So Michael D IS running again!

Loafing Oaf

VinLieger wrote: »

No it doesn't but then why would she lie about it?

Well precisely because she doesn't share their views and doesn't want to be associated with them.

Zubeneschamali

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well precisely because she doesn't share their views and doesn't want to associated with them.

Then you say "I am a Catholic but I do not share their views"

"I never even heard of them!" looks like a guilty reaction.

jm08

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.

In fairness, it would be rather odd for someone with her track record in mental health, suicide awareness etc. to publicly support abortion, particularly as she is a practising catholic.

jm08

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.

2. She claims Mark Hughes is a personal friend. OK. But when asked what she thought about Herbalife, her remark was basically, "Oh, I don't really know much about that, I'll look into it". You don't accept large loans/donations for a political campaign without investigating the lender's background; friend or otherwise.

If you look at the second point; imagine any candidate said, "My good friend <insert name here> gave me a loan.". "Where did they get their money from?". "Oh, I dunno".

From what I understand she hasn't seen Mark Hughes in 40 years, so its hardly surprising she might not have known about his connection in a pyramid scheme.

Zubeneschamali

jm08 wrote: »

In fairness, it would be rather odd for someone with her track record in mental health, suicide awareness etc. to publicly support abortion

No, it really wouldn't.

jm08

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Then you say "I am a Catholic but I do not share their views"

"I never even heard of them!" looks like a guilty reaction.

Guilty of what? You can't choose your own family.



She was not out campaigning for a ''no'' vote in the referendum as far as I know which probably says a lot more considering her family connections.

seamus

jm08 wrote: »

In fairness, it would be rather odd for someone with her track record in mental health, suicide awareness etc. to publicly support abortion, particularly as she is a practising catholic.

Let's not get into an abortion debate, but there were more mental health professionals on the "Yes" side than the "No" side. So that wouldn't be odd at all.

But staying quiet about her opinion - which she did, to her credit - would be the most prudent course of action for a person in her position, when there's a public debate raging which is directly distressing to individuals.

How could Pieta House operate effectively during the abortion debate if Freeman had come out with a policy position? People desperately in need of their services may be afraid to go there.

marieholmfan

jm08 wrote: »

In fairness, it would be rather odd for someone with her track record in mental health, suicide awareness etc. to publicly support abortion, particularly as she is a practising catholic.

Not really. I don't see them as connected at all. One can be a passionate advocate for the life of the unborn or for a woman's right to bodily control and also a passionate advocate for the mentally or not care about the mentally ill at all.


I believe 100% that if you asked Joan Freeman if the beliefs are connected she would say yes , if you asked Professor David Fergusson in New Zealand he would say that his work for mental health advocacy is informed by his pro choice position.

jm08

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it really wouldn't.

Would you like to explain why it wouldn't, bearing in mind that her whole life she has been trying to save lives, and as a practicising catholic, she more than likely believes that life begins at conception. She has every right to believe that and it doesn't make her a nut case because if that is the case there are an awful lot of nutters around.

jm08

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not really. I don't see them as connected at all. One can be a passionate advocate for the life of the unborn or for a woman's right to bodily control and also a passionate advocate for the mentally or not care about the mentally ill at all.


I believe 100% that if you asked Joan Freeman if the beliefs are connected she would say yes , if you asked Professor David Fergusson in New Zealand he would say that his work for mental health advocacy is informed by his pro choice position.

You need to take into consideration that she is a practicing catholic as well.

marieholmfan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A
And that speech about Knock - that's ultracatholic looper from the 1930s stuff. I had an aunt in the 3rd Order of St. Francis who fancied herself holier than the nuns and even she wouldn't buy that.

All she said was that when she was 16 in the early 1970s they were brought to Knock and at the time she believed it completely ; she now says that it was to illustrate her own innocence at the time and contrast the enveloping cultural nature of Irish Catholicism then with its more compartmentalised nature now.

Zubeneschamali

jm08 wrote: »

Guilty of what?

That's what's weird. If come home and say to the kids "What's up?" and one says "Nothing much, I broke a cup", no big deal.

If I come home and they say "Hi Dad! Absolutely nothing happened we're all fine no need to check on the dog!" I start thinking something is up.

This "I never even heard of them!" guilty response makes me think there is a connection even if there isn't.

seamus

jm08 wrote: »

From what I understand she hasn't seen Mark Hughes in 40 years, so its hardly surprising she might not have known about his connection in a pyramid scheme.

Right. Which is why she should have maybe done some research before blindly accepting a loan from him.

Zubeneschamali

marieholmfan wrote: »

All she said was that when she was 16 in the early 1970s they were brought to Knock and at the time she believed it completely ; she now says that it was to illustrate her own innocence at the time and contrast the enveloping cultural nature of Irish Catholicism then with its more compartmentalised nature now.

That isn't what she said in 2015: "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."

Hurrache

jm08 wrote: »

From what I understand she hasn't seen Mark Hughes in 40 years, so its hardly surprising she might not have known about his connection in a pyramid scheme.

She's pretty brutal so.

No background research into where her donation is coming from, no research into what group her niece is a prominent campaigner for, and when she's actually giving documentation into Iona, she apparently never read it, as was the requirement of her role, and still claimed to know nothing about them.

Hardly residents association presidential material.

Loafing Oaf

jm08 wrote: »

Would you like to explain why it wouldn't, bearing in mind that her whole life she has been trying to save lives, and as a practicising catholic, she more than likely believes that life begins at conception. She has every right to believe that and it doesn't make her a nut case because if that is the case there are an awful lot of nutters around.

Not odd at all if her position on both abortion and suicide is informed by her Catholic faith. But you suggested it would be odd in general for someone involved in suicide prevention to be pro-choice. Which is itself a very odd thing to think.

marieholmfan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That isn't what she said in 2015: "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."

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Her belief in divine intervention cured her eczema. She doesn't believe God intervened and cured her eczema.

marieholmfan

Hurrache wrote: »

She's pretty brutal so.

No background research into where her donation is coming from, no research into what group her niece is a prominent campaigner for, and when she's actually giving documentation into Iona, she apparently never read it, as was the requirement of her role, and still claimed to know nothing about them.

Hardly residents association presidential material.

There is no donation. There is a loan at 9% completely transparent and completely in accordance with SIPO rules.

jm08

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's what's weird. If come home and say to the kids "What's up?" and one says "Nothing much, I broke a cup", no big deal.

If I come home and they say "Hi Dad! Absolutely nothing happened we're all fine no need to check on the dog!" I start thinking something is up.

This "I never even heard of them!" guilty response makes me think there is a connection even if there isn't.

Well then, you are just a very suspicious person.

Hurrache

marieholmfan wrote: »

There is no donation. There is a loan at 9% completely transparent and completely in accordance with SIPO rules.

Whatever, everything else still stands.

marieholmfan

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not odd at all if her position on both abortion and suicide is informed by her Catholic faith. But you suggested it would be odd in general for someone involved in suicide prevention to be pro-choice. Which is itself a very odd thing to think.

Actually it is a totally natural thing to think but it is not correct. If one has a strong moral position on either the obvious right to life of an unborn child or the obvious right of every woman to control her fertility and to be more than some sort of broodmare and one also has a strong belief in the need to help people with mental illness than one will link those two positions.

jm08

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not odd at all if her position on both abortion and suicide is informed by her Catholic faith. But you suggested it would be odd in general for someone involved in suicide prevention to be pro-choice. Which is itself a very odd thing to think.

I connected suicide and her catholic faith: This is what I said:

Would you like to explain why it wouldn't, bearing in mind that her whole life she has been trying to save lives, and as a practicising catholic, she more than likely believes that life begins at conception. She has every right to believe that and it doesn't make her a nut case because if that is the case there are an awful lot of nutters around.

VinLieger

jm08 wrote: »

From what I understand she hasn't seen Mark Hughes in 40 years, so its hardly surprising she might not have known about his connection in a pyramid scheme.

Would you accept blindly such an offer from someone you have had no contact with in 40 years but then happens to contact you as you announce your presidential candidacy without doing any research into where this money might be coming from, or the potential strings that might be attached but not mentioned at the time of the offer?


Herbalife is a vicious aggressive and exploitative MLM that Des walsh is president of. The naivety of freeman claiming she doesn't need to do a background check on a person like him that she hasnt had any contact with in 40 years is just astounding.

marieholmfan

Hurrache wrote: »

Whatever, everything else still stands.

My niece is a researcher for a pharmaceutical company but I know nothing about them.

The attempt to blacken the name of someone who has achieved so much in Irish life and society by associating her with the most backward elements in Irish life because of her niece is ridiculous. Is it even her blood niece or is it marital?



If everything else (i.e. nothing) still stands presumably you will either be giving Joan your number 2 or else publicly condemning suicidal people as weaklings who need to buck up.

marieholmfan

VinLieger wrote: »

Herbalife is a vicious aggressive and exploitative MLM that Des walsh is president of. The naivety of freeman claiming she doesn't need to do a background check on a person like him that she hasnt had any contact with in 40 years is just astounding.

Look that's America. That is American society. Pyramid schemes and innocent men on death row and slavery and genocide. Surely any connection at all with America is morally suspect.

Zubeneschamali

jm08 wrote: »

Would you like to explain why it wouldn't

Most medical professionals are pro-choice, so it would not be unusual for a mental health advocate against suicide to be pro-choice.

The only bit that suggests otherwise is the "catholic" bit, so I would phrase it as:

In fairness, it would be rather odd for someone with her track record in mental health, suicide awareness etc. to publicly oppose abortion, except that she is a practising catholic.

blanch152

marieholmfan wrote: »

Look that's America. That is American society. Pyramid schemes and innocent men on death row and slavery and genocide. Surely any connection at all with America is morally suspect.

That is like saying that no same-sex marriage, Orange Order marches, IRA killers, punishment beating and cover-ups of sexual abuse means that any connection with Northern Ireland is morally suspect.

You can't label a whole country like that.

VinLieger

marieholmfan wrote: »

My niece is a researcher for a pharmaceutical company but I know nothing about them.

Did her pharmaceutical spend millions of euro on a national campaign, with appearances in newspaper, radio, television as well as thousands of posters littering the length and breadth of the country to keep the rights of women and homosexuals in the dark ages?

marieholmfan wrote: »

The attempt to blacken the name of someone who has achieved so much in Irish life and society by associating her with the most backward elements in Irish life because of her niece is ridiculous. Is it even her blood niece or is it marital?

Stop being so hyperbolic, nobody is trying to blacken her name people are simply pointing our the inconsitencies in her story and the fact she seems to so incredibly naive as to have reasonable questions raised on her suitability for the highest office in the land.

marieholmfan wrote: »

If everything else (i.e. nothing) still stands presumably you will either be giving Joan your number 2 or else publicly condemning suicidal people as weaklings who need to buck up.

She accepted a loan from a morally bankrupt individual whose company has without any shadow of a doubt caused numerous suicides in the states.

marieholmfan

VinLieger wrote: »

Did her pharmaceutical spend millions of euro on a national campaign, with appearances in newspaper, radio, television as well as thousands of posters littering the length and breadth of the country to keep the rights of women and homosexuals in the dark ages?

No but they've probably done something bad , somewhere along the way.

VinLieger

marieholmfan wrote: »

No but they've probably done something bad , somewhere along the way.

So your admitting your analogy is pointless as they have no reason that you know of to be nationally known versus the Iona institute who very much do.