Vote for me to go back to Catholic 1950's Ireland.... (No TARDIS involved)

Cabaal

Spotted this on thejournal.ie yesterday.

Catholic Democrat MEP candidate Theresa Heaney wants women back in the home...and basically under the thumb again, she also doesn't like gay people (no shock)

http://www.thejournal.ie/theresa-heaney-ireland-south-1464900-May2014/

Theresa Heaney believes this has fallen by the wayside in recent years, with the government forcing mothers out of the home, prompting her to throw her hat in the ring for the European elections with the Catholic Democrat party (formerly the National Party, before being renamed the Christian Democrats).

“There will be no same-sex referendum going through in Ireland, I guarantee it, because our faith and the family is too strong to actually interfere with family life in that area,” she said.

Marriage is about one man, one woman, a lifetime commitment. In The Story, there’s no such thing as marriage between people of same-sex attraction, it’s like calling an orange an apple – it doesn’t match up.

Heaney is far from a Europhile, describing it as a “dictatorial body that writes out streams of directives”, and isn’t a fan of those in Leinster House either.

But she's ok with the Vatican and their directives?
Atleast with Europe and the Irish government we vote for the people, we have a say.

There’s a report going to be released in Europe that actually confirms that all of our waterways are highly polluted with petrochemicals and oestrogen, directly from, guess what? The contraceptive pill… If you go off God’s plan, you end up with problems.

We're all doomed, run for the hills!

Heaney has run in three previous elections, although only attracted a small minority of voters, but this is the first European election she has contested.

Luckily we have nothing to worry about, only the fringe groupies will vote for this time traveler

robindch

Cracking first comment though:

Pharmyco wrote:

[...] I hope the electorate give her the opportunity to spend the next term of the European Parliament concentrating on her duties in the home.

GerB40

Luckily this fúckin dinosaur is in the minority.. With the negative attention she's bound to receive, future politicians who share her archaic opinions might be dissuaded from being so open about them.

porsche959

GerB40 wrote: »

Luckily this fúckin dinosaur is in the minority.. With the negative attention she's bound to receive, future politicians who share her archaic opinions might be dissuaded from being so open about them.

So people with unpopular opinions should shut up. Is that not just another forum of repression?

Mr. CooL ICE

Stories like this are usually followed by "only in 'murica" or "only in Saudi Arabia". Embarrassing stuff.

Cabaal

porsche959 wrote: »

So people with unpopular opinions should shut up. Is that not just another forum of repression?

Not really just simply "unpopular views", they are bigoted backwards views,

There's a limit to how much of a soap box such people should be given, take America as an example...

Sure you have free speech but that doesn't mean its ok to start saying that blacks are inferior to whites and mixed race marriages should be banned.

Views such as those held by this women belong in 1950's Ireland, they are the type of views that we'll be so so ashamed of. In 5- 10 years from now as a society as a whole we will shake our heads in shame at such people. (many of us are ashamed of these people now!).

No different to the racist words and views directed towards black people in 1950's America.

hfallada

I dont know where thejournal gets half of the nut jobs they are profiling. Most of them are total hypocrites and dont have any policies, but just a bit of a rant

iguana

Thread title made me think the OP was in a competition where whoever gets the most votes gets a ride in a TARDIS.

Maximus Alexander

porsche959 wrote: »

So people with unpopular opinions should shut up. Is that not just another forum of repression?

Yeah they should shut up, because nobody wants to listen to them and they are just embarrassing themselves. That's a very different thing to saying they have to shut up, which appears to be what you've inferred.

eviltwin

Women like this always baffle me. Surely she is aware and appreciative of the women's movement over the past 100 years or so. She has benefited from that and yet she wants to actively work to undo some of that progress.

PopePalpatine

When a party was formerly known as the "National Party", you'd wonder if they decided to leave out "Socialist" from the middle. :pac:

Cabaal

Some of these names are getting awful bloody similar,

So she was part of the National Party, but we also have a party called National Independence Party - http://www.nationalindependentparty.ie NIP appears to be the Irish version of UKIP....Irish jobs for Irish people and they want out of the Euro etc.

Cabaal

Oh look,
found one of her leaflets

robindch

Ah, an anti-vaxxer as well.

Says all you need to know about this excellent lady.

tipptom

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh look,
found one of her leaflets

Far be it for me to be standing up for the God squad but I don't see anything on her leaflet about her wanting to put all women back to working in the family home and she actually makes some good points in standing up for grandparents who may be given a hard time from the goverment because they may look after children for their daughters who go out to work.

Cabaal

tipptom wrote: »

Far be it for me to be standing up for the God squad but I don't see anything on her leaflet about her wanting to put all women back to working in the family home and she actually makes some good points in standing up for grandparents who may be given a hard time from the goverment because they may look after children for their daughters who go out to work.

But behind all that we have stuff like this

“So, now we know”, Theresa said, “that the Catholic Church was right all along. The contraceptive Pill is a toxic drug and a serious health hazard, not only to our women and girls, but to our environment. It’s time to expose this abuse of our environment and our women and girls”, she said, “and if elected to Europe I will do just that”.

Theresa Heaney, has described the so-called "cervical cancer" mass vaccination scheme as a HOAX and a serious risk to the lives and health of our girls and women, and she has called on the HSE and Health Minister to withdraw the vaccine immediately.

She goes against the vast majority of the scientific community and has decided that human's are in no way affecting our planets climate. Its all just god's plan.
:rolleyes:

There is no climate cooling, there is no climate warming. There is climate change, as there always has been, and it will no doubt, change again and again as life goes on. That’s what weather does! And there is nothing any of us can do to control it. That’s God’s job.

PopePalpatine

"sanevax.org" doesn't seem that sane to me.

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

...she actually makes some good points in standing up for grandparents who may be given a hard time from the goverment because they may look after children for their daughters who go out to work.

Nobody's being given a hard time. We're talking about grandparents who get paid for minding their grandchildren having to file tax returns.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're talking about grandparents who get paid for minding their grandchildren having to file tax returns.

You mean people who earn money will have to pay taxes at the same rate as the rest of us do?

Shocked, I am. Simply shocked!

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody's being given a hard time. We're talking about grandparents who get paid for minding their grandchildren having to file tax returns.

So you agree with going out hunting these geriatric arch criminals down?


I know loads of people who have their parents look after their children and they get either no payment or so little it could only be counted as pocket money that wouldn't even cover their petrol money but glad to hear that the EU and this government is going to "stick it to the man" for once.

shruikan2553

Why is climate change god's job but becoming a politician is ok? Surely it is Gods job to lead us through the bible.

Galvasean

GerB40 wrote: »

Luckily this fúckin dinosaur is in the minority.. With the negative attention she's bound to receive, future politicians who share her archaic opinions might be dissuaded from being so open about them.

On the contrary, I like the fact that they are open and loud about their wackjob opinions. At least it makes it easy for people to avoid them like the plague.
Take Ronan Mullen as an opposite side of the same coin; he has been actively hiding his old school Catholic opinions because he knows no one will vote for him and his archaic views if they know what he's really all about. To me, that is far more insidious.

shruikan2553

Galvasean wrote: »

On the contrary, I like the fact that they are open and loud about their wackjob opinions. At least it makes it easy for people to avoid them like the plague.
Take Ronan Mullen as an opposite side of the same coin; he has been actively hiding his old school Catholic opinions because he knows no one will vote for him and his archaic views if they know what he's really all about. To me, that is far more insidious.

At least if they are loud we know who to avoid, being part of Catholic Democrats is also a hint.

keane2097

Humans can't do anything to change the effects they have on the environment, unless the changes are caused by the pill poisoning the rivers :rolleyes:

alan partridge aha

Fair play to her for standing I say.

Pherekydes

I wish these people would look up irony and hypocrisy in the dictionary.

And isn't catholic democrats such an oxymoron? They blindly follow the Vatican diktat and want to impose it on catholic and non-catholic alike.

The Black Oil

A who is query brings up Nora Bennis. Fun for all the family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Bennis

porsche959

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody's being given a hard time. We're talking about grandparents who get paid for minding their grandchildren having to file tax returns.

robindch wrote: »

You mean people who earn money will have to pay taxes at the same rate as the rest of us do?

Shocked, I am. Simply shocked!

Prooof that whatever outrage Zanu FG/Zanu Labour come up with to screw the taxpayer, certain boards.ie moderators are happy to cheerlead it. I think if the government announced plans akin to Swift's satirical "A Modest Proposal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal) some of you would line up to applaud it.

lynski

. Bennis is one of three substitutes for Catholic Democrats (The National Party) candidate Theresa Heaney in the South constituency in the 2014 European elections.[14]

Just in case the first nutjob was not enough

porsche959

robindch wrote: »

Ah, an anti-vaxxer as well.

Says all you need to know about this excellent lady.

In that case she's a nut and unlikely to garner many votes. I still maintain shouting down controversial viewpoints not the best way.

The Black Oil

There's a difference between challenging and 'shouting down'.

Brian Shanahan

porsche959 wrote: »

So people with unpopular opinions should shut up. Is that not just another forum of repression?

No people whose idea of a political platform is to opress the majority of the people (i.e. all women, all non-catholics, all sane catholics in this case) should shut up.

It's a form of self-preservation.

Brian Shanahan

eviltwin wrote: »

Women like this always baffle me. Surely she is aware and appreciative of the women's movement over the past 100 years or so. She has benefited from that and yet she wants to actively work to undo some of that progress.

It's called "fcuk you, I got mine!" (copyright of said phrase held by the estate of Ayn Rand)

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Ah, an anti-vaxxer as well.

Says all you need to know about this excellent lady.

She only wants to stop the cervical cancer vaccine as it'll allow all the unmarried wimminz have sexy fun times outside the marital bedroom. Sure, horrific cancer and painful chaemotherapy are a tiny price to pay to keep Ireland's maidens in a state of virginity.

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

So you agree with going out hunting these geriatric arch criminals down?

With as much respect as I can muster, that's a pretty ridiculous reaction to what I posted.

I know loads of people who have their parents look after their children and they get either no payment or so little it could only be counted as pocket money that wouldn't even cover their petrol money but glad to hear that the EU and this government is going to "stick it to the man" for once.

If they get no payment, or so little that it's only pocket money, they don't have to pay tax on it.

porsche959 wrote: »

Prooof that whatever outrage Zanu FG/Zanu Labour come up with to screw the taxpayer, certain boards.ie moderators are happy to cheerlead it. I think if the government announced plans akin to Swift's satirical "A Modest Proposal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal) some of you would line up to applaud it.

It never ceases to amaze me that even the mention of having to file a tax return - not even necessarily pay taxes; merely declare that your income is such as not to warrant taxation - is enough to bring out inchoate spittle-flecked rage in certain quarters.

I'm also at a loss as to what my status as a boards.ie volunteer has to do with my opinions on tax policy.

Actually, never mind: I just realised the futility of trying to see the logic in a post that contained not one but two "Zanu" prefixes in place of coherent argument.

porsche959

oscarBravo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that even the mention of having to file a tax return - not even necessarily pay taxes; merely declare that your income is such as not to warrant taxation - is enough to bring out inchoate spittle-flecked rage in certain quarters.

Your trust in the state is really rather touching. The same one that presided over decades of cover-ups of child rape.

porsche959

The Black Oil wrote: »

There's a difference between challenging and 'shouting down'.

Absolutely, but several posters in the thread have made clear that they do think opinions such as those held by this electoral candidate should not merely be vigorously challenged but essentially shouted down.

I think at times tolerance and freedom of speech are really mis-understood in this country, including by people who ought to know better, i.e. freethinkers/atheists.

Tolerance of opinions we do not like does not imply approving of them - but equally it doesn't mean they should be, essentially, bullied into shutting up. That approach doesn't sit well with me.

The writer Bret Easton Ellis (who is gay), in his podcasts, has often declaimed that "the culture" these days has become obsessed with looking for reasons to be outraged and offended and I think he has a point - see his most recent one with stand up comedian Doug Stanhope, for example.

http://www.podcastone.com/Bret-Easton-Ellis-Podcast

oscarBravo

porsche959 wrote: »

Your trust in the state is really rather touching. The same one that presided over decades of cover-ups of child rape.

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

wp_rathead

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

Don't drive on the road.
People die on the road.
Ergo by driving on the road you are supporting deaths.

/porsche959 Logic

porsche959

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

Post reported for defamation.

Un Croissant

Zimbabwe African National Union???

Eh?

expectationlost

https://www.constitution.ie/Convention.aspx click to page 8/9 for the documents about women in the home
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=4e0677ea-4678-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=7a8fbe52-9576-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=ae0eb9bc-977a-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=2e6badd4-977a-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=ee219062-2178-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=8ee5ffc2-4079-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=cee1b183-0b79-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4 convention suggested changing constitution from mother to parent

In the event that the Convention supports change, what change or
changes would you support?
•
Make it gender neutral to include other carers in the home
•
Yes
-
98%
•
No
-
2 %

Noting that Art. 41.2.2 says ‘The State shall, ...
endeavour
to ensure that [mothers] shall not be
obliged by economic necessity to engage in
labour to
the neglect of their duties in the home’, what level of
obligation should be placed on the State?

1-Endeavour to support- 20%
2-4%
3-Provide a reasonable level of support -35%
4-12%
5-Shall support -30%

um not sure what 2 and 4 mean

Potential applications of Article 41.
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=2e6badd4-977a-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
Some might consider Article 41.2.2 as a basis for obliging the State to improve
financial support for mothers in the home through the tax and social welfare system
and in 1987, the late Supreme Court judge Brian Walsh expressed astonishment at
the fact that what he called “this protective guarantee” had not, to that date, been
invoked in litigation
. However the obligation imposed on the State by Article 41.2.2 to
endeavour to ensure that mothers are not obliged to work outside the home through
economic necessity has been described as a “duty of imperfect obligation” and is
certainly not as onerous as other constitutional
duties imposed on the State
.
Given, moreover,that tax and social welfare matters directly affect public expenditure,
and that decisions on public expenditure are regarded as the preserve of the Oireachtas
and the executive, it is unlikely that the courts would use Article 41.2.2 to impose
additional financial obligations on the State to support mothers in the home

they are genuine arguements to give more support to _parenting_

Nodin

porsche959 wrote: »

Absolutely, but several posters in the thread have made clear that they do think opinions such as those held by this electoral candidate should not merely be vigorously challenged but essentially shouted down.

I think at times tolerance and freedom of speech are really mis-understood in this country, including by people who ought to know better, i.e. freethinkers/atheists.

Tolerance of opinions we do not like does not imply approving of them - but equally it doesn't mean they should be, essentially, bullied into shutting up. That approach doesn't sit well with me.
............

....at the end of the day, nobody here proposes enacting laws that directly affect her. The reverse, however, is not true.

Dades

porsche959 wrote: »

The writer Bret Easton Ellis (who is gay), in his podcasts, has often declaimed that "the culture" these days has become obsessed with looking for reasons to be outraged and offended and I think he has a point...

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

porsche959 wrote: »

Post reported for defamation.

Classic.

Pherekydes

Dades wrote: »

Classic.

So are you going to action it?



/dodges ban hammer. :pac:

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

Maybe if they hunted down real tax evaders like their big business buddies first of instead of old people who paid the highest tax in this country has ever seen during the 70s,80s and 90s out of their pittance of salaries,your argument would carry some weight and maybe less of the superior smug comments like people are getting hysterical about it when they are obviously not which ironically smacks of intolerance to the opinion of others

Cabaal

tipptom wrote: »

Maybe if they hunted down real tax evaders like their big business buddies first of instead of old people who paid the highest tax in this country has ever seen during the 70s,80s and 90s out of their pittance of salaries,

errr,
But everything is the highest cost since the 70s,80s and 90
Not just tax, but the price of milk, bread etc etc, but then wages have also gone up and so has the pension.

your argument would carry some weight and maybe less of the superior smug comments like people are getting hysterical about it when they are obviously not which ironically smacks of intolerance to the opinion of others

So people shouldn't declare earnings?
How can you claim moral superiority saying big business should do this and that when you have problems with the little guy complying with the law?

Many big corporations pay little tax in Ireland and the uk etc, but what they are doing isn't illegal at all. Given half the chance the avg joe in this country would do the exact same thing and use these same loop holes if they could.

If you want to get really silly about this whole situation you could argue that these retired people being paid for child care are actually taking jobs away from younger people. Plenty of younger people will and capable of taking jobs in child care all around this country.

Given we have mass unemployment, are you not infavour of more jobs?

seamus

Maybe if they hunted down real tax evaders like their big business buddies first of instead of old people who paid the highest tax in this country has ever seen during the 70s,80s and 90s out of their pittance of salaries,your argument would carry some weight and maybe less of the superior smug comments like people are getting hysterical about it when they are obviously not which ironically smacks of intolerance to the opinion of others

Ah, whataboutery.

By that logic, Gardai should stop policing the roads until they've solved all the murders. Making people fill out tax and insurance forms after all that VAT and VRT they paid. It's extortion!

There's nothing unjust about asking people to declare their income. Playing the "poor old people" card is just an appeal to emotion and weakens your argument.

Grandparents who provide paid care to grandchildren are by definition physically able and mentally fit. So why should they be exempt from income declaration?

tipptom

You people make me laugh,trying to turn this in to a whole class of old people out there making undeclared money and stopping young people from taking these jobs.


Grandparents are enableing their sons and daughters to go out to work and pay tax back in to the exchequer BECAUSE they don't have to pay them and if they did not have their parents to do this then it would not be economically viable for them to go out to work and they then become a burden on the state.
But Hey if it makes you happy to go after the most vulnerable in society first,knock yourselves out,Im just glad that most people would not take that view in general in this country compared to this thread about this issue.

Cabaal

tipptom wrote: »

You people make me laugh,trying to turn this in to a whole class of old people out there making undeclared money and stopping young people from taking these jobs.

So you've no problem with cash in hand for jobs then?
You also think people shouldn't do any tax returns, even if they are below the level for paying tax?

The argument on the leaflet in this thread is old people shouldn't have to fill out forms, but yet they have to do that for medical cards etc. Form filling is part of life.

Grandparents are enableing their sons and daughters to go out to work and pay tax back in to the exchequer BECAUSE they don't have to pay them and if they did not have their parents to do this then it would not be economically viable for them to go out to work and they then become a burden on the state.

Or to look at it another way (devil's advocate)

These people are taking jobs away from a younger generation,

Even though these grand parents have a state pension (and many have their own private pension), you've no problem with them topping this up with cash in hand for a service that could provide employment to people below the retirement age.

These employed people would then in turn have a better income and they would buy goods and services, thus providing more employment to others.,

More creches would mean more competition for child care and more competitive prices,

But Hey if it makes you happy to go after the most vulnerable in society first,knock yourselves out,Im just glad that most people would not take that view in general in this country compared to this thread about this issue.

I like how you play the vulnerable card in order to say that cash in hand jobs are fine and dandy,

seamus

tipptom wrote: »

You people make me laugh,trying to turn this in to a whole class of old people out there making undeclared money and stopping young people from taking these jobs.

Actually what's happening here is people like this candidate trying to turn this into a whole class of people who are going to be pursued and hounded by Revenue for minding their grandchildren.

Grandparents are enableing their sons and daughters to go out to work and pay tax back in to the exchequer BECAUSE they don't have to pay them and if they did not have their parents to do this then it would not be economically viable for them to go out to work and they then become a burden on the state.

Grandparents who are not paid for providing childcare won't have to pay tax. In fact, they don't even have to fill out any forms if they're unpaid.

How exactly is this an attack on the most vulnerable?