So Michael D IS running again!

Joan Freeman paid herself €80,000 as chairwoman of Pieta house and donated her Seanad Salary to an equivalent American charity. She literally couldn't be more above board and shouldn't be compared with Mary Davis.

She donated it to an American charity, when she said she'd donate it to Pieta House.

Hurrache wrote: »

She donated it to an American charity, when she said she'd donate it to Pieta House.

Not significant. Unless you believe that American lives don't matter.

Again you're making crazy assumptions on my behalf.

Zubeneschamali

marieholmfan wrote: »

Joan Freeman paid herself €80,000 as chairwoman of Pieta house and donated her Seanad Salary to an equivalent American charity. She literally couldn't be more above board and shouldn't be compared with Mary Davis.

Mary Davis was also not dodgy. There is nothing dodgy about sitting on the board of the Dublin Airport Authority or whatever.

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not significant. Unless you believe that American lives don't matter.

It is deffinitely significant as it adds to the inconsistent declarations she has made

Also stop with the strawman arguments they are pathetic

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Mary Davis was also not dodgy. There is nothing dodgy about sitting on the board of the Dublin Airport Authority or whatever.

If you are presenting an image of yourself that diverges from the reality then that is dodgy.

Maybe not top of the dodgy scale (depending on what you are hiding) but dodgy all the same.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you are presenting an image of yourself that diverges from the reality then that is dodgy.

Maybe not top of the dodgy scale (depending on what you are hiding) but dodgy all the same.

Surely its merely being disingenuous

VinLieger wrote: »

Surely its merely being disingenuous

I don't know. When you let the likes of O'Brien get involved in Special Olympics it shows naivety at the absolute best.

marieholmfan wrote: »

I don't know. When you let the likes of O'Brien get involved in Special Olympics it shows naivety at the absolute best.

Why wouldn't you let Denis O'Brien be involved as patron?

marieholmfan wrote: »

I don't know. When you let the likes of O'Brien get involved in Special Olympics it shows naivety at the absolute best.

How so?

Hurrache wrote: »

Why wouldn't you let Denis O'Brien be involved as patron?

Because he is tainted by scandal even if innocent (and he isn't innocent). A charity should be like Caesar's wife.

humberklog

marieholmfan wrote: »

Because he is tainted by scandal even if innocent (and he isn't innocent). A charity should be like Caesar's wife.

Would the same thinking not be applied to Freeman's campaign funding?

marieholmfan wrote: »

Because he is tainted by scandal even if innocent (and he isn't innocent). A charity should be like Caesar's wife.

Are you aware he's been involved since some time in the 1990s, and has brought millions into it?

But you're ok with Freeman getting a loan from someone involved with a company who actually has been fined for their practices? Are you going to try deny that her funding is not tainted, applying your very own standards? Or do you only apply those standards when it suits you?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Surely its merely being disingenuous

Merely?

humberklog wrote: »

Would the same thinking not be applied to her campaign funding?

Maybe, but that would be bizarrely uncharitable. The circumstances behind the SIPO approved loan from an old boyfriend who contacted her out of the blue and whom she assumed to be above board have been done to death.

marieholmfan wrote: »

whom she assumed to be above board have been done to death.

And that's the problem right there. Another nail in her naivety. How does anyone with a passing interest in current affairs not be aware of that company? And you think she'd make a good president? How many gaffs would she make as a result?

Hurrache wrote: »

Are you aware he's been involved since some time in the 1990s, and has brought millions into it?

But you're ok with Freeman getting a loan from someone involved with a company who actually has been fined for their practices? Are you going to try deny that her funding is not donated, applying your very own standards? Or do you only apply those standards when it suits you?

So you regard Denis O'Brien as an upstanding citizen whose wealth was acquired honestly. Give Gavan Duffy your number one so.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Merely?

I would consider dodgy to equate to questionable dealings, everything shes involved with is perfectly above board so yes merely disingenuous would be a better description imo.

Whether its correct to be disingenuous to that level especially in a presidential campaign is another issue but i still wouldn't describe it as dodgy.

Hurrache wrote: »

And that's the problem right there. Another nail in her naivety. How does anyone with a passing interest in current affairs not be aware of that company? And you think she'd make a good president? How many gaffs would she make as a result?

How many gaffs did she make building Pieta house?

marieholmfan wrote: »

So you regard Denis O'Brien as an upstanding citizen whose wealth was acquired honestly. Give Gavan Duffy your number one so.

What is it with you and strawmen? Can you not debate points put to you without making things up by way of a distraction?

marieholmfan wrote: »

So you regard Denis O'Brien as an upstanding citizen whose wealth was acquired honestly. Give Gavan Duffy your number one so.

Seriously stop with the pathetic straw man arguments and address what people are posting not what you like to decide they are saying

humberklog

marieholmfan wrote: »

Maybe, but that would be bizarrely uncharitable. The circumstances behind the SIPO approved loan from an old boyfriend who contacted her out of the blue and whom she assumed to be above board have been done to death.

It's reading your simple breakdown of Freeman's story behind the loan that puts me off her.
I find it not credible.

marieholmfan wrote: »

How many gaffs did she make building Pieta house?

3 at least that I know of, Lucan, Ballyfermot and Santry.

Hurrache wrote: »

What is it with you and strawmen? Can you not debate points put to you without making things up by way of a distraction?

The arguments against Joan Freeman are so weak , disjointed and illogical that any attempt to address any point made will look like strawmanning because the person attempting to defend Ms Freeman is almost forced to construct arguments in order to rebut them ; because no one is making any arguments against her at all.

humberklog wrote: »

It's reading your simple breakdown of Freeman's story behind the loan that puts me off her.
I find it not credible.

Fiction must be credible. The truth is often unbelievable.

marieholmfan wrote: »

The arguments against Joan Freeman are so weak , disjointed and illogical that any attempt to address any point made will look like strawmanning because the person attempting to defend Ms Freeman is almost forced to construct arguments in order to rebut them ; because no one is making any arguments against her at all.

None of this makes sense, because the points being made against her are actually factual and related to her presidential aspirations. Your counter points are all whataboutery and related to other people.