Zubeneschamali wrote: » I would have no issues if that were true, but she is definitely hiding something there. When asked about her views on the Iona Institute, she claimed she had never heard of them until the 8th amendment campaign, despite the fact that in Feb 2017 she was on an Oireachteas subcommittee which received a submission from Iona. Oh, and her niece Maria Steen is a spokeswomen for Iona, and one of the people in the high profile RTE settlement over allegations of homophobia. It simply isn't credible that Freeman never heard of them. Did she, founder of Pieta house, speak out when Ronan Mullen claimed mental health had "no evidence base" on live TV? Nope, because she was a No voter. In 2015 she gave a speech claiming Knock shrine cured her teenage eczema. She was not laughing at her teenage self being silly, she said:I placed my hands on the wall here in Knock on the shrine and I've never had eczema again," she said, to applause. "I'm telling you that was because behind that cure was faith. It was the foundation of belief of divine intervention and it became the cornerstone of the next 40 years of my life. And now that I look, she doesn't seem as keen on abortion legislation as some of her statements seem to suggest. She has said she would have no problem signing abortion legislation, but check this out:Speaking to Dublin City FM radio station’s Sunday Edition, Ms Freeman added that having Faith is sometimes portrayed as if something is “radically wrong” with you, whereas research indicates that believers actually cope better with life. The Irish psychologist and mental health activist also said she voted against the removal of the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution in May, but that this would in no way impinge on her public duties as president. “The voice of the people has been heard and there probably will have to be amendments to legislation. That comes with every legislation. We’ll just have to wait and see what is suggested,” she said, adding that the lead up to the vote on removing the constitutional provision was “such a difficult time for all the people of Ireland”. We know exactly what will be suggested: abortion on demand. And it wasn't "such a difficult time", Joan, it was a bloody brilliant time as we prepared to lift the pall thrown over our rights and health by SPUC and the catholic majority back in 1983.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Well precisely because she doesn't share their views and doesn't want to associated with them.
VinLieger wrote: » No it doesn't but then why would she lie about it?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Even if she was being disingenuous about this, it doesn't follow that she is an ideological fellow traveller of theirs.
seamus wrote: » She dropped in my list on two counts: 1. Her claim to have never heard about Iona before the 8th referendum. Not buying it..
marieholmfan wrote: » She doesn't have extreme Catholic views (she is no McAleese for example) she is just a Catholic. The loan is not dodgy - though its source is - it is fully declared and absolutely compliant with SIPO rules.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » We have pointed out that any candidate voicing anti-vax sentiment would get the same criticism. O'Doherty has been slated here for her conspiracy theories. Freeman for her funding and ultracatholic background. Gallagher for his FF links and general uselessness for the past 7 years. The other dragons for wasting everyones time. And many people have had a go at Higgins for being too old, for running again when he said he wouldn't, for making a fortune off the taxpayer. But alone of all the candidates, it is the SFer who is a victim of an "anti-republican" crowd for shooting her mouth off with antivaxx nonsense. Sorry, not buying it. I'll be putting her 2nd on my ticket, but she needs to deal with the antivaxx stuff properly.
marieholmfan wrote: » She doesn't have extreme Catholic views (she is no McAleese for example) she is just a Catholic.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You don't think the prospect of having a president heavily in debt to a businessman (a very dodgy businessman, at that) is at all a cause for concern?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Freeman is hiding something about her extreme catholic views, and her funding is very dodgy.
marieholmfan wrote: » Ahead of Joan Freeman? Why?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I'll be putting her 2nd on my ticket, but she needs to deal with the antivaxx stuff properly.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Here we go...
For Forks Sake wrote: » And bad as Gallagher was, his isn't a patch on Caseys 60 seconds of rambling nonsense:https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1048875837779402752
Zubeneschamali wrote: » We all knew, before SF even declared their candidate, that you would be here defending them, even though you claimed you would wait and see who it was etc. etc. Even though you are not a shinner of any stripe, you Deleted. It is enough for you that they run as your notion of a Republican, a doctrinaire SFer. Nothing else matters.
FrancieBrady wrote: » We all know that it doesn't matter to the anti-republican crowd what she says
FrancieBrady wrote: » We all know that it doesn't matter to the anti-republican crowd what she says - or her children or anyone else. They have their stick and nothing she says or even her daughters says, is going to make them put that stick down.
Strumms wrote: » I think Michael D has been a very good president. It’s up to him if he wants to run again. However considering his advancing years I think for himself and his family it could be prudent to say.. “ok, I’ve had my time, gave it my best and did a good good job, now time to hand over to a younger incumbent. 45 years plus as it now stands as a public servant...time for himself and Sabina to sit back and enjoy life.
batgoat wrote: » Except she's not the only politician to get called out over her view on vaccines...
Wanderer78 wrote: » Maybe he likes the job
FrancieBrady wrote: » She has said what her opinion is on the vaccine, and that she thinks it should be expanded. Having never actually said anywhere that she was against it. Now you either accept that or you don't, calling for her daughters medical history makes no difference to that. Because if you disbelieve what she has said above getting her daughters history isn't going to change your mind. We all know what is going on here, same every time a republican puts their head above a parapet, 'keep the dirt flying even though the dirt has long ago been swept away'.
Rhineshark wrote: » It's not sinister, it's a loose end. The problem with being a politician is that speaking "as a Mother" while using your name recognition as a politician means that you will get asked questions about rubbish spouted "as a mother" when acting "as a politician". If you drag your own daughters into it, gosh golly whee you'll get asked questions about them which just a tad late for vapours at people "politicizing your daughters".
Edgware wrote: Not while there is still more moolah to be got. Hard to walk away from the trough even for a socialist
FrancieBrady wrote: » How do I know what? She says she was on the programme as a 'mother'. Of course she was going to mention her daughter's. She has the right as a politician to keep her daughter's out of it, as any politician has. That is why I and others think it is sinister to be trying to involve them against their will and their mother's. Had she not made a clear and precise statement on the vaccine you guys might have a point.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Vaccination uptake had already fallen from a high of 87% to 50% before Ni Riada did the interview in Sept. 2016.
