Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

Purple Mountain

rob316 wrote: »

Jesus did I read another article yesterday that she went on the radio again?

Literally all you have to do is not say a word for a couple of years and you can resurface back into politics then. What mickey mouse PR company are advising her?

Meghan Markle's? Lol.

humberklog

markodaly wrote: »

No doubt she made a serious error of judgement when it came to her claim, and paid the price for that, by losing her political career. However, this macabre fascination with her is over the top. Then again, she is a woman so I guess for the angry white males out there, its fair game.

Are angry Black/Asian/ME males different?

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

No doubt she made a serious error of judgement when it came to her claim, and paid the price for that, by losing her political career. However, this macabre fascination with her is over the top. Then again, she is a woman so I guess for the angry white males out there, its fair game.

That's shinner talk....seemingly.

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1293663127809204233

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

No doubt she made a serious error of judgement when it came to her claim, and paid the price for that, by losing her political career. However, this macabre fascination with her is over the top. Then again, she is a woman so I guess for the angry white males out there, its fair game.

Like what had to be explained to you when you questioned "the need for a thread about Leo" - you're confusing a "macabre fascination" with a resurgence of interest in her affairs because she - Maria Bailey, recently did a newspaper article, playing the victim, quicky followed up with a live radio interview with Brendan O'Connor..

You're in Australia right? So understandable you might have missed the radio program, but with the readily availability of podcasts, it's not excusable.

Here's the deal mark, she took to the papers and airwaves regurgitating her own tale to a very unsympathetic public. The same public didn't seem to appreciate someone still trying to piss down their necks and tell them it's raining, people started discussing the whole thing again, on social media platforms, and messaging boards and in real life.

This is a forum to discuss current affairs, Maria Bailey made herself a current affair again. nobody else did that except Maria Bailey, period.

There's a recurrent theme with you popping into threads to all too readily dispense (delete as appropriate)

Homophobic ✓
Misogynistic ✓
Racist ✓
Xenophobic ✓
Sectarian ✓
Anti Semitic ✓

Accusations depending on who the topic of conversation is about, and because the actual topic is uncomfortable.

Shouldn't be allowed to carry-on and needs to be nipped in the bud.

salmocab

markodaly wrote: »

No doubt she made a serious error of judgement when it came to her claim, and paid the price for that, by losing her political career. However, this macabre fascination with her is over the top. Then again, she is a woman so I guess for the angry white males out there, its fair game.

Utter nonsense, should every woman get away things based on the threat that people will shoot down people’s opinions with misogyny claims. She was caught out, went in the radio and made things worse (much like Gordon Elliot made things worse who by the way is also getting a hard time despite apparently being a man). Then a year later when everything had died down she again does a radio interview where she still just wants to play victim. She’s not being treated this way because of her gender but because of her actions.
This defence of her because of her gender by yourself and the resident FG supporter is nothing short of pathetic. She caused all this and wasn’t able to just admit it was her own doing.

markodaly

humberklog wrote: »

Are angry Black/Asian/ME males different?

McMurphy wrote: »

Like what had to be explained to you when you questioned "the need for a thread about Leo" - you're confusing a "macabre fascination" with a resurgence of interest in her affairs because she - Maria Bailey, recently did a newspaper article, playing the victim, quicky followed up with a live radio interview with Brendan O'Connor..

You're in Australia right? So understandable you might have missed the radio program, but with the readily availability of podcasts, it's not excusable.

Here's the deal mark, she took to the papers and airwaves regurgitating her own tale to a very unsympathetic public. The same public didn't seem to appreciate someone still trying to piss down their necks and tell them it's raining, people started discussing the whole thing again, on social media platforms, and messaging boards and in real life.

This is a forum to discuss current affairs, Maria Bailey made herself a current affair again. nobody else did that except Maria Bailey, period.

There's a recurrent theme with you popping into threads to all too readily dispense (delete as appropriate)

Homophobic ✓
Misogynistic ✓
Racist ✓
Xenophobic ✓
Sectarian ✓
Any Semitic ✓

Accusations depending on who the topic of conversation is about, and because the actual topic is uncomfortable.

Shouldn't be allowed to carry-on and needs to be nipped in the bud.

James Brown wrote: »

That's shinner talk....seemingly.

salmocab wrote: »

Utter nonsense, should every woman get away things based on the threat that people will shoot down people’s opinions with misogyny claims. She was caught out, went in the radio and made things worse (much like Gordon Elliot made things worse who by the way is also getting a hard time despite apparently being a man). Then a year later when everything had died down she again does a radio interview where she still just wants to play victim. She’s not being treated this way because of her gender but because of her actions.
This defence of her because of her gender by yourself and the resident FG supporter is nothing short of pathetic. She caused all this and wasn’t able to just admit it was her own doing.

I rest my case.

One again my opinion on Maria Bailey is being ignored BECAUSE I AM WOMAN! The only ones being criticised for criticising Maria are the assumed men in this thread.

I dunno what to say. I may not be a great debater but I have as much right as anyone else on here to have my opinions noted. The posters who are saying that it is men picking on Maria because she is a woman are the actual mysoginists.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

I rest my case.

You'd need to makez and then present a case to be able to "rest one" Marko, what you made was a brainfart post.

Own it.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

You'd need to makez and then present a case to be able to "rest one" Marko, what you made was a brainfart post.

Own it.

What, Own what? That there seems to be a cohort of angry white males mouthing off online about her, sending her letters in the post, that sort of thing?

Why is this a sensitive topic for you?

markodaly

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

One again my opinion on Maria Bailey is being ignored BECAUSE I AM WOMAN! The only ones being criticised for criticising Maria are the assumed men in this thread.

I dunno what to say. I may not be a great debater but I have as much right as anyone else on here to have my opinions noted. The posters who are saying that it is men picking on Maria because she is a woman are the actual mysoginists.

Oh course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is plenty of studies that show, that the majority of abuse meted out online is from men

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-men-are-more-likely-to-be-internet-trolls-than-women-according-to-a-new-study-2017-9

Again, I am not defending her actions here, in fact, I never have, a part of this she brought on herself but I am drawing a line on the abuse she gets and still gets. It appears the level of abuse is up for debate apparently, where people think she deserves everything she gets including hatemail sent in the post....

Now if people want to defend that, then work away.

Rows Grower

markodaly wrote: »

Oh course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is plenty of studies that show, that the majority of abuse meted out online is from men

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-men-are-more-likely-to-be-internet-trolls-than-women-according-to-a-new-study-2017-9

Again, I am not defending her actions here, in fact, I never have, a part of this she brought on herself but I am drawing a line on the abuse she gets and still gets. It appears the level of abuse is up for debate apparently, where people think she deserves everything she gets including hatemail sent in the post....

Now if people want to defend that, then work away.

You're a funny guy mark, the funniest bit is you actually take yourself seriously.

beakerjoe

markodaly wrote: »

What, Own what? That there seems to be a cohort of angry white males mouthing off online about her, sending her letters in the post, that sort of thing?

Why is this a sensitive topic for you?

Because not only white males think shes a chancer.

If Leo did this wed be all over him too. But sure then we'd be racist.

That study is all about narcissism not mysoginy and they say it’s a lot more common in men than women. But (as per your link)......

Narcissists are people who are excessively self-interested and callous. Being a narcissist is more than having an unhealthy obsession with yourself; they have no concern for other people, to the extent that they resent anybody and anything that doesn’t directly involve them.

....A narcissistic person doesn’t care what colour, gender or religion you are.

beakerjoe

markodaly wrote: »

Oh course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is plenty of studies that show, that the majority of abuse meted out online is from men

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-men-are-more-likely-to-be-internet-trolls-than-women-according-to-a-new-study-2017-9

Again, I am not defending her actions here, in fact, I never have, a part of this she brought on herself but I am drawing a line on the abuse she gets and still gets. It appears the level of abuse is up for debate apparently, where people think she deserves everything she gets including hatemail sent in the post....

Now if people want to defend that, then work away.

Her abuse appears to amount to newspaper articles outlining her false claim and women dressing up as her at Halloween a few years back.

Im sure Leo and Simon get worse.

salmocab

beakerjoe wrote: »

Her abuse appears to amount to newspaper articles outlining her false claim and women dressing up as her at Halloween a few years back.

Im sure Leo and Simon get worse.

But they’re men they don’t need a hero like Mark to stand up for them.

givyjoe

beakerjoe wrote: »

Her abuse appears to amount to newspaper articles outlining her false claim and women dressing up as her at Halloween a few years back.

Im sure Leo and Simon get worse.

"Sean.. they were making fun of me... Sean, Sean, Sean, Sean". Wah Wah wah. Always the victim is Maria.

She obvously didn't go back his show, but judging by her recent performances, don't the above would be too far off.

beakerjoe

salmocab wrote: »

But they’re men they don’t need a hero like Mark to stand up for them.

Theres been no abuse in this thread. Shes been called a chancer, spoofer and a fraud for overstating her claim.

All fair and deserved.

banie01

beakerjoe wrote: »

Her abuse appears to amount to newspaper articles outlining her false claim and women dressing up as her at Halloween a few years back.

Im sure Leo and Simon get worse.

Stephen Donnelly certainly does!

If she had an iota of self awareness she would manage to equate her lampooning with the audacity of her position and her belief that she is being wronged.

But no, rather she waits a year to re-emerge with a sob story and a whinge about how poorly she has been treated.
Absolutely no mea culpa even now, then she compounds it with another poor radio interview.
Yet...
Its angry white men that are the problem?

beakerjoe

banie01 wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly certainly does!

If she had an iota of self awareness she would manage to equate her lampooning with the audacity of her position and her belief that she is being wronged.

But no, rather she waits a year to re-emerge with a sob story and a whinge about how poorly she has been treated.
Absolutely no mean culpa even now, then she compounds it with another poor radio interview.
Yet...
Its angry white men that are the problem?

Sure Simon Harris had a lynch mob outside his house two years ago. Im sure no angry white men were involved as it was a cervical check debacle that angered the public:pac:

Public figures get stick. Politicians are self made public figures. Comes with the job. Some of the abuse is OTT, but its all there own doing.

You make bad decisions, people will be angry.

happyoutscan

What, she's getting hate mail? In the post? Who the **** writes and sends letters anymore apart from old women?

Oh wait...

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

What, Own what? That there seems to be a cohort of angry white males mouthing off online about her, sending her letters in the post, that sort of thing?

Why is this a sensitive topic for you?

Own your post - it was a brainfart.

You can't "rest a case" you haven't exactly made, I mean you just came into the thread accused folk of "having a macabre fascination" on her, and then insinuated it was "angry males"

Completely ignoring the fact that A,

people are only discussing her again because SHE managed to draw attention to herself again by playing the victim in radio and newspaper interviews. That's what happens in life in general mark, public figures say or do something in public, and it gets discussed.

And B,

You're implying it's only males discussing her, as if it's some kind of thinly veiled misogyny in doing so.

As already stated, if it was Leo - you'd be insinuating people were racist and or homophobic.

Neale Richmond, they'd be sectarian..

Etc etc etc.

There's a long and deep track record of your doing so.

ohnonotgmail

McMurphy wrote: »

Own your post - it was a brainfart.

You can't "rest a case" you haven't exactly made, I mean you just came into the thread accused folk of "having a macabre fascination" on her, and then insinuated it was "angry males"

Completely ignoring the fact that A,

people are only discussing her again because SHE managed to draw attention to herself again by playing the victim in radio and newspaper interviews. That's what happens in life in general mark, public figures say or do something in public, and it gets discussed.

And B,

You're implying it's only males discussing her, as if it's some kind of thinly veiled misogyny in doing so.

As already stated, if it was Leo - you'd be insinuating people were racist and or homophobic.

Neale Richmond, they'd be sectarian..

Etc etc etc.

There's a long and deep track record of your doing so.

there was no suggestion that it was in any way thinly veiled.

givyjoe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was no suggestion that it was in any way thinly veiled.

Hang on, you think that the root of the discussion here is misogyny..?!

punisher5112

If she was male I'd expect exactly the same outcry.

These morons believe they are above us all and us ants should just go with what they say.

Look at all those in top position telling us to hold firm, don't do that yada yada and many off out, holiday homes, out with mates etc etc etc.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

No doubt she made a serious error of judgement when it came to her claim, and paid the price for that, by losing her political career. However, this macabre fascination with her is over the top. Then again, she is a woman so I guess for the angry white males out there, its fair game.

Man, you have gone so far to the libleft you are all the way round to the rabidright

Harry Palmr

markodaly wrote: »

Oh course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is plenty of studies that show, that the majority of abuse meted out online is from men

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-men-are-more-likely-to-be-internet-trolls-than-women-according-to-a-new-study-2017-9

Again, I am not defending her actions here, in fact, I never have, a part of this she brought on herself but I am drawing a line on the abuse she gets and still gets. It appears the level of abuse is up for debate apparently, where people think she deserves everything she gets including hatemail sent in the post....

Now if people want to defend that, then work away.

Don't be fooled, a woman's fiercest critic is other women, they may not be
particularly active on a given media platform (and we are not privy to What'sApp type chats of course) but they'll tear strips off one another around a coffee table.

hatrickpatrick

If the attacks on Maria Bailey are sexist, what do you call the attacks on Phil Hogan?

Politician doing something immoral and f*cking stupid gets absolutely roasted online. It's a story as old as the internet itself, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.

beakerjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the attacks on Maria Bailey are sexist, what do you call the attacks on Phil Hogan?

Politician doing something immoral and f*cking stupid gets absolutely roasted online. It's a story as old as the internet itself, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.

GOLF HATERS?

hatrickpatrick

beakerjoe wrote: »

GOLF HATERS?

Mishogany

salmocab

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Mishogany

Well played