So Michael D IS running again!

batgoat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Other than publicly discussing her concerns (concerns numerous people had) I can find nothing that shows she was or is an 'anti vaxxer' Yet it is okay to call her one here and to try and out her daughters medical history.
Was she or is she now, an 'anti-vaxxer'?

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.

FrancieBrady

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.

From her own mouth, here is her answer to that. A pretty comprehensive clarification unless you are a sensationalist.

“During a radio interview in 2016 I clearly outlined that my issue was a lack of information coming from the HSE. A lot of concern and confusion around the HPV vaccination was going on at the time resulting in a pick up of the vaccine of just 51% and there was not nearly enough information forthcoming from the HSE to clarify matters or soothe the concerns of parents.

“So there is no confusion, let me be absolutely clear. Vaccines are a crucial part of modern life and it is only because of them that we now enjoy the greatest life expectancy in human history.

“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.”

I think you can give blanch a hand taking that tent down.

Water John

IMO Francie you are also treating other posters as idiots. It's pretty clear from your posts that you are likely to mark 1 opposite one candidate and not bother with the rest of the ballot paper.
Give us some credit and not treat us as fools.

FrancieBrady

Water John wrote: »

IMO Francie you are also treating other posters as idiots. It's pretty clear from your posts that you are likely to mark 1 opposite one candidate and not bother with the rest of the ballot paper.
Give us some credit and not treat us as fools.

What?

Who I am voting for or not, is not the subject of the thread. The candidates are.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

From her own mouth, here is her answer to that. A pretty comprehensive clarification unless you are a sensationalist.



I think you can give blanch a hand taking that tent down.

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

marieholmfan

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

The HPV vaccine is quite time bound is it not?

Water John

But Francie you keep protesting you won't be voting for a certain candidate. I do think you doth protest too much.

FrancieBrady

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

Have we not had this conversation about the private opinion of a president versus the constitutional public role? Like Higgin's opinion of Castro, which Varadkar and Kenny said he was entitled to hold.

Her daughters medical history, like that of all past and present president's children is none of ours or your business, frankly.

FrancieBrady

Water John wrote: »

But Francie you keep protesting you won't be voting for a certain candidate. I do think you doth protest too much.

I said it twice, once way earlier in the thread and a few posts ago.

When the same poster - blanch152, who is touting the label 'anti vaxxer' claimed that Higgin's statement on Castro showed that he

blanch152 wrote:

'has actually caused a lot of damage to humanity'.

I defended Higgin's and showed blanch152 that Higgin's eulogised 'some' of Castro's achievements and admitted that they came at a great social cost. He was cherrypicking to have a go at Higgins.

Was I called a Labour bot operating in secret support of Higgins on the site?

The thread isn't about me. Stop please.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have we not had this conversation about the private opinion of a president versus the constitutional public role? Like Higgin's opinion of Castro, which Varadkar and Kenny said he was entitled to hold.

Her daughters medical history, like that of all past and present president's children is none of ours or your business, frankly.

Then why did she publicly announce she wasnt getting her daughter vaccinated? She is the one who brought her daughters vaccination status into this.

VinLieger

marieholmfan wrote: »

The HPV vaccine is quite time bound is it not?

It can be given to women up until 26 and men up until 21

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Then why did she publicly announce she wasnt getting her daughter vaccinated? She is the one who brought her daughters vaccination status into this.

In an interview. Which she is entitled to do.
She has comprehensively stated her opinion of vaccination and clarified for those who reacted sensationally to her interview, when it was dug up.

Pretty clear to anyone with an eye in their head what is going down here. The first nastiness of the presidential campaign and she hasn't even declared yet.

batgoat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In an interview. Which she is entitled to do.
She has comprehensively stated her opinion of vaccination and clarified for those who reacted sensationally to her interview, when it was dug up.

Pretty clear to anyone with an eye in their head what is going down here. The first nastiness of the presidential campaign and she hasn't even declared yet.

And we are equally as entitled to criticise the negative impact of a public representative who chose not to inform herself. Cause that's what it boils down to, going populist and ignoring health organisations across the globe.

WinnyThePoo

Well certainly won't be voting for an anti vaxxer. Is there any actual shinners here that can tell me otherwise?.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In an interview. Which she is entitled to do.
She has comprehensively stated her opinion of vaccination and clarified for those who reacted sensationally to her interview, when it was dug up.

Pretty clear to anyone with an eye in their head what is going down here. The first nastiness of the presidential campaign and she hasn't even declared yet.

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

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In an interview. Which she is entitled to do.
She has comprehensively stated her opinion of vaccination and clarified for those who reacted sensationally to her interview, when it was dug up.

Pretty clear to anyone with an eye in their head what is going down here. The first nastiness of the presidential campaign and she hasn't even declared yet.

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

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Other than publicly discussing her concerns (concerns numerous people had) I can find nothing that shows she was or is an 'anti vaxxer' Yet it is okay to call her one here and to try and out her daughters medical history.
Was she or is she now, an 'anti-vaxxer'?

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.

FrancieBrady

batgoat wrote: »

And we are equally as entitled to criticise the negative impact of a public representative who chose not to inform herself. Cause that's what it boils down to, going populist and ignoring health organisations across the globe.

You are not allowed to lie about them. As a poster is here, and who did it about Michael D.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to suggest that this candidate had anything but concern about the vaccine on a personal family level.

If there was no problem with the HSE information availability why did they have to mount an 'Awareness Campaign'?
This is the HSE we are talking about here, you might want to review today's events relating to them and their 'information giving' abilities btw. Real people are dying because they fell short.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wasn't really my point.

If the HSE were doing their job, they wouldn't have had to do an 'awareness campaign', wouldn't you think?

There was a fairly intensive period of scare stories. A woman is now paying the price (vilification) for being concerned about a lack of info about the effects of a chemical she was allowing to be put into her daughter.
The anti Shinners do know how to scrape barrels.

The only “scare stories” were being perpetuated by anti-bad groups and conspiracy theorists.
There was never a large swell of public opinion, just a small bit loud group of loons. It speaks to your blind devotion that you are now trying to lend credibility to these groups to try and minimise the (at best) crass stupidity demonstrated by a SF representative.

Ni Riada was either naive enough to believe the stories from the cranks that she went on national radio about it (without doing her research); she was pandering to the small bunch of cranks thinking it might be a few more votes; or she is actually one of the cranks herself.

None exactly paint her in a good light - but we can count on the die-hard on-SF supporters on here to still defend her to the death, no matter what :pac:

FrancieBrady

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.

Yeh, and Michael D

blanch152 wrote:

'has actually caused a lot of damage to humanity'.

Campaign on the actual issues and stop inventing stuff.

FrancieBrady

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.

That sounds like you have made up your mind. Maybe you'll want to see the needle puncture marks next.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are not allowed to lie about them. As a poster is here, and who did it about Michael D.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to suggest that this candidate had anything but concern about the vaccine on a personal family level.

If there was no problem with the HSE information availability why did they have to mount an 'Awareness Campaign'?
This is the HSE we are talking about here, you might want to review today's events relating to them and their 'information giving' abilities btw. Real people are dying because they fell short.

Disgusting shifting of the blame. Politicians have a responsibility to lead, and a requirement to avoid following the mob.

Liadh Ni Riain has failed in that regard.

I guess from your trenchant defence of her that she is more or less confirmed as the SF candidate.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, and Michael D

Campaign on the actual issues and stop inventing stuff.

Stop quoting me out of context to make a vacuous point defending the anti-vaxxer Sinn Fein candidate.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

The only “scare stories” were being perpetuated by anti-bad groups and conspiracy theorists.
There was never a large swell of public opinion, just a small bit loud group of loons. It speaks to your blind devotion that you are now trying to lend credibility to these groups to try and minimise the (at best) crass stupidity demonstrated by a SF representative.

Would you please stop. :rolleyes:

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That sounds like you have made up your mind. Maybe you'll want to see the needle puncture marks next.

The persecution complex is strong in you francie, what people do you think im refferring to ehh?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Stop quoting me out of context to make a vacuous point defending the anti-vaxxer Sinn Fein candidate.

What's 'out of context'

You said it based on what Higgins said when Castro died. You dropped it when it was pointed out that he eulogised 'some; of what Castro did. The actual speech that Higgins made, not what you cherrypicked out of it.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you please stop. :rolleyes:

I’m not the one trying to paint these groups as reputable, just to try and protect a party member.

There is literally nothing a SF representative (or relative of a SF representative) could do that you wouldn’t embarrass yourself trying to minimise.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are not allowed to lie about them. As a poster is here, and who did it about Michael D.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to suggest that this candidate had anything but concern about the vaccine on a personal family level.

If there was no problem with the HSE information availability why did they have to mount an 'Awareness Campaign'?
This is the HSE we are talking about here, you might want to review today's events relating to them and their 'information giving' abilities btw. Real people are dying because they fell short.

More lies. If Liadh only had concern about the vaccine on a personal family level, why did she go public on Cork96FM all about it? Is she just a publicity-seeking shill or is she just a naive young woman?

Either way, she is more than unsuitable to be a Presidential candidate.

But don't let that stop you defending Liadh to the death.

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

The persecution complex is strong in you francie, what people do you think im refferring to ehh?

You don't trust 'these people'. People who are 'anti vaxxing'.
You have clearly already made up your mind about her. Why would you call her 'one of these people'??

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What's 'out of context'

You said it based on what Higgins said when Castro died. You dropped it when it was pointed out that he eulogised 'some; of what Castro did. The actual speech that Higgins made, not what you cherrypicked out of it.

"Out of context" is taking a small part of a post about a completely different issue and applying it in a very different situation.