Taoiseach shocked and dismayed at Sinn Fein TDs tweet on IRA attacks

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

I see he has apologised to Varadkar. Maybe some of those around here who said there was no reference to Varadkar's sexuality would consider and reflect how little they understand of dog-whistle homophobia, and how maybe they should reconsider how they respond when it is raised. If you missed the dog-whistle homophobia in Stanley's tweet and how it could be interpreted, maybe you are also missing the other examples of dog-whistle homophobia around you.

I think Varadkar's speech on the civil partnership for gay couples is more homophobic to be honest. I seem to remember at the time the Iona institute even used it on their website to represent their stance. Has Varadkar ever clarified those speeches?

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

I think Varadkar's speech on the civil partnership for gay couples is more homophobic to be honest. I seem to remember at the time the Iona institute even used it on their website to represent their stance. Has Varadkar ever clarified those speeches?

Seems to be the theme with FG. Use such things as race and sexuality to try score points. SF are supposedly both pro and anti-white ffs, if Varadkar is to be believed, all the while courting a woman wants re-education centers for immigrants. The best one I read on Boards was someone talking about how SF were supporting asylum seekers rights and the SF members wouldn't like it

Nobotty

I posted about this a few pages back
You are all in the thread so I'm surprised you missed it
Basically the youtube clip was a short put together by mullen and crew to spread mis information during the referendum
Ironic that it's still being used today to question his coming out
But yes he did clarify at the time

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/referendum-is-not-about-me-or-adoption-says-varadkar-30933376.html

There are many things to attack a politician on ,not least Vradakar but their coming out journey isn't one
I went into detail as to what I think was involved in my chat with mc the other day HERE in this LINK
Its petty lads and come on you are better than that!

smurgen

Nobotty wrote: »

I posted about this a few pages back
You are all in the thread so I'm surprised you missed it
Basically the youtube clip was a short put together by mullen and crew to spread mis information during the referendum
Ironic that it's still being used today to question his coming out
But yes he did clarify at the time

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/referendum-is-not-about-me-or-adoption-says-varadkar-30933376.html

There are many things to attack a politician on ,not least Vradakar but their coming out journey isn't one
I went into detail as to what I think was involved in my chat with mc the other day HERE in this LINK
Its petty lads and come on you are better than that!

I don't get the explanation if I'm honest. Sounds like spin. We have to videos of the speech. It was very believable and is bizarre to watch in hindsight.

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

I posted about this a few pages back
You are all in the thread so I'm surprised you missed it
Basically the youtube clip was a short put together by mullen and crew to spread mis information during the referendum
Ironic that it's still being used today to question his coming out
But yes he did clarify at the time

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/referendum-is-not-about-me-or-adoption-says-varadkar-30933376.html

There are many things to attack a politician on ,not least Vradakar but their coming out journey isn't one
I went into detail as to what I think was involved in my chat with mc the other day HERE in this LINK
Its petty lads and come on you are better than that!

He didn't have to come out to stand up for rights. He chose not and then changed with when the wind blew the right way. Party first.

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

I posted about this a few pages back
You are all in the thread so I'm surprised you missed it
Basically the youtube clip was a short put together by mullen and crew to spread mis information during the referendum
Ironic that it's still being used today to question his coming out
But yes he did clarify at the time

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/referendum-is-not-about-me-or-adoption-says-varadkar-30933376.html

There are many things to attack a politician on ,not least Vradakar but their coming out journey isn't one
I went into detail as to what I think was involved in my chat with mc the other day HERE in this LINK
Its petty lads and come on you are better than that!

We discussed it some days ago.
People are prone to stereotyping. Just because Varadkar is a gay man it doesn't mean he supports or has to support every 'gay' issue.
I do not, for one minute, buy that he spoke against gay couples adopting/having kids because he was afraid to come out or whatever. As was pointed out many a heterosexual person supported it and he wasn't obliged to speak for or against it.
He's not being attacked for being gay. He's being criticised over his actions and words as a public representative. A piss poor one at that.

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't have to come out to stand up for rights. He chose not and then changed with when the wind blew the right way. Party first.

I think it was politic first, thats what I said in my post
Its just another version of the closet
Many go through it in their careers and personal lives
Unnecessarily IMO
I've heard people refer to him as a mud pusher locally and I'll let that to your imagination
No need for this line

smurgen wrote: »

I don't get the explanation if I'm honest. Sounds like spin. We have to videos of the speech. It was very believable and is bizarre to watch in hindsight.

Its only a clip of the speech in the much posted video
I am not going to defend the man's policies unless by a miracle there's one I agree with
But I'm not going to watch idly by this part of the Internet go down this particular road of petty dirt
And tbh,its not your fault, people are quick to do this and without a counterpoint it just flies
We are all better than that

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

I think it was politic first,

There's your indictment there. It has nothing to do with his sexuality. He ad the FG party blocked rights for LGBT people.

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There's your indictment there. It has nothing to do with his sexuality. He ad the FG party blocked rights for LGBT people.

No Francie,go read my point in the post I linked
A lot of people came out in that Marriage referendum campaign
None of them were hypocrites for hiding who they were prior or what they secretly would like to be available
Mullen and crew weren't weak enough in the civil partnership debate to not stop civil partnership unless things they brought up,weren't batted to the side
One thing at a time was the approach
And it worked
We can of course disagree because we are definitely not going to agree on this

blanch152

Nobotty wrote: »

I posted about this a few pages back
You are all in the thread so I'm surprised you missed it
Basically the youtube clip was a short put together by mullen and crew to spread mis information during the referendum
Ironic that it's still being used today to question his coming out
But yes he did clarify at the time

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/referendum-is-not-about-me-or-adoption-says-varadkar-30933376.html

There are many things to attack a politician on ,not least Vradakar but their coming out journey isn't one
I went into detail as to what I think was involved in my chat with mc the other day HERE in this LINK
Its petty lads and come on you are better than that!

I don't think they are. Dog-whistle homophobia and racism directed towards Varadkar suits their agenda. It is Stanleyesque in nature.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He said it wasn't homophobic.
Think the oversensitivity was yours. As I said.

He publicly apologised to Varadkar and said he was trying to reach him to make a personal apology.

He said it wasn't meant as homophobia, but could be interpreted many ways and he apologised. Not everyone believes him.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

He publicly apologised to Varadkar and said he was trying to reach him to make a personal apology.

He said it wasn't meant as homophobia, but could be interpreted many ways and he apologised. Not everyone believes him.

Not everyone thinks of the oversensitive woke eejits waiting to pounce...3 years later when knocking out a tweet.

Complete hames made of this by FG in particular and such an extraordinary waste of time and money.
Managed to reveal themselves with the pile-on about 'heavies' visiting young girls, in which you played a part yourself. Then they sent out a TD to lead the charge who has bullying and blackmail questions to answer herself.

Dear oh dear, what a mess.

christy c

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not everyone thinks of the oversensitive woke eejits waiting to pounce...3 years later when knocking out a tweet.

Complete hames made of this by FG in particular and such an extraordinary waste of time and money.
Managed to reveal themselves with the pile-on about 'heavies' visiting young girls, in which you played a part yourself. Then they sent out a TD to lead the charge who has bullying and blackmail questions to answer herself.

Dear oh dear, what a mess.

Haha, FG in particular? The party that had TDs with 9/11 conspiracies exposed, members resign, and had to make an apology to their political opponents wouldn't feature ahead of them?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think they are. Dog-whistle homophobia and racism directed towards Varadkar suits their agenda. It is Stanleyesque in nature.

You are guilty of using same for your own agenda. Constantly.
Varadkar too. Anything to steer discussion away from crony FG.
It's disrespectful to the gay community, minorities and the public in general.

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

Haha, FG in particular? The party that had TDs with 9/11 conspiracies exposed, members resign, and had to make an apology to their political opponents wouldn't feature ahead of them?

Yes FG in particular made a hames of it. Stanley is still Chairman of PAC and their own TD is facing questions about her own behaviour.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes FG in particular made a hames of it. Stanley is still Chairman of PAC and their own TD is facing questions about her own behaviour.

Silence about the FG'er threatening the young FG to stand aside or else.

No need to spin it.

christy c

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes FG in particular made a hames of it. Stanley is still Chairman of PAC and their own TD is facing questions about her own behaviour.

LOL, ok. As long as SF are ok with loosing members and having conspiracy theories of their TDs exposed, then I suppose you could be right.

christy c

christy c wrote: »

LOL, ok. As long as SF are ok with loosing members and having conspiracy theories of their TDs exposed, then I suppose you could be right.

Mate FG have literally been pushing an army council conspiracy with years at this stage and from i can ascertain,zero actual evidence to support it??


Its kinda cringy to watch at this stage :pac:

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mate FG have literally been pushing an army council conspiracy with years at this stage and from i can ascertain,zero actual evidence to support it??


Its kinda cringy to watch at this stage :pac:

Yep, as I said I'd much rather the focus be on the hair brained economic policies of SF.

But this particular episode, who do you think came out worse, SF or FG?

Nobotty

christy c wrote: »

Yep, as I said I'd much rather the focus be on the hair brained economic policies of SF.

But this particular episode, who do you think came out worse, SF or FG?

This episode?
It'll be forgotten about by any voter that matters
It was a weak attempt at revenge for having to bring in the Justice minister the other week
Tit for Tat
There'll be more

christy c

Nobotty wrote: »

This episode?
It'll be forgotten about by any voter that matters
It was a weak attempt at revenge for having to bring in the Justice minister the other week
Tit for Tat
There'll be more

Yeah I said before this wouldn't make much difference either way to voters, but saying FG in particular handled it badly doesn't add up for me.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Yep, as I said I'd much rather the focus be on the hair brained economic policies of SF.

But this particular episode, who do you think came out worse, SF or FG?

Numerous record breaking societal crises, NCH over run, leaking info to a pal, crony judicial appointment? The public.

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tbh i been kinda busy with xmas stuff and only half followed it,so im not in position to know,who come out worse



But,i just find it hypocritical to critise shinners for conspiracy theory posting,when FG still openly spout one,that when i looked into it,deosnt have an iota of substance to it

Yeah if you do get around to reading up about it would be interesting to see what you think.

FG talk a lot of sh1te. However 9/11 conspiracy theories are not good no matter what FG or anyone else has done.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Numerous record breaking societal crises, NCH over run, leaking info to a pal, crony judicial appointment? The public.

Just before the bolded bit, you ignored or missed in "this particular episode".

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Just before the bolded bit, you ignored or missed in "this particular episode".

No, I did not. Brian Stanley being discussed on RTE radio 1 right now.
Important discussions used for political gamesmanship to avoid accountability.

Regina Doherty contradicting herself.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

No, I did not. Brian Stanley being discussed on RTE radio 1 right now.
Important discussions used for political gamesmanship.

Well if you did not miss it you somehow answered a completely different question.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Well if you did not miss it you somehow answered a completely different question.

No.
Everybody lost because of this being discussed so much IMO.
We have Doherty right now making a nonsense of herself. More talk on the tweet than anything else.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

No.
Everybody lost because of this being discussed so much IMO.
We have Doherty right now making a nonsense of herself. More talk on the tweet than anything else.

Oh right, probably a few things to work on for SF seen as it caused some of their members to resign and distract from other issues in that case.

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

Yeah I said before this wouldn't make much difference either way to voters, but saying FG in particular handled it badly doesn't add up for me.

When the girl left the party, FG lost control of themselves, and the game they started - headhunting. The girl having to very publicly contact RTE ad FG to ask them to stop lying - embarrassing.
It will hurt SF a bit, but not near as much as FG hoped and they have gone to the attack well too often already to try and curtail SF's rise.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Oh right, probably a few things to work on for SF seen as it caused some of their members to resign and distract from other issues in that case.

Nope.
We have Doherty on the radio right now talking about tweets more than the covid vaccine roll out not being set up yet. Scoring points off of old tweets is not as important IMO.