Does McGuinness have any chance given the Indo's campaign against him?

cardwizzard

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

How may times are we going to regurgitate the same nonsense? People all over this thread have pointed out the very obvious Norris= letters, Dana = cuckoo, Mitchell = crap + death penalty letter, davis = quango queen, Higgins = old.

Seriously, get over it.

This proves my point in a way TWC. The best they can get on him is that he is old, a bit weak wouldn't you agree.

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nope, I was asking though. You haven't answered.

Of course I am not which is why I would abhor people who have National Socialist tendencies like I am sure any rational person would. Wouldn't you agree?

cardwizzard

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Did you even check what he aims to do re the pensions before having a pot-shot ?

BTW, I'd sooner pay a decent man 120K than pay an objectionable a cent.

Thats a yes. What if he doesn't get in? Its a thank you very much.

Liam Byrne

cardwizzard wrote: »

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

How may times are we going to regurgitate the same nonsense? People all over this thread have pointed out the very obvious Norris= letters, Dana = cuckoo, Mitchell = crap + death penalty letter, davis = quango queen, Higgins = old.

Seriously, get over it.

This proves my point in a way TWC. The best they can get on him is that he is old, a bit weak wouldn't you agree.

What? How does "there is no dirt" prove your point ?

Dr Galen

We'll have less of the name calling and sly digs thanks very much

Cheers

DrG

Liam Byrne

cardwizzard wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Did you even check what he aims to do re the pensions before having a pot-shot ?

BTW, I'd sooner pay a decent man 120K than pay an objectionable a cent.

Thats a yes. What if he doesn't get in? Its a thank you very much.

So you're basically objecting to his pension per-se ?

Nothing whatsoever illegal or immoral to object to, then ?

I rest my case.

RandomName2

cardwizzard wrote: »

I have always stated that I am pro MMG. Never tried to hide that in anyway. Biased I probably am.

However we arent talking about him here. I was wondering why Micheal D has sailed through this process with out as much as a feather hitting him. I also have no doubts that some newspapers and RTE have being totally biased on there treatment of certain individuals. Miriam being my number 1 example. Hardly an appropiate way for are unbiased state broadcaster to act, or is it?

Actually RTE radio and some Irish television is biased in his favour. It is only the papers that seem universally 'against' him; although being against him predominantly seems to be in the form of asking him questions he doesn't like.

I was wondering why Martin would not open up and boast about his actions or keep completely schtum about the matter - but I am becomming convinced that it is a device for Northern Ireland voters who want to hear that he smoked but didn't inhale - a balance between the extremes of terrorist and peacemaker.

The Waltzing Consumer

cardwizzard wrote: »

This proves my point in a way TWC. The best they can get on him is that he is old, a bit weak wouldn't you agree.

Well yes, when you compare it to bombings, shootings, kidnapping, killing Gardai and Irish civil servants and Irish soldiers, being old does not look as bad.

Lukker-

The Indo has always been a rag dressed up as broadsheet.

cardwizzard

RandomName2 wrote: »

Actually RTE radio and some Irish television is biased in his favour. It is only the papers that seem universally 'against' him; although being against him predominantly seems to be in the form of asking him questions he doesn't like.

I was wondering why Martin would not open up and boast about his actions or keep completely schtum about the matter - but I am becomming convinced that it is a device for Northern Ireland voters who want to hear that he smoked but didn't inhale - a balance between the extremes of terrorist and peacemaker.[/QUOTE]


Interesting theory, don't disagree with that totally. No doubt there is a fine balancing act to be done, and in fact for the last 15 years or so it has being going good. Which IMO only enhances him more.

gandalf

Lukker- wrote: »

The Indo has always been a rag dressed up as broadsheet.

Yep that is why I find it laughable that the disciples of "Saint" Martin think it carries so much gravity with the general Irish public. Surely they realise that the paper is written to cater for its core readers and they were never going to vote for the poster boy of Northern Irish Terrorism.

Liam Byrne

gandalf wrote: »

Surely they realise that the paper is written to cater for its core readers and they were never going to vote for the poster boy of Northern Irish Terrorism.

Oh gawd! You're saying that I have something in common with Sindo readers ?

That's a pretty shocking first!

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

Actually RTE radio and some Irish television is biased in his favour.

I don't know how you can say that, McDowell's initial attack was an overt disgrace and set the tone for what was to follow, then we had Joe Duffy following up the next day with an entire show of vitriol from the host.

cardwizzard

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't know how you can say that, McDowell's initial attack was an overt disgrace and set the tone for what was to follow, then we had Joe Duffy following up the next day with an entire show of vitriol from the host.

Dont forget Gaybo, Pat or Miriam.

gandalf

So basically what some people are saying is that we have to ignore Martin McGuinness's past so that they can consider the coverage to be "fair and balanced".

CDfm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not attacking just asking, if you have fascist tendencies don't be ashamed of them.

.

you dont need to be a fascist to find MMG spooky I would.

Dana supporters on the otherhand are a fearless bunch

DANA FORCED TO APOLOGISE AFTER SUPPORTER ATTACKS MARTIN MCGUINNESS OUTSIDE LETTERKENNY MASS



http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/10/16/dana-forced-to-apologise-after-supporter-attacks-martin-mcguinness-outside-letterkenny-mass/

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

So basically what some people are saying is that we have to ignore Martin McGuinness's past so that they can consider the coverage to be "fair and balanced".

Play ball here Gandalf.....why would they drag McDowell into it? He hasn't been in public life in years.

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

Play ball here Gandalf.....why would they drag McDowell into it? He hasn't been in public life in years.

Probably because he is a former Minister for Justice & attorney general down here and would have been privy to Garda Intelligence reports on the situation in Northern Ireland.

He is also a high profile Senior council and is quoted extensively on legal matters and has taken part in several high profile legal cases recently.

He does also on occasion provides columns to your favourite periodical the Independent. So to coin a phrase "He hasn't gone away you know".

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

Probably because he is a former Minister for Justice down here and would have been privy to Garda Intelligence reports on the situation in Northern Ireland.

So they where setting out their stall early on. Why wouldn't they have invited somebody with a knowledge of what he had done through and since the peace process?
What I am saying is, should the National Broadcaster be so overt in their bias in an instance like this, especially straight of the mark and they allowed McDowellrod to lie unchallenged?
There is some excuse on a phone in show (although Duffy was a disgrace) where the callers set the agenda.

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

So they where setting out their stall early on. Why wouldn't they have invited somebody with a knowledge of what he had done through and since the peace process?
What I am saying is, should the National Broadcaster be so overt in their bias in an instance like this, especially straight of the mark and they allowed McDowellrod to lie unchallenged?
There is some excuse on a phone in show (although Duffy was a disgrace) where the callers set the agenda.

So now instead of the angle that a commentator was pulled from obscurity (which he clearly wasn't) you are saying that they should have focussed on Martins good points only. To be honest this is all that Sinn Fein have pushed since he announced his running for the Aras.

Can you not continence that people here in Republic of Ireland do have serious issues with him running for the Presidency and RTE and other media outlets are only reflecting that extreme concern. Or is it as George W would say "you are either with us or against us"?

Liam Byrne

gandalf wrote: »

Or is it as George W would say "you are either with us or against us"?

Do you seriously need to ask, gandalf ?

CDfm

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I am saying is, should the National Broadcaster be so overt in their bias in an instance like this, especially straight of the mark and they allowed McDowellrod to lie unchallenged?
There is some excuse on a phone in show (although Duffy was a disgrace) where the callers set the agenda.

I lol when I see the term National Broadcaster.

Lots of people are uncomfortable with MMG and McDowell is one who has never pulled his punches.

News is not supposed to be PR and SF was used to stonewalling which is not credible when you go mainstream. This is not the north.

People have strong views .

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

So now instead of the angle that a commentator was pulled from obscurity (which he clearly wasn't) you are saying that they should have focussed on Martins good points only. To be honest this is all that Sinn Fein have pushed since he announced his running for the Aras.

Can you not continence that people here in Republic of Ireland do have serious issues with him running for the Presidency and RTE and other media outlets are only reflecting that extreme concern. Or is it as George W would say "you are either with us or against us"?

I'm not for one minute suggesting he should have an easy ride, but surely if he answers a question and there is no proof forthcoming to contradict him, it is not ok to just keep asking over and over? Why not get into a debate on the right or wrongs of the IRA campaign, let the voter decide.
Norris invoked lawyers and the letters issue was dropped, he invoked data protection and the pension issue was dropped. The media have left it alone. They haven't afforded McG the same break.
Miriam's behaviour put the tin hat on it for me, especially the 'are you are being ironic' comment. It's off the cuff nature was more revealing than the scripted attack because it underlined her bias and lack of professionalism. she couldn't hide her hatred. It was as if she was in the debate as a candidate. That is wrong, never mind who you support.

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm not for one minute suggesting he should have an easy ride, but surely if he answers a question and there is no proof forthcoming to contradict him, it is not ok to just keep asking over and over? Why not get into a debate on the right or wrongs of the IRA campaign, let the voter decide.

But from what I can see we are not being allowed get into a debate about these times. Martin McGuinness and his Sinn Fein handlers are doing what they always do stonewalling it.

Norris invoked lawyers and the letters issue was dropped, he invoked data protection and the pension issue was dropped. The media have left it alone. They haven't afforded McG the same break.

Are you for real, the media dropped it because Norris was tainted by the whole thing and his plummet in the polls is evidence of that. Also his cupboard only contains a minimal number of skeletons compared to Martin. Say whatever you want about Norris you cannot claim that he has any question marks that include the tag murderer hanging over his head. Martin McGuinness definitely does.

Miriam's behaviour put the tin hat on it for me, especially the 'are you are being ironic' comment. It's off the cuff nature was more revealing than the scripted attack because it underlined her bias and lack of professionalism. she couldn't hide her hatred. It was as if she was in the debate as a candidate. That is wrong, never mind who you support.

I'm sorry but I would take the opposite view to you. Miriam as a citizen of the state whose existence Mr McGuinness has denied in the past is justified in putting severe questions to him.

Given his unwillingness throughout the whole campaign she was entitled to take an extremely aggressive stance to her questioning to try and get Martin McGuinness to answer the questions that a large section of the people of the Republic of Ireland want to hear.

It is nothing to do with hatred. If someone does not listen and does not answer questions that are entitled to be answered then they should not be surprised if people start asking them in an even more direct and confrontational fashion.

CDfm

They haven't afforded McG the same break.
Miriam's behaviour put the tin hat on it for me,

He is going for election and should not need a break.

Norris has not gotten a break as he has admitted writting the letters and had his pension exposed.

The secrets are out, as are Quango Mary's as are Dana's and even Sean Gallagher is having the minutae of his FF association analysed. Mitchells more right wing/fundamentalist catholic associations are mentioned.

So MMG is not alone.

Higgins bashing has not happened.

gandalf

CDfm wrote: »

Higgins bashing has not happened.

Elder abuse is frowned upon these days

Liam Byrne

CDfm wrote: »

Higgins bashing has not happened.

No "bashing" has happened. All of the candidates who have a despicable past have been outed.

There appears to be nothing dodgy in Higgins' past.

CDfm

gandalf wrote: »

Elder abuse is frowned upon these days

As is person of restricted growth and squeaky voice abuse .

Bad poet abuse too.

isthatit

the proof against martin mc guiness. seems to be "garda intelligence". two words that should never appear in the one sentence.the gardai would have based this on british intelligence and neither these would be impartial organisations.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There appears to be nothing dodgy in Higgins' past.

His Iraq and Sandanista support go uncommented on.