So Michael D IS running again!

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She was 'trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls.'

Well there we have it. Michael D 'has actually caused a lot of damage to humanity' and Liadh is 'trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls'.

This campaign is getting off to a great start.

Great misquoting Francie - showing up your dishonesty as always. Class act :rolleyes:

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah the insinuation is strong yet again. Man up, and post the links about what you are talking about. I was Happyman, I have never denied that.
I said Gerry Adams was wrong in what he did and accepted his apology for making a mistake when dealing with a family situation.

So you’ve had two accounts open at the same time then? I thought that was against the rules on here, so I assumed you couldn’t have been the same poster.
Funny how some posters get away with such flagrant rule breaches time and again.

Well if it was you, then you’ll know exactly what you posted, and anyone who was here at the time will remember too, or can search the thread.

The lengths that were gone to to try and censor anyone calling a child rapist a paedophile was despicable - as was the amount of excuses made for Adams being knowingly left with access to children in Dundalk for an extended period of time.
Still at it too I see - trying to play down letting a known paedophile work with youth groups as a “family situation”.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

So you’ve had two accounts open at the same time then? I thought that was against the rules on here, so I assumed you couldn’t have been the same poster.
Funny how some posters get away with such flagrant rule breaches time and again.

Well if it was you, then you’ll know exactly what you posted, and anyone who was here at the time will remember too, or can search the thread.

I am not surprised you took what I said and made a big scandalous story of it.

I NEVER had 2 accounts at one time and my change of name was agreed with the mods and I never denied it. If you were watching threads as 'closely' as you claimed you wouldn't have missed that change of name being discussed before.

The lengths that were gone to to try and censor anyone calling a child rapist a paedophile was despicable - as was the amount of excuses made for Adams being knowingly left with access to children in Dundalk for an extended period of time.
Still at it too I see - trying to play down letting a known paedophile work with youth groups as a “family situation”.

I neither defended paedophilia or child abuse ever. You are lying barefacedly about that. I did argue that a child abuser is not necessary a pedophile and that the term is a red top sensationalist shorthand for all abuse.
And I never excused Gerry Adams (as he didn't himself) for knowingly allowing Liam Adams free.

I am and always was delighted Liam Adams went to jail.

Thankfully you guys no longer have that particular boogeyman (Gerry) to fall back on, not that it stops some. So I guess it has to be something else when a Shinner raises their head above the parapet.

We are way off topic here and once again you have successfully deflected the thread to be about a dreaded secret Shinner. So let's leave it there.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Great misquoting Francie - showing up your dishonesty as always. Class act :rolleyes:

Is 'giving credibility' to groups who 'were trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls' not the same thing as wanting it yourself? Or are you withdrawing/distancing from the sensationalist allegation again? It is quite a big jump in the scale of the allegation against this woman. So do please clarify it.

VinLieger

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But if you don't believe anything she says on this issue couldn't she be lying about that too?

Her statement that “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” will put the issue to bed for anyone beyond a handful of keyboard warriors...

I fully believe she would lie about her real opinion on the matter however lying about a fact regarding her daughters health status I would hope for even a SF member would be a step too far to win votes. Are you suggesting she would do something that low?

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is 'giving credibility' to groups who 'were trying to increase the risk of cancer for teenage girls' not the same thing as wanting it yourself? Or are you withdrawing/distancing from the sensationalist allegation again? It is quite a big jump in the scale of the allegation against this woman. So do please clarify it.

So you don’t have the honesty to admit you misquoted me.

Never change Francie - you’re as transparent and dishonest as ever.

O’Riada lent credibility to these groups because she’s either too stupid to have done some basic research herself; or cynically thought it might be a quick winner of a few votes. I’ve already stated that on thread - but you continue to lie and misquote because you seem incapable of honesty when it comes to anything SF related

Hurrache

So Michael D, I believe he may be running again?

FreudianSlippers

blackwhite wrote: »

Funny how some posters get away with such flagrant rule breaches time and again.

Generally, as long as they're left-wing and align with the views of the majority of the mods on the site then it seems they can do what they want. Re-reg of, I believe, a banned poster admitting they're a re-reg is (I think) a site-ban offence. However, I don't think there is a specific rule against having more than one account, unless they're using a new account to circumvent a ban.

blackwhite wrote: »

Though to be fair, I can see how you get confused, that poster had a similar tendancy to unquestionably defend anything remotely connected to SF, no matter how low, as well

But don't forget that they're definitely not a SF supporter!

blackwhite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Generally, as long as they're left-wing and align with the views of the majority of the mods on the site then it seems they can do what they want. Re-reg of, I believe, a banned poster admitting they're a re-reg is (I think) a site-ban offence. However, I don't think there is a specific rule against having more than one account, unless they're using a new account to circumvent a ban.


But don't forget that they're definitely not a SF supporter!

Fairly sure that you cannot have more than one account at the same time - hence my surprise given FB's join date, and the years that HM was active.

Anyway - getting way off topic at this stage.



Any sign of SF ever actually announcing a candidate?

If they went with O'Caolain, I think he'd probably be the only possible threat to Michael D in an election. He's generally well-regarded, even by people who don't share his political views, and has a long history of public service. TBH - if MDH wasn't running and COC was, I'd be more likely to vote for him than any of the other candidates on offer.

If they persist with O'Riada, as looks more and more likely, then I can't see anyone coming close to MDH.

FreudianSlippers

I think Ó Caoláin ruled himself out yesterday, which is a shame as he's the only SF politician who I've had any time for in recent memory.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Generally, as long as they're left-wing and align with the views of the majority of the mods on the site then it seems they can do what they want. Re-reg of, I believe, a banned poster admitting they're a re-reg is (I think) a site-ban offence. However, I don't think there is a specific rule against having more than one account, unless they're using a new account to circumvent a ban.


But don't forget that they're definitely not a SF supporter!

I wasn't banned and changed my name with the full knowledge and approval of the miss and never hid that I was happyman.

Keep up the dishonest vilification folks.

FreudianSlippers

blackwhite wrote: »

Fairly sure that you cannot have more than one account at the same time - hence my surprise given FB's join date, and the years that HM was active.

You're right - rule 6.2:

You cannot create more than one personal profile.

The rules are so poorly drafted though that it's not clear what "personal profile" means.

marieholmfan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're right - rule 6.2:


The rules are so poorly drafted though that it's not clear what "personal profile" means.

So Michael D ??????????????
Riadh Ni Liada ?????????????
Kevin Sharkey ?????????????

FreudianSlippers

marieholmfan wrote: »

So Michael D ??????????????
Riadh Ni Liada ?????????????
Kevin Sharkey ?????????????

It's also against the rules to speculate on the identity of posters but yes, I am Michael D Higgins. :pac:

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't banned and changed my name with the full knowledge and approval of the miss and never hid that I was happyman.

Keep up the dishonest vilification folks.

I'm sorry, did I say you were banned and changed your name?

PS: Glad your "miss" approved of your name change... I guess?

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't trust 'these people'. People who are 'anti vaxxing'.

Well of course not!

Anti-vaxxers are a bunch of cranks whose scare stories are damaging public health and even killing people.

Rhineshark

Can we knock off the personal stuff guys? It's derailing the thread and not particularly fun or interesting to wade through.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't banned and changed my name with the full knowledge and approval of the miss and never hid that I was happyman.

Keep up the dishonest vilification folks.

Dishonest?? Maybe (yet again :rolleyes:) you should try taking a look in the mirror there

The old account still exists, so you didn't change any names. You just starting using a different account - which had been created and was open all through the time you were using another account as well.

Anyone can simply search posts by user, and see that both accounts were in use at the same time.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Dishonest?? Maybe (yet again :rolleyes:) you should try taking a look in the mirror there

The old account still exists, so you didn't change any names. You just starting using a different account - which had been created and was open all through the time you were using another account as well.

Anyone can simply search posts by user, and see that both accounts were in use at the same time.

Report me and a mod will tell you that everything I did with regard to 'accounts' was above board and with their approval.
You will find no record, insinuate as much as you like of me posting from two accounts at the one time.

Apologies to those who have to read this tiresome deflection when people's arguments are debunked or questioned. Always the same - 'ah you're only a Shinner bot something something something'...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

End of this particular deflection for me.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Report me and a mod will tell you that everything I did with regard to 'accounts' was above board and with their approval.
You will find no record, insinuate as much as you like of me posting from two accounts at the one time.

Apologies to those who have to read this tiresome deflection when people's arguments are debunked or questioned. Always the same - 'ah you're only a Shinner bot something something something'...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

End of this particular deflection for me.

Funny how the posting history tells a different story. Keep on digging

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=372186&sort=oldest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=228042&sort=oldest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A

Plenty of overlapping dates there on the first few pages alone.


Anyway Francie - might as well get back to you trying to lend legitimacy to the anti-vaxxer groups again.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well of course not!

Anti-vaxxers are a bunch of cranks whose scare stories are damaging public health and even killing people.

So have you any proof that Ni Riada is or was an 'anti Vaxxer'?
Is anyone who expresses concern about vaccines an 'anti vaxxer'?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Stay on topic and dont get personal. If someone personalises the debate against you, report and then dont respond on thread.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So have you any proof that Ni Riada is or was an 'anti Vaxxer'?
Is anyone who expresses concern about vaccines an 'anti vaxxer'?

She believes her uninformed opinion over that of medical professions in relation to a vaccine. She's either an anti-vaxxer or just a moron - dealer's choice.

Zubeneschamali

blackwhite wrote: »

Plenty of overlapping dates there on the first few pages alone.

Not hard to find a thread with both accounts posting on successive days.

I wonder if we can find one account replying to the other?

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

She believes her uninformed opinion over that of medical professions in relation to a vaccine. She's either an anti-vaxxer or just a moron - dealer's choice.

She had concerns at the time, no doubt about that.

Does she have now? I think it is very very clear she doesn't.


So what have we, a politician changes their opinion.
Leo Varadkar changed his opinion on civil marriage, and he got to actually run the country. is that the same level of moronic-ness?

Or is it only when republicans change their opinions there is a problem?

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She had concerns at the time, no doubt about that.

Does she have now? I think it is very very clear she doesn't.


So what have we, a politician changes their opinion.
Leo Varadkar changed his opinion on civil marriage, and he got to actually run the country. is that the same level of moronic-ness?

Or is it only when republicans change their opinions there is a problem?

She had concerns which were not supported in any way by scientific evidence or opinion; she chose to ignore that evidence and medical opinion based on nothing more than her gut. If that was the analogous basis for Leo's views on "civil marriage" (whatever that means) then yes.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

She had concerns which were not supported in any way by scientific evidence or opinion; she chose to ignore that evidence and medical opinion based on nothing more than her gut. If that was the analogous basis for Leo's views on "civil marriage" (whatever that means) then yes.

What was Leo basing his original objection to civil partnership on, only a belief or 'gut' feeling that a child is entitled to have a mother and a father. There is no scientific evidence that this is an absolute necessity, after all.
He changed that view come the time of the same sex referendum though. Pretty much what seems to be the case with O'Riada.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does she have now? I think it is very very clear she doesn't.

Because politicians have never ever lied before about their real beliefs on subjects....


She publicly announced that she took a specific action, until she announces that she has reversed this specific action then her words mean nothing and there is no real evidence her beliefs in this matter have changed

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What was Leo basing his original objection to civil partnership on, only a belief or 'gut' feeling that a child is entitled to have a mother and a father. There is no scientific evidence that this is an absolute necessity, after all.
He changed that view come the time of the same sex referendum though. Pretty much what seems to be the case with O'Riada.

No surprise that you've disingenuously warped the argument.

There is a difference between holding a belief (which in the case of Varadkar seems to have been taken totally out of context) which is a non-science-based matter as you correctly point out and holding a belief contrary to a science-based matter.

One's belief that oranges are better than bananas is fine and valid; one's belief that oranges are bananas is not.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No surprise that you've disingenuously warped the argument.

There is a difference between holding a belief (which in the case of Varadkar seems to have been taken totally out of context) which is a non-science-based matter as you correctly point out and holding a belief contrary to a science-based matter.

One's belief that oranges are better than bananas is fine and valid; one's belief that oranges are bananas is not.

Seems to me that like a lot of people, myself as a parent included, that she had concerns about this, and having accessed the information, she has affirmed her belief that there are no concerns and is actually advocating for wider use of vaccines.

I am struggling to see a problem here unless you have already decided that she is either a liar or has an ulterior motive to see 'girls die of cancer' as one poster claimed these anti vaxxing groups want.