Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leo Again

12357…26

Comments

  • #122
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,873 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    DeJa VooDoo wrote: »
    Reilly is a doctor too.
    What would a doctor know about running a massive, complex institution like the HSE?

    Pathetic post.


  • #123
    DeJa VooDoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 684 ✭✭✭DeJa VooDoo


    penguin88 wrote: »
    I don't really get your point. Plus, running the HSE is the job of the HSE's Chief Executive, not the Minister for Health.

    The minister for health has the ultimate responsibility for decisions made in the HSE.
    I'll ask you again, what would a GP, either Reilly or Varadkar, know about running an organisation with over 100,000 staff?


  • #124
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    DeJa VooDoo wrote: »
    The minister for health has the ultimate responsibility for decisions made in the HSE.
    I'll ask you again, what would a GP, either Reilly or Varadkar, know about running an organisation with over 100,000 staff?

    Completely off-topic, and I still don't follow whatever point you're trying to make.


  • #125
    DeJa VooDoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 684 ✭✭✭DeJa VooDoo


    penguin88 wrote: »
    Completely off-topic, and I still don't follow whatever point you're trying to make.

    Can't help you so.
    You made the point about a doctor making ministerial decisions about doctors....


  • #126
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    DeJa VooDoo wrote: »
    Can't help you so.
    You made the point about a doctor making ministerial decisions about doctors....

    Because another poster made the ridiculous suggestion that as Varadkar is gay he shouldn't make a decision regarding gay people due to conflict of interest. I was asking does this conflict of interest issue equally apply to a doctor making decisions regarding doctors.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    DeJa VooDoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 684 ✭✭✭DeJa VooDoo


    penguin88 wrote: »
    Because another poster made the ridiculous suggestion that as Varadkar is gay he shouldn't make a decision regarding gay people due to conflict of interest. I was asking does this conflict of interest issue equally apply to a doctor making decisions regarding doctors.

    Crossed wires so......;)


  • #128
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    DeJa VooDoo wrote: »
    Crossed wires so......;)

    Sorry, that's probably why I wasn't following your point!


  • #129
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    penguin88 wrote: »
    Because another poster made the ridiculous suggestion that as Varadkar is gay he shouldn't make a decision regarding gay people due to conflict of interest. I was asking does this conflict of interest issue equally apply to a doctor making decisions regarding doctors.

    Straight people shouldn't make decisions about straight people. I support this. Let the gays decide the straights' fate.


  • #130
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    efb wrote: »
    Link

    http://www.ucd.ie/issda/static/documentation/esri/isshr-report.pdf

    A 2013 UK national statistics office report concluded that the figure may be as low as 1.5%.So in light of this information do you feel that it would be in the best interest of the whole of society to restrict,however unfortunate,possibly 3% from donating if it removed the risk posed by 50% of all new HIV cases from the screening process?


  • #131
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    floggg wrote: »
    If it is a genuine and proportionate response to increased risk amongst certain groups, then I accept the reason for the ban. I would defer to any independent medical organisations view in that regard.

    Personally though I feel the way it's applied is a little to arbitrary, and places too much emphasise on the gender of your sexual partners rather than the type and frequency of sex or similar factors.

    I find it odd for example that a gay man in a monogamous LTR and who has tested negative for HIV is excluded for life, and yet a straight man who has had unprotected sex with a different partner everyday for a year is permitted to donate.

    I realise that the rules need to be simple in nature so that there is no confusion how they are applied, but I think there should be some scope to look at behaviour rather than gender.

    You use the term "if" it is a genuine response from the IBTS,so implying you don't feel it is genuine.What do you feel are the alternative motives at play here?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    RomanKnows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 450 ✭✭RomanKnows


    Leo Varadkar is one of the finest politicians we have had the opportunity of having in Ireland. If I'd have any criticism, it would be that he pays too much homage to Garret FitzGerald. The side of the FG party that believe in true liberalism. Men and women talking about an Ireland that is entrepreneurial, fair and honest. While the other end of the party are down talking parish pump so they'll be able to get a seat against morons like Luke 'Ming' and Mick Wallace.


  • #133
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    RomanKnows wrote: »
    Leo Varadkar is one of the finest politicians we have had the opportunity of having in Ireland. If I'd have any criticism, it would be that he pays too much homage to Garret FitzGerald. The side of the FG party that believe in true liberalism. Men and women talking about an Ireland that is entrepreneurial, fair and honest. While the other end of the party are down talking parish pump so they'll be able to get a seat against morons like Luke 'Ming' and Mick Wallace.

    I agree with you,i always thought he was honest and a straight shooter.However with his recent coming out and immediate comments concerning making blood donations for gay men a priority,he has left himself open to conflict of interest and near sightedness accusations.Our health service is nothing short of a bloody mess and there should be far more pressing matters for his attention.


  • #134
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    fran17 wrote: »
    I agree with you,i always thought he was honest and a straight shooter.However with his recent coming out and immediate comments concerning making blood donations for gay men a priority,he has left himself open to conflict of interest and near sightedness accusations.Our health service is nothing short of a bloody mess and there should be far more pressing matters for his attention.

    This is one of the most rational posts in the thread, it's odd the way this is going down


  • #135
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    RomanKnows wrote: »
    Leo Varadkar is one of the finest politicians we have had the opportunity of having in Ireland. If I'd have any criticism, it would be that he pays too much homage to Garret FitzGerald.

    Yep so much homage, he compared him to Brian Cowen.


  • #136
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    fran17 wrote: »
    I agree with you,i always thought he was honest and a straight shooter.However with his recent coming out and immediate comments concerning making blood donations for gay men a priority,he has left himself open to conflict of interest and near sightedness accusations.Our health service is nothing short of a bloody mess and there should be far more pressing matters for his attention.

    Translation:
    I dont like that hes gay.


  • #137
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    RomanKnows wrote: »
    Leo Varadkar is one of the finest politicians we have had the opportunity of having in Ireland. If I'd have any criticism, it would be that he pays too much homage to Garret FitzGerald.

    Well thats nonsense. Leo slagged off Garret in 2010.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #138
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Translation:
    I dont like that hes gay.

    More like lost in translation...The problem with the "agree with gay or your a homophobe" gang is that you are so lost in the herd that when a legitimate question that has credence arises you cannot see the wood through the trees.Its rather depressing to see how easy the human mind can be manipulated.


  • #139
    RomanKnows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 450 ✭✭RomanKnows


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Well thats nonsense. Leo slagged off Garret in 2010.

    About what?

    Garrett was an economic conservative. He admitted to agreeing to the principal of abortion, whilst having his own moral doubts about the ethics of the thing. We legislated for abortion and divorce during the many FG/Labour governments we have had. Kenny iapologised for the disgusting things that happened to women in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

    FG are the true liberal party. Listen to Jerry Buttimer talking to the FG party last night.


  • #140
    paulosam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭paulosam


    Thephantomsmask wrote: »
    6 months for seroconversion to occur and make HIV detectable.

    Window period (how long it takes for the virus to appear in bloods) is 12 weeks post exposure according to the doctor who carried out my routine STI check up in James a few months back.


  • #141
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    I agree with you,i always thought he was honest and a straight shooter.However with his recent coming out and immediate comments concerning making blood donations for gay men a priority,he has left himself open to conflict of interest and near sightedness accusations.Our health service is nothing short of a bloody mess and there should be far more pressing matters for his attention.
    fran17 wrote: »
    More like lost in translation...The problem with the "agree with gay or your a homophobe" gang is that you are so lost in the herd that when a legitimate question that has credence arises you cannot see the wood through the trees.Its rather depressing to see how easy the human mind can be manipulated.

    I doubt it.

    This was an issue on the table before Leo ever came out, and which would have to be addressed regardless of his own sexuality.

    The conflict of interest accusations only really arise for people looking for a stick to beat him with, and who seem to want a far bigger deal of his sexual orientation than it ever is.

    Did you raise a fuss about conflict of interest when Mary Harney was making decision about administering the HPV vaccine for girls?

    Can Leo make decisions on prostate cancer treatment? Or on salaries for doctors?

    Or is it only the gay that prevents him acting impartially on a matter?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    fran17 wrote: »
    More like lost in translation...The problem with the "agree with gay or your a homophobe" gang is that you are so lost in the herd that when a legitimate question that has credence arises you cannot see the wood through the trees.Its rather depressing to see how easy the human mind can be manipulated.

    A quick shufty through your posting history would suggest a slight obsession with homosexuality.


  • #143
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    fran17 wrote: »
    More like lost in translation...The problem with the "agree with gay or your a homophobe" gang is that you are so lost in the herd that when a legitimate question that has credence arises you cannot see the wood through the trees.Its rather depressing to see how easy the human mind can be manipulated.

    A quick shufty through your posting history would suggest a slight obsession with homosexuality.


  • #144
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    fran17 wrote: »
    More like lost in translation...The problem with the "agree with gay or your a homophobe" gang is that you are so lost in the herd that when a legitimate question that has credence arises you cannot see the wood through the trees.Its rather depressing to see how easy the human mind can be manipulated.

    The irony of a catholic (Im guessing) or at least a religious person speaking of manipulation of the human mind.!
    I dont even understand the line you use - "agree with gay".
    How is it anyones business to agree or disagree with another persons private life and why in the hell are so many people not only disagreeing with these private lives but obsessing and agonising over them?
    Im seeing the wood for the trees. Youre just seeing wood!!;)


  • #145
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Translation:
    I dont like that hes gay.

    Why does it have to be that because someone has an opinion that can possibly look negatively on Leo and a valid one at that does it make the user not like gays ?


  • #146
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    The conflict of interest accusations only really arise for people looking for a stick to beat him with, and who seem to want a far bigger deal of his sexual orientation than it ever is.

    Because heres the thing. Standards in public office means such conflicts of interest do need to be declared, its actually a fairly standard practice. It only ever becomes an issue when its not declared

    He didn't run an election on being a gay man, being pro gay or anything relating to being homosexual. If Senator Norris was running for TD in the morning you know exactly what platform he will be running and thats how it should be.

    It's not the fact he's gay.

    But it is the fact that he is gay / didn't declare it and was actively pursuing this as a public health policy that does open him to the question of non declaration of interests.


  • #147
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Why does it have to be that because someone has an opinion that can possibly look negatively on Leo and a valid one at that does it make the user not like gays ?

    No one has suggested that and honestly you need to check your victim complex.

    People are objecting to you because you want him disqualified from his position because he is gay! That is the absolute definition of discrimination (though I am sure you have some bizarre nonsensical reason why it isn't). Gays can't marry and gays can't be the health minister... what exact part of gay equality were you supportive of again? Not rounding us up and imprisoning us?


  • #148
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Because heres the thing. Standards in public office means such conflicts of interest do need to be declared, its actually a fairly standard practice. It only ever becomes an issue when its not declared

    He didn't run an election on being a gay man, being pro gay or anything relating to being homosexual. If Senator Norris was running for TD in the morning you know exactly what platform he will be running and thats how it should be.

    It's not the fact he's gay.

    But it is the fact that he is gay / didn't declare it and was actively pursuing this as a public health policy that does open him to the question of non declaration of interests.

    Right ok - every women should declare an interest in the abortion question because they have a womb then

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #149
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    A quick shufty through your posting history would suggest a slight obsession with homosexuality.

    Slight?


  • #150
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Why does it have to be that because someone has an opinion that can possibly look negatively on Leo and a valid one at that does it make the user not like gays ?

    Just read through Fran's numerous and oft times colourful posts on any topic gay related and then come back to us.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    floggg wrote: »
    I doubt it.

    This was an issue on the table before Leo ever came out, and which would have to be addressed regardless of his own sexuality.

    The conflict of interest accusations only really arise for people looking for a stick to beat him with, and who seem to want a far bigger deal of his sexual orientation than it ever is.

    Did you raise a fuss about conflict of interest when Mary Harney was making decision about administering the HPV vaccine for girls?

    Can Leo make decisions on prostate cancer treatment? Or on salaries for doctors?

    Or is it only the gay that prevents him acting impartially on a matter?

    Of course your free to doubt it,none of us would be here if we all agreed with each other.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement