Water John wrote: » Still shocking poor judgement by PK. journalist using uncollaborated tweet.
Bradlin wrote: » The President of Ireland gets a great reception wherever he or she goes. That comes with the office, not with the person. Dustin the Turkey would get a great reception if he was President. Hang on, there's an idea!! After doing us proud in the Eurovision ..................!!
Jim2007 wrote: » But an Irish presidency is not about any of that! An Irish president has only one responsibility to the people and that is to uphold their wishes as expressed in the constitution, everything else is optional. The last thing the country needs is a president who thinks they have a mandate to carry out their agenda and as a result starts refusing to sign bills into law, not because they are unconstitutional, but because they don't agree with them. Or refuse to dissolve the Dail for similar reasons. That would cause a constitutional crisis - the government elected by the people unable to carry out it's policy. And we have no mechanism in the constitution to deal with such an issue. The place for agendas is the Dail. And most of the people expressing a wish to run for the presidency right now, should be heading to Leinster House not the park.
makeorbrake wrote: » So Jim - you think that we should pass up any opportunity to free this country from corruption on the basis that 'this is not the format for a presidency'?
makeorbrake wrote: » Firstly, we are talking about a symbolic statement from the irish people that they're not going to put up with cronyism any longer.
makeorbrake wrote: » Lastly, what you are proposing is that we have the equivalent of (yet another) a 'lovely girls' competition where the winner has nothing tangible to offer - nor are they encouraged to have a conversation with the public about anything with substance? You want to pretend that everything is fine in Ireland when it's rotten to the core?
Jim2007 wrote: » I never said that, I said the presidency is not the place to do it.
Jim2007 wrote: » The presidency is not the place for symbolic statement, the is the kind of think got the UK to where it is today. How do you actually handle a situation where a ProLife president refuses to sign a bill into law because that is now what they were elected to do? Or the they refuse to sign a revenue bill because they want taxes lowered etc... There is no mechanism in the constitution to deal with such a situation so the whole process comes to stop - constitutional crisis. Even a bill to change the constitution starts with the presidents signature, so it is not as if you can go back and fix it after the fact. Go read up on the arms trial and the difficulties facing the civic service when they were not sure how they could go to when they discovered certain members of the government and the Dail where conspiring to import arms into the country, or Brian Lenihan (Snr.)'s attempt to influence the president on the dissolution of the Dail and the subsequent threads on the career of Col Ollie Barbour. The president plays an important role in our democracy, it requires a willingness to put politics and personal interests aside and concentrate on upholding the wishes of the people as expressed in the constitution. It no place for a clown with an agenda.
Jim2007 wrote: » I did not say a single word of that! That is entirely your interoperation. I said the the Dail is the place for that, there is where the power and the responsibility lies. And it is up to the voters to hold their elected representatives accountable.
batgoat wrote: » Another doozy from Gemma O'Doherty...https://twitter.com/andgoseek/status/1031637065149173761 Linked McCann kidnapping back to Mary Boyle.... She definitely is not the voice Ireland needs......
makeorbrake wrote: » So Jim - you think that we should pass up any opportunity to free this country from corruption
optogirl wrote: » How exactly are we going to do that by voting someone into professional picniccer in the park?
Sierra Oscar wrote: » Asking leading questions, editing the footage to make it seem people were making accusations which they did not make and passing off absolute conjecture as facts. People are quick to ignore articles such as this.
makeorbrake wrote: » Well, what's the worst that can happen? ....which is that it is another 'lovely girls' competition. It could set the stage as a statement by the people of Ireland that they won't put up with the cronyism, corruption, lack of accountability and transparency that we've currently got. These things have to start somewhere. Furthermore, that conversation is being stymied by a DOB/RTE media. So lets start here.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » Let's not forget her complete hatchet job on a number of individuals with her Mary Boyle documentary. Asking leading questions, editing the footage to make it seem people were making accusations which they did not make and passing off absolute conjecture as facts. People are quick to ignore articles such as this. Some people are easily misled. The sad thing is they believe they are somehow more enlightened than everyone else after viewing and listening to conspiracy theory nonsense. We live in an age where fake news and disinformation is passed off as real journalism.
makeorbrake wrote: » Firstly your link is from an INM publication. Secondly, it's there in video what he stated. Explain to me how his words are taken out of context? Otherwise, you don't think it's possible that others in AGS can exert pressure (regardless of whether he's retired or not). Must be a great little bubble you're living in.
batgoat wrote: » She was blocking Boyle's family members on twitter. Members who initially supported her but became uncomfortable with behaviour.
makeorbrake wrote: » You want to evidence that?...as in all elements of it.
optogirl wrote: » I agree that there are huge levels of corruption in this country but I just don't think Gemma O'D or the presidency are vehicles through which we can change that. If anything, Gemma would be better off continuing in her journalistic endeavours.
optogirl wrote: » If she does run, I wont be voting for her as there are just a few things that turn me off - I love a good conspiracy theory myself but am wearied by people who see & seek conspiracy everywhere and can't enjoy the simplest of things without viewing it through that lens. Plenty of them about and plenty of them loving and liking everything Gemma tweets.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » Do your own research. It's on the public record that both Gardaí have stated their comments were taken out of context.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » That's not how a proper journalist works. I'm not going to play your games of having to find never ending 'evidence' to back up conspiracy theory nonsense.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » The latest conspiracy this morning is that someone is interfering with Gemma's tweets.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » I suppose someone other than herself posted the insensitive LGBT tweets and so on? :rolleyes:
batgoat wrote: » Here's some of her dodgier stuff that I found.
makeorbrake wrote: » Dodgier how? You're just throwing crap at a wall and hoping some of it will stick. What is there here to suggest any wrongdoing by GoD?
batgoat wrote: » Her being incredibly threatening towards a person assisting with her investigation at time. And how anyone who works with her seems to not be positive about the relationship. Here's the family member of Boyle she blocked.
makeorbrake wrote: » It's laughable. You present tweets from someone with no context as to what went on between them - and why GoD blocked them on twitter. As regards the last one, it's priceless. If you knew anything about the Mary Boyle case, you would know that for the whole time, the family have been split - and it's Ann Boyle that is of the same mind as GoD.
batgoat wrote: » Cool, so anything negative is propaganda. There's a lot of negative though..
makeorbrake wrote: » I didn't say that 'anything' negative is propaganda. However, your last sentence is telling. A lot of negative means it all must be true?...That's what you'd have us believe? Very easy to sully someones reputation then I would think. What evidence backed morsel have you got so far?
blackwhite wrote: » From what I’ve heard, Freeman has said she voted No herself, but doesn’t seemed to have been involved in any of the campaigns Her “links” to the Iona Institute is that Maria Steen is her niece. She herself doesn’t seem to have any involvement, but the “liberals” of boards seem to think it’s very progressive to condemn people based on the unconnected actions of their relatives.
I wouldn’t agree with her view on the 8th, but I’ve a lot of admiration for what she has done with Pieta House.
batgoat wrote: » Burned relationships where she's clearly behaved inappropriately or like a dick.
batgoat wrote: » Transphobia,
batgoat wrote: » weekly conspiracies including about McCanns
batgoat wrote: » and hpv conspiracies.
batgoat wrote: » That's a fair bit plus more evidence than she herself seems to rely on these days.
makeorbrake wrote: » More disinformation but what else would you expect in Ireland. She said he gave them preferential treatment. What of it? She's a damn fine journalist - shows guts and courage. Has gone up against the likes of Dennis O'Brien and an arrogant $$$$ of a Garda Commissioner. She has been reporting on corruption, coverup and lack of accountability and transparency in Ireland. Anyone who doesn't think these are central to all that goes on in this country either has their head in the sand or is part of the problem.
blackwhite wrote: » Anyone who doesn't blindly accept every conspiracy theory espoused by O'Doherty is now "part of the problem"? That's some incredibly strong cool-aid you've been drinking
blackwhite wrote: » However, in far too many cases, she either invents conspiracies where none exists, or jumps to outlandish conclusions without any evidence (and often does both). The second failing makes it far too easy for her work as a whole to be discredited, because it makes it hard to trust when she is reporting actual findings as opposed to reporting stuff she's dreamed up herself.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Theresa Lowe is her sister, who was a barrister, then a "consultant" for the No campaign and appeared in the second TV3 debate. You have to remember how the anti-choice/religious social conservatism movement here operates. It's a handful of extended families, who are all intermarried with each other. It would be rather strange for a conservative catholic who has not one but two close relatives involved with Iona etc. at the highest level to not be anti-choice. With abortion legislation coming down the track, that should be a deal-breaker for any Yes voter. Including that video where she said she made god its financial director? Wonder what the charities regulator would make of that!
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You have to remember how the anti-choice/religious social conservatism movement here operates. It's a handful of extended families, who are all intermarried with each other. It would be rather strange for a conservative catholic who has not one but two close relatives involved with Iona etc. at the highest level to not be anti-choice.
