When did Gemma O Doherty go batshyt crazy?

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Haven't heard her described as a hypocrite, where has she been hypocritical?

well there was the fact that she asked Panti for support when she tried to run for Panti and then turned on everything gay when Panti wouldn't give her support.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Why do people attack her personally instead of the points she makes.
The obviously knows her stuff and isn't feeding the same line on things as the Irish media.
I think she is a strong Independent smart woman.
A lot of her criticism is basd in sexism

I don't think you realise that she is the points she makes. That's her personality. She's into kids drinking bleach for autism and chemtrails. I'm not going to even bother trying to debunk that crap. It's like arguing with a flat earther.

And hey, we've been just as hard on gran torino and his crazy crap.

So apart from the anti-vaxx thing, the immigrants, the gays, the big pharma awards, and the immigrants again... we'd have to think about it. Would you like us to, or is that enough to be going on with?

Charles Ingles wrote: »

And the way she is ridiculed makes me think she closer to the truth.

Really, that says more about you than anything else

I voted yes but part of me was tempted to vote no because I do believe that she is positioning herself with these crazy ideas for personal gain. She is aiming at becoming a mini Alex Jones type alt right personality hoping that the alt right funders in the states throw her some cash.

I'm all for people giving alternative views of world events once they have foundations based on relevant facts. The issue is that Gemma has pitched her flag in with some very murky people indeed who are putting lives at risk because of their anti-vax views or stoking up hatred because of their racist stances. Then you have the Chem trails brigade :rolleyes:

She is living off limited past journalistic achievements and even those are tainted by family members of the subjects of those investigations condemning GoD and her hijacking of the respective campaigns for her own PR purposes.

She is a busted flush and far from pristine anti-corruption heroine that some of the deluded make her out to be. Imho if the establishment wanted to have a eminently discreditable candidate to pitch against them she would be ideal.

gandalf wrote: »

I voted yes but part of me was tempted to vote no because I do believe that she is positioning herself with these crazy ideas for personal gain. She is aiming at becoming a mini Alex Jones type alt right personality hoping that the alt right funders in the states throw her some cash.

I'm all for people giving alternative views of world events once they have foundations based on relevant facts. The issue is that Gemma has pitched her flag in with some very murky people indeed who are putting lives at risk because of their anti-vax views or stoking up hatred because of their racist stances. Then you have the Chem trails brigade :rolleyes:

She is living off limited past journalistic achievements and even those are tainted by family members of the subjects of those investigations condemning GoD and her hijacking of the respective campaigns for her own PR purposes.

She is a busted flush and far from pristine anti-corruption heroine that some of the deluded make her out to be. Imho if the establishment wanted to have a eminently discreditable candidate to pitch against them she would be ideal.

We could seriously do with someone credible exposing corruption, shady deals, and general incompetence in the public sector.
But to be able to speak truth to power you need to be truthful.
To call Authority to account you need to be accountable.

Gemma O'Doherty is a loose cannon without a shred of credibility who employs the language of hate to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I like her,
Don't agree with get stance on the homosexualities.
Her arguments about immigration aren't that crazy.
What's wrong with controlled emigration with an eye to keeping Christian values in Ireland I think you find most people want to keep it that way

Ohh ffs we're trying to expunge religion from our state not strengthen it. We need to ensure Ireland is a secular state in the future. This keep Christian values lark is bollix.

Also if you find her stance on LGBT wrong then you can't cherry pick her other ideas can you, unless your are being deceitful?

TheRepentent wrote: »

This thread has gotten a really bad dose of the Gemaroids today......

Gemmaroids. Love it

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I like her,
Don't agree with get stance on the homosexualities.
Her arguments about immigration aren't that crazy.
What's wrong with controlled emigration with an eye to keeping Christian values in Ireland I think you find most people want to keep it that way

I presume that first sentence is down to auto-predict.

Her arguments about immigration are pretty crazy, because nobody has or is proposing uncontrolled mass immigration - yet that's exactly what she rails against. To the extent we end up with proposed direct provision centres being set on fire, costing employment in rural towns...

We already have controlled immigration. It's great - anyone from the EU can come and work here. I can go to any other EU country and work. Really opens horizons and opportunities for my family.

I honestly don't think most people want to keep "Christian values" for the country, whatever the **** they are. 66% voted yes for marriage equality, 66% voted yes to repeal the 8th, and probably 70-something % will vote yes to remove restrictions on divorce in May, and the biggest increase in demographic in the last census was those putting 'no religion' down.

Christian values of 796 dead babies in a septic tank, forced adoptions, forced birth, vaccine trials (ironic, innit?!) on children without parental consent, covering up child abuse (although that was the communists, according to Gemma) - yeah, we're not really all that gone on them any more...

Charles Ingles wrote: »

As for keeping Ireland as a Christian country most people would agree with me.
Seems calls for secularism only applies to Catholics, nobody would dare be critical of Islam but Catholics are fair game.

Who or what you worship in the privacy of your own house, church, mosque, or temple is between you and your non-existent god(s)/goddess(es). I don't want it in any way involved with me or mine when it comes to education, healthcare, state services, or laws, thank you very much.

That applies whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Mormon, Scientoligist, Wiccan...

gandalf wrote: »

You're stance is like a German saying in the 1930's "I don't agree with Adolfs stance on Jews but I support him because the Autobahns are a good idea ":rolleyes:

"I don't agree with Adolfs stance on Jews but I support him because he loved his dog".

bells of shandon wrote: »

She is right on...
blah, blah

What about chemtrails, vaccinations, racism, xenophobia and chemtrails?

circadian wrote: »

The funny thing about these Christian Values is that they aren't actually very Christian at all.

and oddly enough their christian values seem to be almost exclusively from the old testament.

RayCun wrote: »

Except he's saying that he does agree with her stance on Islam.

So it's more like, "Oh Adolf gets carried away with all that Third Reich stuff, but he has a point about those Jews"

And in reality if they are a supporter of "Christian values" Ireland then their proclamation on support for the LGBT community are at odds with this as well. I think they may be a little confused, a bit like GoD herself