So Michael D IS running again!

blanch152 wrote: »

I am just asking the same question as Vicky Phelan.

The evidence is clear from her radio interview in 2016. She brought up her children's vaccinations, she needs to clear it up. The longer it goes on, the more it looks like she has something to hide.

Nobody has a right to a child's medical information. You, as a parent, have every right to mention your children though. You set the boundaries until they are of an age.

I am sure there are some who don't believe you when you use your children's medical history, and your involvement in it as an argument here.
That was your choice to reveal that, and it is also your decision where the boundaries are.

I am long enough in the tooth, as I am sure Ni Riada is, to know that just saying something would not be enough for people happy enough to insinuate without evidence. The demands would rise until these children were produced to be independently examined.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Except that wasn't true, was it.

Now you are veering into invention.
The whole confusion at the time centred around whether people were suffering side effects or not.
That is what was happening in the real world. Why this has to be repeatedly pointed out I don't really know.

blanch152 wrote: »

You would want to start showing a bit of respect to people. This is what Emma Mhic Mhathuna had to say before she died:

https://extra.ie/2018/10/08/news/politics/emma-mhic-mhathuna-sinn-fein

"Ms Mhic Mhathúna told Extra.ie: ‘Using myself and Vicky’s name in the campaign isn’t on and she needs to focus on Ireland and not use us to gain brownie points, especially when she’s so secretive about her own family.

‘Myself and Vicky have been to hell and back and we did that for our families, not to be turned into political footballs. It’s a low blow and, quite frankly, I’m getting tired of cheap shots from Sinn Féin. I’ve enough on my plate without being dragged into this.’"

I suppose though that in SF minds, Vicky Phelan and Emma Mhic Mhatuna are "serial petrified anti-republicans" for wanting Liadh Ni Riain to answer a simple question.

No. To be specific, I was talking about people like yourself. I don't see anything 'serial' in what those two women said. You do know what the word 'serial' means?

Water John

I believe most of us support and have allegiance to our Constitution so ergo, we are republicans. Please give it back to us. It's not for SF to take it to themselves.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now you are veering into invention.
The whole confusion at the time centred around whether people were suffering side effects or not.
That is what was happening in the real world. Why this has to be repeatedly pointed out I don't really know.

There wasn't any confusion at the time, there was misinformation from conspiracy theorists who were given life support by opportunistic politicians.

blanch152 wrote: »

There wasn't any confusion at the time, there was misinformation from conspiracy theorists who were given life support by opportunistic politicians.

Which caused confusion. Phelan, Craughwell, Maureen O'Sullivan, Michael Moynihan all asking questions in the Dail about the 'serious side effects' from the vaccine.

Absolute nonsense here from you again trying to single out one public rep.

Get us some evidence for your claims and get back to us. I'm done with this.

Hotblack Desiato

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolute nonsense here from you again trying to single out one public rep.

That's because only one of them is now running for president (you remember, the subject of this thread)

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. To be specific, I was talking about people like yourself. I don't see anything 'serial' in what those two women said. You do know what the word 'serial' means?

Enough of the sniping.

hotmail.com

Big mistake for some of the candidates not to put posters up. The name recognition of Joan Freeman and Peter Casey is particularly low.

Although it doesn't seem as if Casey is taking the thing seriously.

Turnout could be as low as 35% at this rate.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

I believe most of us support and have allegiance to our Constitution

Not me, I hate that FF piece of crap constitution.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has a right to a child's medical information. You, as a parent, have every right to mention your children though. You set the boundaries until they are of an age.

By publicly discussing her child's vaccination status she set that boundary that it was up for public discussion, again if she didn't want to be asked questions about it she shouldn't have started talking about it and using it to gain political points with the anti-vaxx crowd.

Loafing Oaf

hotmail.com wrote: »

Big mistake for some of the candidates not to put posters up. The name recognition of Joan Freeman and Peter Casey is particularly low.

Although it doesn't seem as if Casey is taking the thing seriously.

And yet he is apparently uprooting his life by moving back to Ireland in order to prove his bona fides.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And yet he is apparently uprooting his life by moving back to Ireland in order to prove his bona fides.

I thought all he'd said was that he'd move back permanently if elected?

As someone pointed out, he's the candidate most likely to go down in flames, but possibly take someone else out in the process. I'd not bother to book the removal van -- or small container ship, more likes -- just yet.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

he whole confusion at the time centred around whether people were suffering side effects or not.

Hard to say where anti-vax nonsense "centres", as there's no "there" there, and it's just a roiling mass of "yesbutnobut" blather.

Side-effects were alleged, certainly.

So was supposed lack of effectiveness. We'd one of of our rent-a-quote bishops sounding off on that, rather prominently.

If anything, though, I'd say that the dominant narrative has been the "OMG, STD virus, teenage girls, MORAL PANIC!" theme, and many variations on it. And very much the distinctive one from other vaccines and their inevitable associated scares.

Loafing Oaf

alaimacerc wrote: »

I thought all he'd said was that he'd move back permanently if elected?

Well that wouldn't be saying a lot, unless he was considering a Skype-centric presidency as an alternative to the current Aras-based arrangement.:p
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/peter-casey-whoever-wins-it-it-will-not-be-president-michael-d-higgins-1.3613041
No, according to this he has "sold his house in Atlanta with a view to moving back to Ireland permanently." Doesn't specify that he has done it prove his commitment to the old sod as part of his presidential campaign though, depriving us all of an opportunity to laugh at him when he secures the inevitable 1.7% in the election.

Edgware

hotmail.com wrote: »

Big mistake for some of the candidates not to put posters up. The name recognition of Joan Freeman and Peter Casey is particularly low.

Although it doesn't seem as if Casey is taking the thing seriously.

Turnout could be as low as 35% at this rate.

When no sign of a mention of Sinn Fein on the posters?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Hard to say where anti-vax nonsense "centres", as there's no "there" there, and it's just a roiling mass of "yesbutnobut" blather.

Side-effects were alleged, certainly.

So was supposed lack of effectiveness. We'd one of of our rent-a-quote bishops sounding off on that, rather prominently.

If anything, though, I'd say that the dominant narrative has been the "OMG, STD virus, teenage girls, MORAL PANIC!" theme, and many variations on it. And very much the distinctive one from other vaccines and their inevitable associated scares.

Yes, what gave the anti-vaxx movement extra traction around the HPV vaccine was the Catholic conservative misogyny that didn't like the idea of young women having sex. Conspiracy theorists and Catholic conservatives make for peculiar bedfellows.

There were no genuine fears.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you have done very well to make something of this, but as usual it doesn't stack up against what she actually said and I don't think you even know what she ACTUALLY said from your comment above:

What part of what I said "doesn't stack up"? I quoted the IT, quoting her from the interview. You're trying an "alternative quotes" narrative that you like better, but doesn't actually address my points at all.

The simplistic 'Republican = bad - anyone who alleges something against a republican = good.' is getting very tired as we move away from those not involved in the conflict/war.

I think the "tired" and "simplistic" take is very much coming from you, here. You're rather transparently defending Ni Riada on the basis of her being the SF candidate. Protesting all the while, of course, that like all your other pro-SF posts, it's all wildly coincidental, and nothing to do with that at all. Me, I'd be saying the exact same thing about any candidate of any party, who'd acted as Ni Riada has.

Ironically enough, in fact, we appear to agree she's the second-best candidate in the field. It's very much despite herself on this issue. And saying so is, admittedly, perilously close to damning with faint praise, as at least three of the others fall into the "total morto" category.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well that wouldn't be saying a lot, unless he was considering a Skype-centric presidency as an alternative to the current Aras-based arrangement.:p

Who knows, maybe he could have just been planning on adding it to his collection of homes, and "asking the permission of the government to leave the state" a whole lot.

Let's face it, speaking without saying a lot is no bar to a career as a politician! He definitely said something to that effect on the radio, in response to a question about moving back for the campaign. So he's fair getting the hang of this "not answering the questioned asked" lark, too.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/peter-casey-whoever-wins-it-it-will-not-be-president-michael-d-higgins-1.3613041
No, according to this he has "sold his house in Atlanta with a view to moving back to Ireland permanently." Doesn't specify that he has done it prove his commitment to the old sod as part of his presidential campaign though, depriving us all of an opportunity to laugh at him when he secures the inevitable 1.7% in the election.

"With a view to" is also deniable waffle on his part. No-one ever got too excoriated for merely changing their "view".

Maybe he's taken his own advice and bet the proceeds on bar-Higgins -- he'd get 9/2 last I checked, with is indeed good odds on what he blandly tells is an utter certainty.

"Here's where I am, Peter. I'm out."

blanch152 wrote: »

You would want to start showing a bit of respect to people. This is what Emma Mhic Mhathuna had to say before she died:

https://extra.ie/2018/10/08/news/politics/emma-mhic-mhathuna-sinn-fein

"Ms Mhic Mhathúna told Extra.ie: ‘Using myself and Vicky’s name in the campaign isn’t on and she needs to focus on Ireland and not use us to gain brownie points, especially when she’s so secretive about her own family.

‘Myself and Vicky have been to hell and back and we did that for our families, not to be turned into political footballs. It’s a low blow and, quite frankly, I’m getting tired of cheap shots from Sinn F. I’ve enough on my plate without being dragged into this.’"

I suppose though that in SF minds, Vicky Phelan and Emma Mhic Mhatuna are "serial petrified anti-republicans" for wanting Liadh Ni Riain to answer a simple question.

From what I recall, Emma Mhic Mhatuna* in the HSE ad promoting the vaccine said that she signed the form and later withdrew permission because she had heard that it could affect the health of her daughter. She then went onto say that she was reassured by the HSE and got the second immunisation and that the HSE would facilitate those with the 2nd immunisation even if they had declined it already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgE89Z84X5k

*Rest in peace Emma.

Secondly, reading some articles about Emma today, I came across some videos of Emma calling out Fine Gael/Gov. on their treatment of victims like herself. In that video, she sings the praises of ''Mary Lou McDonald, who she said is the only one who stood up for her.''

Worth a watch.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/she-should-be-kissing-her-children-as-they-go-out-to-school-vicky-phelan-on-emma-mhic-mhathnas-death-37394832.html

jm08 wrote: »

From what I recall, Emma Mhic Mhatuna* in the HSE ad promoting the vaccine said that she signed the form and later withdrew permission because she had heard that it could affect the health of her daughter. She then went onto say that she was reassured by the HSE and got the second immunisation and that the HSE would facilitate those with the 2nd immunisation even if they had declined it already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgE89Z84X5k

*Rest in peace Emma.

Secondly, reading some articles about Emma today, I came across some videos of Emma calling out Fine Gael/Gov. on their treatment of victims like herself. In that video, she sings the praises of ''Mary Lou McDonald, who she said is the only one who stood up for her.''

Worth a watch.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/she-should-be-kissing-her-children-as-they-go-out-to-school-vicky-phelan-on-emma-mhic-mhathnas-death-37394832.html

I am not sure what relevance any of that has to the Presidential ambitions of Liadh ni Riain?

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not sure what relevance any of that has to the Presidential ambitions of Liadh ni Riain?

The relevance is that Emma had doubts about the vaccine as well, so its hardly surprising that Liadh might also have had question marks. Why did Emma have doubts about it? Was there enough information from the HSE to reassure her and other mothers of that age group?

The other point is that you claim that Emma was fed up with being used by Sinn Fein - yet I think 6 months ago she was singing the praises of Mary Lou McDonald and castigating Fine Gael for how she was treated.

Personally, I think there is something distasteful about this whole anti-vac situtation and the presidency. If Liadh didn't get her daughter vaccinated does that make her an unworthy President. I don't think the vac is compulsory, is it? People still have a choice.

jm08 wrote: »

The relevance is that Emma had doubts about the vaccine as well, so its hardly surprising that Liadh might also have had question marks. Why did Emma have doubts about it? Was there enough information from the HSE to reassure her and other mothers of that age group?

The other point is that you claim that Emma was fed up with being used by Sinn Fein - yet I think 6 months ago she was singing the praises of Mary Lou McDonald and castigating Fine Gael for how she was treated.

Personally, I think there is something distasteful about this whole anti-vac situtation. If Liadh didn't get her daughter vaccinated does that make her an unworthy President. I don't think the vac is compulsory, is it? People still have a choice.

Yes, if Liadh didn't get her child vaccinated she is unworthy to be President.

To take an example from another jurisdiction, Trump is frequently derided on these boards for his anti-science stance. Ni Riadh is equally guilty of the same madness, yet there are posters willing to criticise Trump who will give her a free pass on the issue.

Re your Emma comparison, she had no issue in coming out and saying she got her child vaccinated eventually. Ni riadh can do the same.

I didn't claim that Emma was fed up being used by Sinn Fein - she did, if you read the link I provided.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, if Liadh didn't get her child vaccinated she is unworthy to be President.

Yet Emma said: The mother of five from Co. Kerry, said: ‘Regarding the vaccine, it’s a personal choice for every family. Whatever they choose is the right one.’

https://extra.ie/2018/10/05/news/irish-news/emma-mhic-mhathuna-liadh-ni-riada

Its interesting that only extra.ie is quoting Emma's thoughts on Sinn Fein.

From what I can see, the problem is that you and others like you are just using this as a weapon to attack Sinn Fein and Liaidh.

For the record, I won't be voting for Liaidh. I just think that it is up to Liaidh and her daughter whether her daughter's medical records are discussed in public and this continued questioning about whether the child was vaccinated or not is as Emma says, the business of the child's family not the general public.

jm08 wrote: »

Was there enough information from the HSE to reassure her and other mothers of that age group?

How much info is enough? We've already had people here trotting out the "I wouldn't trust a word the HSE say" line., in defence or mitigation of Riada's antics.

If Liadh didn't get her daughter vaccinated does that make her an unworthy President. I don't think the vac is compulsory, is it? People still have a choice.

If she didn't, she should having herself publicly raised the issue, be clear one way or another. Or at the very least, apologise for having previously spoken on the matter if she feels, on more mature reflection, that strict confidentiality about her daughter's medical treatment was the wiser course. Rather than trying to bluff it out, how-very-dare-you and flatly deny things she's clearly on record as having said before, as she did with Aine Lawlor.

People have a choice about a whole lot of things. Like staying in 5-star hotels, accepting their full salary, spending their expense allowance, taking loans to fund their campaign, acting like a shouty blowhard, being a bit of a creepy theocrat, etc. Doesn't mean they're immune to public commentary on those matters.

jm08 wrote: »

For the record, I won't be voting for Liaidh. I just think that it is up to Liaidh and her daughter whether her daughter's medical records are discussed in public [...]

Guess she shouldn't have started discussing it in public, then.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Guess she shouldn't have started discussing it in public, then.

Sorry, this is just pathetic.

There is a huge difference between mentioning your daughters in an interview and revealing their medical histories to a baying mob who won't believe what you say anyway and who will demand further proof.

alaimacerc wrote: »

How much info is enough? We've already had people here trotting out the "I wouldn't trust a word the HSE say" line., in defence or mitigation of Riada's antics.

There was a lot of talk and concern around that time about the side effects of the vaccine. Emma is one of the ones who expressed having had those concerns for her daughter. That is why I think the HSE actually did an advertising campaign to promote the vaccine to reassure parents about it.

If she didn't, she should having herself publicly raised the issue, be clear one way or another. Or at the very least, apologise for having previously spoken on the matter if she feels, on more mature reflection, that strict confidentiality about her daughter's medical treatment was the wiser course. Rather than trying to bluff it out, how-very-dare-you and flatly deny things she's clearly on record as having said before, as she did with Aine Lawlor.

If anyone should apologise, its the people who persist in request private information about her daughter's medical history. That is private as far as I am concerned and its despictable to hound her with requests for that information.

I agree that she probably should have not said that she stopped her daughter from having the second vaccine because of concerns, but I think its the way it happened. She probably didn't realise that some people would use it as a stick to beat herself and Sinn Fein with.

People have a choice about a whole lot of things. Like staying in 5-star hotels, accepting their full salary, spending their expense allowance, taking loans to fund their campaign, acting like a shouty blowhard, being a bit of a creepy theocrat, etc. Doesn't mean they're immune to public commentary on those matters.

No, you do not have a right to know her daughter's medical history.

Ni Riadi is encouraging and supporting the use of the vaccine now. That should be enough of an answer.