So Michael D IS running again!

blanch152 wrote: »

More lies. If Liadh only had concern about the vaccine on a personal family level, why did she go public on Cork96FM all about it? Is she just a publicity-seeking shill or is she just a naive young woman?

Either way, she is more than unsuitable to be a Presidential candidate.

But don't let that stop you defending Liadh to the death.

Well don't vote for her.

A public rep discussing people's concerns at a time when social media was rife with stories about it. And the HSE had to mount an Awareness Campaign about it, why? Because people clearly had concerns, justified or not.

We have had the opposite too in this country, public reps saying nothing to be concerned about, before things go tits up.

blanch152 wrote: »

"Out of context" is taking a small part of a post about a completely different issue and applying it in a very different situation.

No, I didn't. I posted your ridiculous statement to show you are in the habit of doing this. Cherrypicking to damn a candidate you don't like. In fairness, you dropped it like a hot potato, when faced with the actual text of what he said.

blackwhite wrote: »

I’m not the one trying to paint these groups as reputable, just to try and protect a party member.

There is literally nothing a SF representative (or relative of a SF representative) could do that you wouldn’t embarrass yourself trying to minimise.

I haven't mentioned the names of one of 'these groups' or even that they exist, once. That was somebody else.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't trust 'these people'. People who are 'anti vaxxing'.
You have clearly already made up your mind about her. Why would you call her 'one of these people'??

Because she aligned herself with them, she helped push their agenda into a dail health committee and gave it far more publicity than it ever should have gotten. My experience with these people is they don't wake up one day read the mountains of evidence arrayed against them and say "ohh I was wrong", case in point thats something she has still explicitly not said either.

If she wants people to really believe she is not an anti vaxxer after aligning with them it will take far more than an a statement that is just as likely to be a lie as it is the truth.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well don't vote for her.

A public rep discussing people's concerns at a time when social media was rife with stories about it. And the HSE had to mount an Awareness Campaign about it, why? Because people clearly had concerns, justified or not.

We have had the opposite too in this country, public reps saying nothing to be concerned about, before things go tits up.

A public representative should also inform themselves before discussing a topic that impacts public health. Coming out with uninformed statements is unhelpful and not remotely beneficial. There was a wealth of reliable resources that she could have consulted plus she has even more resources than the average member of the public in terms of collecting research. So poorly informed politicians are not exactly inspirational.

VinLieger wrote: »

Because she aligned herself with them,

Where? Expressing concern about an issue is 'aligning' yourself with anti vaxxers?

Surely the HSE have questions to answer here for addressing concerns in an Awareness Campaign.
I had no interest in vaccination until I had kids, did I align myself with 'these people' by asking questions. Who knew! :eek:

Hotblack Desiato

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If there was no problem with the HSE information availability why did they have to mount an 'Awareness Campaign'?

Because of people like her spreading baseless 'concerns'.

batgoat wrote: »

A public representative should also inform themselves before discussing a topic that impacts public health. Coming out with uninformed statements is unhelpful and not remotely beneficial. There was a wealth of reliable resources that she could have consulted plus she has even more resources than the average member of the public in terms of collecting research. So poorly informed politicians are not exactly inspirational.

So if the info was readily available, why did the HSE have to mount a special campaign.
Your logic is failing here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well don't vote for her.

A public rep discussing people's concerns at a time when social media was rife with stories about it. And the HSE had to mount an Awareness Campaign about it, why? Because people clearly had concerns, justified or not.

We have had the opposite too in this country, public reps saying nothing to be concerned about, before things go tits up.

That is otherwise known as following the mob. Excuse me if I don't vote for a politician whose track record is following the mob.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't mentioned the names of one of 'these groups' or even that they exist, once. That was somebody else.

You keep trying to pretend that she was responding to some great public outcry, or some credible voices speaking or against vaccines.

The only “concerns” being voiced were by anti-Vaxx groups and conspiracy loons.

By claiming she was in any way justified when she tried to peddle her “concerns” you are quite deliberately giving credibility to these groups. Shameful and disgusting behaviour - but not surprising at this stage :rolleyes:

Loafing Oaf

VinLieger wrote: »

Did she change her mind and vaccinate her own child? Because if not it's quite clear what her opinion still is on the matter. Her words mean nothing on this as she has already confirmed she took an action by not vaccinating her child, the only way to confirm she no longer believes the regret quackery is to confirm she reversed that action and vaccinated her child

But if you don't believe anything she says on this issue couldn't she be lying about that too?

Her statement that “I would, of course, encourage all parents to get their children fully vaccinated, including with the HPV vaccine and indeed there is recent research saying that this particular vaccine should be extended to boys, which I would also support” will put the issue to bed for anyone beyond a handful of keyboard warriors...

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if the info was readily available, why did the HSE have to mount a special campaign.
Your logic is failing here.

Because a small handful of idiots in the public eye (including Ní Riada and Finian McGrath amongst a few other dangerous fools) decided to try and give the agenda of these groups an airing and lend them some credibility.

Just like you keep trying to lend some credibility to the lies that these groups peddle just to try and minimise the damage to the party.

But sure we know defending SF is so much more important than public representatives doing their bit to increase the risk of cervical cancer.

blackwhite wrote: »

You keep trying to pretend that she was responding to some great public outcry, or some credible voices speaking or against vaccines.

The only “concerns” being voiced were by anti-Vaxx groups and conspiracy loons.

By claiming she was in any way justified when she tried to peddle her “concerns” you are quite deliberately giving credibility to these groups. Shameful and disgusting behaviour - but not surprising at this stage :rolleyes:

'peddle'?

So a politician discussing the concerns of the public, is peddling on behalf of conspiracy loons etc.

Brilliant blackwhite. I'm sure you apply that logic equally across the political spectrum.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if the info was readily available, why did the HSE have to mount a special campaign.
Your logic is failing here.

Because the average member of the public does not go out of their way to inform themselves when scare campaigns occur. Disinformation often works. Eg mmr vaccine fears still exist even though heavily debunked. But a politician should be held to a higher standard and should do the research rather than contributing towards the fear.

And yes, the WHO and cdc for example have had info about the hpv vaccines safety available online for years. So nope, not illogical, you just expect very low standards of politicians...

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But if you don't believe anything she says on this issue couldn't she be lying about that too?

Her statement that “I would, of course, encourage all parents to get their children fully vaccinated, including with the HPV vaccine and indeed there is recent research saying that this particular vaccine should be extended to boys, which I would also support” will put the issue to bed for anyone beyond a handful of keyboard warriors...

Exactly. But they will keep flogging a long dead horse. And victimise the child of a still only possible candidate to boot.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. But they will keep flogging a long dead horse. And victimise the child of a still only possible candidate to boot.

You're literally the only person who keeps mentioning her child...

batgoat wrote:

You're literally the only person who keeps mentioning her child...

Sure I am, sure I am. :rolleyes:

blanch152 wrote: »

Liadh Ni Riain, in her own words, said that she did not vaccinate her daughter. She is now telling the rest of us that vaccines are fine.

If you don't have a problem with that, you are living in a surreal world.

batgoat wrote: »

She publicly stated that she wasn't giving her child the vaccine... It becomes public interest at that point, particularly since she couldn't be assed informing herself on risk versus benefit.

VinLieger wrote: »

Did she change her mind and vaccinate her own child? Because if not it's quite clear what her opinion still is on the matter. Her words mean nothing on this as she has already confirmed she took an action by not vaccinating her child, the only way to confirm she no longer believes the regret quackery is to confirm she reversed that action and vaccinated her child

blanch152 wrote: »

Charles J. Haughey told us to tighten our belts while in private he corruptly acquired money and enriched himself.

Liadh Ni Rian tells us she is in favour of vaccines while in private she refuses to have her daughter vaccinated.

Same principle of hypocrisy and corruption.

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont care what party or political allegiance you are from, antivaxxers should be opposed at every turn. She used her daughter as an emotional argument to show how strongly she felt, if she has changed her mind as she claims why not confirm whether or not her daughter got the vaccination?

The reason I'm so adamant about it is do not trust antivaxxers for a second. They will lie cheat steal and hurt anyone in their way to push their viciously ignorant and dangerous agenda. The only thing that will make me believe she or anyone else who has previously declared anti vax beliefs is real solid proof like confirming her daughter is vaccinated, simple words are not enough coming from these people.

blanch152 wrote: »

She raised an issue in 2016. She was quickly corrected and the truth explained to her. Unless she can demonstrate that she had her daughter vaccinated shortly thereafter, then I will continue to call her an anti-vaxxer, because that is what she is.

batgoat wrote: »

You're literally the only person who keeps mentioning her child...

Loafing Oaf

batgoat wrote: »

You're literally the only person who keeps mentioning her child...

Not true:

VinLieger wrote: »

I The only thing that will make me believe she or anyone else who has previously declared anti vax beliefs is real solid proof like confirming her daughter is vaccinated.

blanch152 wrote: »

Unless she can demonstrate that she had her daughter vaccinated shortly thereafter, then I will continue to call her an anti-vaxxer, because that is what she is.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'peddle'?

So a politician discussing the concerns of the public, is peddling on behalf of conspiracy loons etc.

Brilliant blackwhite. I'm sure you apply that logic equally across the political spectrum.

There you go again.

Painting the lies of anti-vaxxers as “concerns of the public” to try and legitimise them. Seriously vile behaviour, even considering the track record some of the SF acolytes on here have defended before. I though the Liam Adams debacle was as low as the SF acolytes would ever sink - but you’re doing your best tonight to stoop even lower than they did on that thread.

If Ní Riada is naive enough to believe that a rabble of conspiracy loons are the voices of public concern, and is stupid enough to go on national radio and repeat their lies without doing the tiny hint of research that would have shown them to be utter nonsense, then she isn’t fit to sit on a Christmas party committee - never mind serve as a public representive.

If this is the standard you set for politicians (but only for one party of course:rolleyes:)

Okay, just to clarify. The mentions aren't some attack on her daughter as Francie is portraying them. Her comments were in a political capacity so she is not protected from criticism over them. Ger Craughwell btw continues to get plenty of flack over similar comments, same for Gemma O'Doherty.

batgoat wrote: »

Okay, just to clarify. The mentions aren't some attack on her daughter as Francie is portraying them. Her comments were in a political capacity so she is not protected from criticism over them. Ger Craughwell btw continues to get plenty of flack over similar comments, same for Gemma O'Doherty.

Some posters will be quite disengenuous with allegations like that. Plenty can remember their posting histories when it comes to actual child protection issues.

Don’t forget - the party must always come first

blackwhite wrote: »

There you go again.

Painting the lies of anti-vaxxers as “concerns of the public” to try and legitimise them. Seriously vile behaviour, even considering the track record some of the SF acolytes on here have defended before. I though the Liam Adams debacle was as low as the SF acolytes would ever sink - but you’re doing your best tonight to stoop even lower than they did on that thread.

If Ní Riada is naive enough to believe that a rabble of conspiracy loons are the voices of public concern, and is stupid enough to go on national radio and repeat their lies without doing the tiny hint of research that would have shown them to be utter nonsense, then she isn’t fit to sit on a Christmas party committee - never mind serve as a public representive.

If this is the standard you set for politicians (but only for one party of course:rolleyes:)

Well done on getting the Liam Adams name into the thread.

She expressed concerns she had about the information available on the vaccine, airing an event many parents experience, 'the 24 hrs to make your mind up and give permission letter' dropping into the house. Happened in this house too as I said.

That is not aligning yourself with anything other than concern for the safety of your child.

Try as you and other may, you cannot show any connection to anti vaxxer groups. Yet you can keep insinuating it, in spite of comprehensive statement to the contrary from the woman. And you call, others 'disgusting'?

Politicians 'express concerns' about a myriad of issues all the time.

batgoat wrote: »

Okay, just to clarify. The mentions aren't some attack on her daughter as Francie is portraying them. Her comments were in a political capacity so she is not protected from criticism over them. Ger Craughwell btw continues to get plenty of flack over similar comments, same for Gemma O'Doherty.

Her private views on anything, like those of every president we have ever had, are not important to the constitutional role she has to play. As Varadkar and Kenny said about Higgins, he is entitled to his private view.

Her daughters business is none of yours or ours. O'Riada has adequately clarified her view on vaccination.

blackwhite wrote: »

Some posters will be quite disengenuous with allegations like that. Plenty can remember their posting histories when it comes to actual child protection issues.

Don’t forget - the party must always come first

Which is being glad that somebody is in jail for the horrific crime he committed, and has always been that.

But you keep up the disgusting insinuation that it is something else.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is being glad that somebody is in jail for the horrific crime he committed, and has always been that.

But you keep up the disgusting insinuation that it is something else.

You seem to think nobody can remember exactly what was posted on that thread (and can still go back and read it too).

Child protection isn’t something that SF supporters on here have any great track record of standing up for

blackwhite wrote: »

You seem to think nobody can remember exactly what was posted on that thread (and can still go back and read it too).

Child protection isn’t something that SF supporters on here have any great track record of standing up for

I haven't stood up for child protection?

That is a disgusting out and out lie.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well done on getting the Liam Adams name into the thread.

She expressed concerns she had about the information available on the vaccine, airing an event many parents experience, 'the 24 hrs to make your mind up and give permission letter' dropping into the house. Happened in this house too as I said.

That is not aligning yourself with anything other than concern for the safety of your child.

Try as you and other may, you cannot show any connection to anti vaxxer groups. Yet you can keep insinuating it, in spite of comprehensive statement to the contrary from the woman. And you call, others 'disgusting'?

Politicians 'express concerns' about a myriad of issues all the time.

She took to a public forum to lend credibility to the claims of these groups.

You now are trying to pretend that it was more than a rump of conspiracy groups peddling misinformation - just to minimise the stupidity of a SF reps interview.

For someone who pretends to care about child protection - you’re white happy to embarrass yourself defending a politician who’s public interview have credibility to groups who were trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't stood up for child protection?

That is a disgusting out and out lie.

Where have I said that it was you? You can withdraw that accusation of lying if you can’t back it up (not that anyone expects you to back up anything at this stage tbh)

It was a poster with a different username who told us it was perfectly fine for known paedophiles (they got upset about the “p” word being used to describe Gerry’s child rapin brother too of course :rolleyes:) to be left working with children’s groups in Dundalk.

Though to be fair, I can see how you get confused, that poster had a similar tendancy to unquestionably defend anything remotely connected to SF, no matter how low, as well

blackwhite wrote: »

She took to a public forum to lend credibility to the claims of these groups.

You now are trying to pretend that it was more than a rump of conspiracy groups peddling misinformation - just to minimise the stupidity of a SF reps interview.

For someone who pretends to care about child protection - you’re white happy to embarrass yourself defending a politician who’s public interview have credibility to groups who were trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls.

She was 'trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls.'

Well there we have it. Michael D 'has actually caused a lot of damage to humanity' and Liadh is 'trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls'.

This campaign is getting off to a great start.