the womb, they are commiting murder and it needs to stop. I will always speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. and yeah I vote too for the sane candidate and if he is pro-life all the better. If he is not pro-life I'd rather starve and go hungry than vote for him/her.

Implosiony

Onesimus wrote: »

Ah so the law that tells me I dont have a choice when it comes to killing someone is forcing me against my will? :rolleyes:

Thats what people are doing when they abort a baby in the womb, they are commiting murder and it needs to stop. I will always speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. and yeah I vote too for the sane candidate and if he is pro-life all the better. If he is not pro-life I'd rather starve and go hungry than vote for him/her.

Can I ask you a question? What if the sanest, and best candidate in every other matter, was one who was pro-choice? Would you put the needs of the people above your own beliefs?

Onesimus

Implosiony wrote: »

Can I ask you a question? What if the sanest, and best candidate in every other matter, was one who was pro-choice? Would you put the needs of the people above your own beliefs?

Christ said seek ye first the kingdom and everything else will be added unto you.

I seek the needs of Christ who in turn seeks the needs of us. The need of the people is pro-life. Therefore by putting my belief first I am putting the people first.

Implosiony

Onesimus wrote: »

Christ said seek ye first the kingdom and everything else will be added unto you.

I seek the needs of Christ who in turn seeks the needs of us. The need of the people is pro-life. Therefore by putting my belief first I am putting the people first.

But there's no chance, even the slightest, that you could be wrong? Everyone who believes otherwise and puts their beliefs first, they are all totally wrong, and you are 100% right.

Don't you see the other side could say the same? And then both sides are at an impasse of ignorance in which both believe they know the Truth.

Only by acknowledging that yes, maybe either one of us could be wrong, can this ignorance be overcome, and actual understanding occur.

JonJoeDali

After all that's gone wrong with FF over the last 10 years, it looks like the only option for Catholic voters is FG.

Onesimus

Implosiony wrote: »

But there's no chance, even the slightest, that you could be wrong? Everyone who believes otherwise and puts their beliefs first, they are all totally wrong, and you are 100% right.

Don't you see the other side could say the same? And then both sides are at an impasse of ignorance in which both believe they know the Truth.

Only by acknowledging that yes, maybe either one of us could be wrong, can this ignorance be overcome, and actual understanding occur.

If you met with a politician who ( as you say ) is sane in all matters and yet promoted the eradication of limerick and the murder of them all including your immediately family would you vote for him and put the needs of the people above the needs of your belief that they should not be murdered? its the same with abortion and pro-choice.

I am a hundred percent right when it comes to the path of Christ and the belief that abortion is wrong. the evidence that it is wrong is out there and it is up to you to go and find out for yourself. If you have a deep interest in finding the truth upon this subject you'll go and look for it.

sure either side could claim to have the truth, but as we know, one of us is wrong and its definitely them.

Implosiony

Onesimus wrote: »

If you met with a politician who ( as you say ) is sane in all matters and yet promoted the eradication of limerick and the murder of them all including your immediately family would you vote for him and put the needs of the people above the needs of your belief that they should not be murdered? its the same with abortion and pro-choice.

I am a hundred percent right when it comes to the path of Christ and the belief that abortion is wrong. the evidence that it is wrong is out there and it is up to you to go and find out for yourself. If you have a deep interest in finding the truth upon this subject you'll go and look for it.

sure either side could claim to have the truth, but as we know, one of us is wrong and its definitely them.

First, the metaphor you used it a complete logical fallacy; Reductio ad absurdum.

Also, maybe both sides are right about certain points? Only by evaluating ALL the evidence (not cherry-picking ones that reaffirm your beliefs). You assume I havent researched anything, which is almost insulting. I have looked at both sides, and chosen the path I deem most rational, and if you chose a different path, I can accept that.

Onesimus

First, the metaphor you used it a complete logical fallacy; Reductio ad absurdum.

criticism is not an argument.

Also, maybe both sides are right about certain points? Only by evaluating ALL the evidence (not cherry-picking ones that reaffirm your beliefs). You assume I havent researched anything, which is almost insulting. I have looked at both sides, and chosen the path I deem most rational, and if you chose a different path, I can accept that

You make the belief of protecting life in the womb sound less important by just calling it ''a belief''. It is not just a belief, but a fact of nature, one that has been settled a long time ago by science itself in 1981.

Both sides can be correct on any given subject. But if both sides are agreed that the economic downfall of Ireland needs to be fixed and yet disagree that life in the womb must be protected, I will however go for the more important subject and issue at hand. That is the protection of life in the womb.

You say you've researched it. Any one can give a statement that they have researched any given subject, but that does not mean they have researched it throughly. And because I know that science has proved life begins at conception back in 1981, there is little research one needs to do on the protection of life in the womb.

Go ahead though and be like an animal who kills there own young, because thats what an animal is, one that retains no reason. And when humans advocate the killing of their own young thats who they mirror...an animal and they thus become like the beasts of the field, oink oink.

Implosiony

Onesimus wrote: »

criticism is not an argument.




You make the belief of protecting life in the womb sound less important by just calling it ''a belief''. It is not just a belief, but a fact of nature, one that has been settled a long time ago by science itself in 1981.

Both sides can be correct on any given subject. But if both sides are agreed that the economic downfall of Ireland needs to be fixed and yet disagree that life in the womb must be protected, I will however go for the more important subject and issue at hand. That is the protection of life in the womb.

You say you've researched it. Any one can give a statement that they have researched any given subject, but that does not mean they have researched it throughly. And because I know that science has proved life begins at conception back in 1981, there is little research one needs to do on the protection of life in the womb.

Go ahead though and be like an animal who kills there own young, because thats what an animal is, one that retains no reason. And when humans advocate the killing of their own young thats who they mirror...an animal and they thus become like the beasts of the field, oink oink.

sigh

This is why I didn't want to have this argument here. Only a matter of time till it degraded to farmyard noises.

Anyway, it's been fun talking. You made some good points, and best of luck with knowing what's best for everyone!

- signed, an Irishman, Atheist and Skeptic.

Festus

JonJoeDali wrote: »

After all that's gone wrong with FF over the last 10 years, it looks like the only option for Catholic voters is FG.

a choice between the bacchanalians or the backsliders. Lovely

wolfsbane

Festus wrote: »

a choice between the bacchanalians or the backsliders. Lovely

:D:D

Up here I have the choice between liars, who will defend the unborn and the more honest, who won't.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 29: 2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.

starbelgrade

Michael G wrote: »

There are three openly anti-Catholic parties: Labour and Sinn Fein and the Greens (both pro-abortion and in favour of "Gay rights").

There are no openly anti-Catholic political parties in Ireland. There are politicians & parties who would like to see a further separation of State & Church and there are also many politicians in favour of gay rights, however, to say that these beliefs are "anti-Catholic" is taking it a step too far.

And nobody is "pro-abortion" - that makes it sound like they go around promoting abortions for all. The term is pro-choice.

georgieporgy

starbelgrade wrote: »

There are no openly anti-Catholic political parties in Ireland. There are politicians & parties who would like to see a further separation of State & Church and there are also many politicians in favour of gay rights, however, to say that these beliefs are "anti-Catholic" is taking it a step too far.

And nobody is "pro-abortion" - that makes it sound like they go around promoting abortions for all. The term is pro-choice.

As this is the Christianity forum it's probably ok to bring the devil into the discussion. After all, the devil is in the details.

The devil, among other things, is "the father of lies". Hence the pro abortion euphemism "pro choice" to describe anti life policies. A bit like "arbeit macht frei". Are we to believe "ex" terrorists, thieves, liars, and all sorts of scoundrels? As Bertie said "do you tink we're eejits?"

Give us a bloody break. Even the most lazy ignorant Irishman in the most backwater out of the way pub knows this ( no offence intended to native Irish folks of which I am one; i'm just adlibing the enlightened view from the city)

Michael G

starbelgrade wrote: »

There are no openly anti-Catholic political parties in Ireland. There are politicians & parties who would like to see a further separation of State & Church and there are also many politicians in favour of gay rights, however, to say that these beliefs are "anti-Catholic" is taking it a step too far.

There are politicians and parties who are arguing that Catholic values should not be represented in public debate, mainly on matters of what they call "social policy". They operate on the premise that secularism is the proper "default" setting for debate and that religious values are by definition extraneous.

starbelgrade wrote: »

And nobody is "pro-abortion" - that makes it sound like they go around promoting abortions for all. The term is pro-choice.

"Pro-choice" is a tendentious term; it implies that either "choice" is equally valid.

starbelgrade

georgieporgy wrote: »

Give us a bloody break. Even the most lazy ignorant Irishman in the most backwater out of the way pub knows this

Fair enough. You made your point & made it well, but is their really a need to be so smart arsed & condescending? As you said - it is the Christianity forum - it's not After Hours.

As such, I'm not going to go into a debate with you about the Devil or semantics.

Michael G wrote: »

There are politicians and parties who are arguing that Catholic values should not be represented in public debate, mainly on matters of what they call "social policy". They operate on the premise that secularism is the proper "default" setting for debate and that religious values are by definition extraneous.

Fair point. I'm still not sure however, that I would go so far as saying that this is "anti-Catholic".

Michael G wrote: »

"Pro-choice" is a tendentious term; it implies that either "choice" is equally valid

You could argue the same point about "pro-abortion" in that it's a loaded term.

PDN

starbelgrade wrote: »

You could argue the same point about "pro-abortion" in that it's a loaded term.

It's a more honest term since the person most impacted by an abortion (the baby) gets no choice in the matter at all.

wolfsbane

I see Sinn Fein are getting more support as the election looms:
Jimmy Kelly, the union's regional secretary, suggested Labour and Sinn Fein could form the State's first left-wing government along with support from Independents.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/irish-union-calls-for-labour-sinn-fein-coalition-15050059.html#ixzz1BJyc9pfE

Economic melt-down; intoxicating blend of nationalism and socialism; determined/ruthless leadership; a small party that couldn't possibly be a threat to the State. Surely there would be no harm in using them for a while?

_________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

Manach

But with SF, surely we'll finally get Maidens dancing at the cross-roads? (probably because no cars on the road because we cannot afford the fuel)

Michael G

Any comments now that we know the outcome? I see two good results: Lucinda Creighton's comments about "marriage" for homosexuals, and Ivana Bacik not getting in. As well as that, I expect Labour in Government to do what they can to protect poor and vulnerable people from material poverty.

keano_afc

Yeah I would agree with you there, delighted that Bacik was eliminated. Chuffed for Creighton too, nice to see a politician not afraid to stand up for what she believes in.

jaffa20

Michael G wrote: »

Any comments now that we know the outcome? I see two good results: Lucinda Creighton's comments about "marriage" for homosexuals, and Ivana Bacik not getting in. As well as that, I expect Labour in Government to do what they can to protect poor and vulnerable people from material poverty.

I thought it was clarified that it was only Creighton's opinion and didn't have anything to do with Fine Gael policy. I would have liked to have seen Ivana Bacik get in considering her legal background experience and views on human rights. Ah well, we have a lot of other Labour TDs who will hopefully stand over their policies just as well and allow our nation to move forward.

Donatello

jaffa20 wrote: »

I thought it was clarified that it was only Creighton's opinion and didn't have anything to do with Fine Gael policy. I would have liked to have seen Ivana Bacik get in considering her legal background experience and views on human rights. Ah well, we have a lot of other Labour TDs who will hopefully stand over their policies just as well and allow our nation to move forward.

Bacik is an abortion nut. It is excellent that she was, how do I say it, eliminated.

jaffa20

Donatello wrote: »

Bacik is an abortion nut. It is excellent that she was, how do I say it, eliminated.

How can she be described as an abortion nut? It's like calling Creighton a homophopic nut for her "opinion".

Donatello

jaffa20 wrote: »

How can she be described as an abortion nut? It's like calling Creighton a homophopic nut for her "opinion".

Bacik is an abortion nut.

Do you think that Creighton is a 'homophobic nut' because she believes in natural marriage between one man and one woman? If that is so, then we have nothing more to talk about here.