So Michael D IS running again!

Loafing Oaf · 12-09-2018 11:45pm

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...

blackwhite · 12-09-2018 11:46pm

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.

FrancieBrady · 12-09-2018 11:47pm

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.

batgoat · 12-09-2018 11:49pm

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...

FrancieBrady · 12-09-2018 11:50pm

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.

batgoat · 12-09-2018 11:51pm

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...

FrancieBrady · 12-09-2018 11:56pm

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 · 12-09-2018 11:58pm

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.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 12:01am

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:)

batgoat · 13-09-2018 12:04am

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.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 12:06am

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

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 12:09am

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.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 12:14am

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.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 12:17am

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.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 12:22am

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

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 12:24am

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.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 12:25am

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.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 12:29am

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

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 12:29am

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.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 12:35am

blackwhite wrote: »

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

Ah the insinuation is strong yet again. Man up, and post the links about what you are talking about. I was Happyman, I have never denied that.
I said Gerry Adams was wrong in what he did and accepted his apology for making a mistake when dealing with a family situation.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 12:53am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Great misquoting Francie - showing up your dishonesty as always. Class act :rolleyes:

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 12:58am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah the insinuation is strong yet again. Man up, and post the links about what you are talking about. I was Happyman, I have never denied that.
I said Gerry Adams was wrong in what he did and accepted his apology for making a mistake when dealing with a family situation.

So you’ve had two accounts open at the same time then? I thought that was against the rules on here, so I assumed you couldn’t have been the same poster.
Funny how some posters get away with such flagrant rule breaches time and again.

Well if it was you, then you’ll know exactly what you posted, and anyone who was here at the time will remember too, or can search the thread.

The lengths that were gone to to try and censor anyone calling a child rapist a paedophile was despicable - as was the amount of excuses made for Adams being knowingly left with access to children in Dundalk for an extended period of time.
Still at it too I see - trying to play down letting a known paedophile work with youth groups as a “family situation”.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 8:04am

blackwhite wrote: »

So you’ve had two accounts open at the same time then? I thought that was against the rules on here, so I assumed you couldn’t have been the same poster.
Funny how some posters get away with such flagrant rule breaches time and again.

Well if it was you, then you’ll know exactly what you posted, and anyone who was here at the time will remember too, or can search the thread.

I am not surprised you took what I said and made a big scandalous story of it.

I NEVER had 2 accounts at one time and my change of name was agreed with the mods and I never denied it. If you were watching threads as 'closely' as you claimed you wouldn't have missed that change of name being discussed before.

The lengths that were gone to to try and censor anyone calling a child rapist a paedophile was despicable - as was the amount of excuses made for Adams being knowingly left with access to children in Dundalk for an extended period of time.
Still at it too I see - trying to play down letting a known paedophile work with youth groups as a “family situation”.

I neither defended paedophilia or child abuse ever. You are lying barefacedly about that. I did argue that a child abuser is not necessary a pedophile and that the term is a red top sensationalist shorthand for all abuse.
And I never excused Gerry Adams (as he didn't himself) for knowingly allowing Liam Adams free.

I am and always was delighted Liam Adams went to jail.

Thankfully you guys no longer have that particular boogeyman (Gerry) to fall back on, not that it stops some. So I guess it has to be something else when a Shinner raises their head above the parapet.

We are way off topic here and once again you have successfully deflected the thread to be about a dreaded secret Shinner. So let's leave it there.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 8:21am

blackwhite wrote: »

Great misquoting Francie - showing up your dishonesty as always. Class act :rolleyes:

Is 'giving credibility' to groups who 'were trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls' not the same thing as wanting it yourself? Or are you withdrawing/distancing from the sensationalist allegation again? It is quite a big jump in the scale of the allegation against this woman. So do please clarify it.

VinLieger · 13-09-2018 8:34am

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...

I fully believe she would lie about her real opinion on the matter however lying about a fact regarding her daughters health status I would hope for even a SF member would be a step too far to win votes. Are you suggesting she would do something that low?

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 8:39am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is 'giving credibility' to groups who 'were trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls' not the same thing as wanting it yourself? Or are you withdrawing/distancing from the sensationalist allegation again? It is quite a big jump in the scale of the allegation against this woman. So do please clarify it.

So you don’t have the honesty to admit you misquoted me.

Never change Francie - you’re as transparent and dishonest as ever.

O’Riada lent credibility to these groups because she’s either too stupid to have done some basic research herself; or cynically thought it might be a quick winner of a few votes. I’ve already stated that on thread - but you continue to lie and misquote because you seem incapable of honesty when it comes to anything SF related

Hurrache · 13-09-2018 9:54am

So Michael D, I believe he may be running again?

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 9:59am

blackwhite wrote: »

Funny how some posters get away with such flagrant rule breaches time and again.

Generally, as long as they're left-wing and align with the views of the majority of the mods on the site then it seems they can do what they want. Re-reg of, I believe, a banned poster admitting they're a re-reg is (I think) a site-ban offence. However, I don't think there is a specific rule against having more than one account, unless they're using a new account to circumvent a ban.

blackwhite wrote: »

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

But don't forget that they're definitely not a SF supporter!

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 10:10am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Generally, as long as they're left-wing and align with the views of the majority of the mods on the site then it seems they can do what they want. Re-reg of, I believe, a banned poster admitting they're a re-reg is (I think) a site-ban offence. However, I don't think there is a specific rule against having more than one account, unless they're using a new account to circumvent a ban.

But don't forget that they're definitely not a SF supporter!

Fairly sure that you cannot have more than one account at the same time - hence my surprise given FB's join date, and the years that HM was active.

Anyway - getting way off topic at this stage.

Any sign of SF ever actually announcing a candidate?

If they went with O'Caolain, I think he'd probably be the only possible threat to Michael D in an election. He's generally well-regarded, even by people who don't share his political views, and has a long history of public service. TBH - if MDH wasn't running and COC was, I'd be more likely to vote for him than any of the other candidates on offer.

If they persist with O'Riada, as looks more and more likely, then I can't see anyone coming close to MDH.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 10:25am

I think Ó Caoláin ruled himself out yesterday, which is a shame as he's the only SF politician who I've had any time for in recent memory.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 10:34am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Generally, as long as they're left-wing and align with the views of the majority of the mods on the site then it seems they can do what they want. Re-reg of, I believe, a banned poster admitting they're a re-reg is (I think) a site-ban offence. However, I don't think there is a specific rule against having more than one account, unless they're using a new account to circumvent a ban.

But don't forget that they're definitely not a SF supporter!

I wasn't banned and changed my name with the full knowledge and approval of the miss and never hid that I was happyman.

Keep up the dishonest vilification folks.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 10:35am

blackwhite wrote: »

Fairly sure that you cannot have more than one account at the same time - hence my surprise given FB's join date, and the years that HM was active.

You're right - rule 6.2:

You cannot create more than one personal profile.

The rules are so poorly drafted though that it's not clear what "personal profile" means.

marieholmfan · 13-09-2018 10:36am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're right - rule 6.2:

The rules are so poorly drafted though that it's not clear what "personal profile" means.

So Michael D ??????????????
Riadh Ni Liada ?????????????
Kevin Sharkey ?????????????

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 10:39am

marieholmfan wrote: »

So Michael D ??????????????
Riadh Ni Liada ?????????????
Kevin Sharkey ?????????????

It's also against the rules to speculate on the identity of posters

but yes, I am Michael D Higgins. :pac:

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 10:40am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't banned and changed my name with the full knowledge and approval of the miss and never hid that I was happyman.

Keep up the dishonest vilification folks.

I'm sorry, did I say you were banned and changed your name?

PS: Glad your "miss" approved of your name change... I guess?

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2018 10:40am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't trust 'these people'. People who are 'anti vaxxing'.

Well of course not!

Anti-vaxxers are a bunch of cranks whose scare stories are damaging public health and even killing people.

Rhineshark · 13-09-2018 11:29am

Can we knock off the personal stuff guys? It's derailing the thread and not particularly fun or interesting to wade through.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 11:43am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't banned and changed my name with the full knowledge and approval of the miss and never hid that I was happyman.

Keep up the dishonest vilification folks.

Dishonest?? Maybe (yet again :rolleyes:) you should try taking a look in the mirror there

The old account still exists, so you didn't change any names. You just starting using a different account - which had been created and was open all through the time you were using another account as well.

Anyone can simply search posts by user, and see that both accounts were in use at the same time.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 11:49am

blackwhite wrote: »

Dishonest?? Maybe (yet again :rolleyes:) you should try taking a look in the mirror there

The old account still exists, so you didn't change any names. You just starting using a different account - which had been created and was open all through the time you were using another account as well.

Anyone can simply search posts by user, and see that both accounts were in use at the same time.

Report me and a mod will tell you that everything I did with regard to 'accounts' was above board and with their approval.
You will find no record, insinuate as much as you like of me posting from two accounts at the one time.

Apologies to those who have to read this tiresome deflection when people's arguments are debunked or questioned. Always the same - 'ah you're only a Shinner bot something something something'...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

End of this particular deflection for me.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 11:52am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Report me and a mod will tell you that everything I did with regard to 'accounts' was above board and with their approval.
You will find no record, insinuate as much as you like of me posting from two accounts at the one time.

Apologies to those who have to read this tiresome deflection when people's arguments are debunked or questioned. Always the same - 'ah you're only a Shinner bot something something something'...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

End of this particular deflection for me.

Funny how the posting history tells a different story. Keep on digging

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=372186&sort=oldest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=228042&sort=oldest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A

Plenty of overlapping dates there on the first few pages alone.

Anyway Francie - might as well get back to you trying to lend legitimacy to the anti-vaxxer groups again.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 11:53am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well of course not!

Anti-vaxxers are a bunch of cranks whose scare stories are damaging public health and even killing people.

So have you any proof that Ni Riada is or was an 'anti Vaxxer'?
Is anyone who expresses concern about vaccines an 'anti vaxxer'?

johnnyskeleton · 13-09-2018 11:56am

Mod note:

Stay on topic and dont get personal. If someone personalises the debate against you, report and then dont respond on thread.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 11:59am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So have you any proof that Ni Riada is or was an 'anti Vaxxer'?
Is anyone who expresses concern about vaccines an 'anti vaxxer'?

She believes her uninformed opinion over that of medical professions in relation to a vaccine. She's either an anti-vaxxer or just a moron - dealer's choice.

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2018 12:57pm

blackwhite wrote: »

Plenty of overlapping dates there on the first few pages alone.

Not hard to find a thread with both accounts posting on successive days.

I wonder if we can find one account replying to the other?

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 1:01pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

She believes her uninformed opinion over that of medical professions in relation to a vaccine. She's either an anti-vaxxer or just a moron - dealer's choice.

She had concerns at the time, no doubt about that.

Does she have now? I think it is very very clear she doesn't.

So what have we, a politician changes their opinion.
Leo Varadkar changed his opinion on civil marriage, and he got to actually run the country. is that the same level of moronic-ness?

Or is it only when republicans change their opinions there is a problem?

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 1:08pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She had concerns at the time, no doubt about that.

Does she have now? I think it is very very clear she doesn't.

So what have we, a politician changes their opinion.
Leo Varadkar changed his opinion on civil marriage, and he got to actually run the country. is that the same level of moronic-ness?

Or is it only when republicans change their opinions there is a problem?

She had concerns which were not supported in any way by scientific evidence or opinion; she chose to ignore that evidence and medical opinion based on nothing more than her gut. If that was the analogous basis for Leo's views on "civil marriage" (whatever that means) then yes.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 1:21pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

She had concerns which were not supported in any way by scientific evidence or opinion; she chose to ignore that evidence and medical opinion based on nothing more than her gut. If that was the analogous basis for Leo's views on "civil marriage" (whatever that means) then yes.

What was Leo basing his original objection to civil partnership on, only a belief or 'gut' feeling that a child is entitled to have a mother and a father. There is no scientific evidence that this is an absolute necessity, after all.
He changed that view come the time of the same sex referendum though. Pretty much what seems to be the case with O'Riada.

VinLieger · 13-09-2018 1:27pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does she have now? I think it is very very clear she doesn't.

Because politicians have never ever lied before about their real beliefs on subjects....

She publicly announced that she took a specific action, until she announces that she has reversed this specific action then her words mean nothing and there is no real evidence her beliefs in this matter have changed

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 1:28pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What was Leo basing his original objection to civil partnership on, only a belief or 'gut' feeling that a child is entitled to have a mother and a father. There is no scientific evidence that this is an absolute necessity, after all.
He changed that view come the time of the same sex referendum though. Pretty much what seems to be the case with O'Riada.

No surprise that you've disingenuously warped the argument.

There is a difference between holding a belief (which in the case of Varadkar seems to have been taken totally out of context) which is a non-science-based matter as you correctly point out and holding a belief contrary to a science-based matter.

One's belief that oranges are better than bananas is fine and valid; one's belief that oranges are bananas is not.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2018 1:34pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No surprise that you've disingenuously warped the argument.

There is a difference between holding a belief (which in the case of Varadkar seems to have been taken totally out of context) which is a non-science-based matter as you correctly point out and holding a belief contrary to a science-based matter.

One's belief that oranges are better than bananas is fine and valid; one's belief that oranges are bananas is not.

Seems to me that like a lot of people, myself as a parent included, that she had concerns about this, and having accessed the information, she has affirmed her belief that there are no concerns and is actually advocating for wider use of vaccines.

I am struggling to see a problem here unless you have already decided that she is either a liar or has an ulterior motive to see 'girls die of cancer' as one poster claimed these anti vaxxing groups want.

So Michael D IS running again!

Comments