Founder of the Iona Institute, David Quinn
You may recall how, last year, ahead of the same-sex marriage referendum, David Quinn said:
“If they can beat us badly on marriage, they’ll feel they can beat us on the abortion issue. So this is really, really an important battle – not for just what marriage and what the family is all about but for the pro-life section of the constitution, too.”
Mr Quinn, in today’s Irish Independent, writes:
“The big majority of voters in this country, like in every democratic country, vote mainly on the basis of the economy. Only a minority will vote on the basis of social issues. Some of this minority will be attracted to a party because it is ‘liberal’ on social issues and others to a party that is ‘conservative’ on those same issues.”
“…Journalists will incessantly ask a politician who is socially conservative about issues like abortion. It will become very hard for that candidate (or his or her party) to show voters that they also have interesting things to say about the economy which is what will allow them to reach out to more voters. This immediately makes them ‘niche’ candidates and can limit their electorate prospects.”
“Liberal candidates do not have this problem. Their support for the likes of abortion will find favour with most journalists. They won’t be harassed about it at press conferences and will be perfectly free to talk at length and directly to the electorate about the big economic issues. This allows them to appeal to a much bigger section of the electorate than they would if they were seen as social issue candidates only.”
“My suggestion is that if you are pro-life, and you have a Renua candidate locally, find out if they back the Eighth Amendment and if they do, then consider giving them a vote. If pro-lifers don’t do that, then all of those who lost the Fine Gael whip over the abortion issue, not just the members of Renua, might begin to wonder if the pro-life vote is worth courting in any way, shape or form.”
Previously: Poll Position
Thanks Ronan
Why doesn’t he just run? Or is he just the flip side of Fintan O’Toole, constantly urging others to do things he won’t do himself?
Because he’s horribly unlikable. He’s prefers to play the puppeteer. In one concise comment (concise in Iona “Institute” terms anyway, they love a good waffley waffle) he’s basically said Renua is the Iona “Institute”‘s political puppet. It’s good to know this far out who to avoid like the plague. Cheers Dave.
We had kind of guessed that. Lucinda up front, a myriad of closet cases behind her. Smell of nosy busy bodies of them.
Saint Paul approves this message
That’s enough endorsement for me!
Eamonn
He’s in it for the attention seeking nothing more.
His grinning face and the way he spoke about his defeat on the MarRef, and his creepy congratulations to the winning side, as if it were the result of a classroom vote on whether frogs or toads were better belchers was proof of that.
He’s one of the most disingenuous and despicable pillocks on this entire island.
That’s his job
Every camera lens
Every open mic
Every studio invite
Every column inch
Is a gig to his
He no more gives a ûck about it all
As soon as this particular cash cow is slaughtered he’ll move onto the next gig
I can see him now replacing Liam Doran
i don’t agree with Quinn’s worldview on much but he writes a good article and has a very valid point here.
What’s the valid point?
Vote for Renal
Û(k the rest
I think you know and are playing silly.
Why use your vote on things like public services, taxation, debt, anti-corruption, health and general competence when you can vote against sluts you’ve never met popping down for an abortion every second week to save on condoms and pills.
No, Han, I genuinely don’t know, hence the question. What has he said that is valid? All I see is paranoia and whining about things being ‘unfair’.
I don’t oft agree with you moyest but in this case I do.
Quinn makes no valid point, just a bunch of statements plucked out of his a r s e with no research to support them.
I’ve have spoken to the man with 2 pints, the man who rang FG to query his take home pay and the soldier who was asked to guard ATM machines, all of them have stated that they put social issues before economic ones so Mr Quinn is wrong.
I’ve also canvassed the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and the wicked witch of the west, they are of the same opinion.
Congratulations once again to David Quin for an excellentently scripted article.
He makes a few points and not many of them are valid.
If the point is that you can find renua candidates that are pro life and then vote for them if you are pro-life, it is I suppose a valid point. Its not much of a point, because it boils down to vote for someone who proposes your position.
The rest is nonsense.
The media are not a biased as he suggests. The media are not as biased as anyone seems to suggest.
They are not ignoring the flooding.
They are not biased towards capitalists as Dr. Mercille suggests, nor are they godless socialists as DQ and Breda suggest.
They are in general not anti-catholic or pro-catholic.
It is not unfair for a journalist to ask Lucinda or Billy Timmons about their position on abortion given that they broke from the party over that issue, it is also silly to suggest that REgaNUA have not gotten a fair shout on their economic policy.
So really his only valid point is if you want to vote for someone who is pro-life, ask candidates if they are pro-life and if they say yes, vote for them.
Good Job DQ.
“like in every democratic country, vote mainly on the basis of the economy. Only a minority will vote on the basis of social issues….if you are pro-life, and you have a Renua candidate locally, find out if they back the Eighth Amendment and if they do, then consider giving them a vote.”
I genuinely don’t see this very often but David Quinn, and Brenda or Breda or whatever her name is, are terrible people. Manipulative cretins and they’re aware of it.
*say this.
Yeah, they are vile and disgusting individuals.
For asking people to vote for a cause they believe in? How disgusting!
for sticking to a set of beliefs that have nothing to do with the betterment of their fellow humans condition, they are socio-paths and should be rubbed out.
Your first point is a matter of opinion. Your second and third points reveal how well you tolerate opinions other than your own.
The difference is that Quinn and his ilk are fighting to restrict women and their access to abortion. Now I understand that ‘abortion-on-demand’ is a phrase that people don’t like, but it equates to ‘freedom to choose’. Now you will never see someone who is pro-choice debating for a woman to actively *go* and have an abortion, to get rid of an unborn baby, healthy or not.But Quinn, Iona, Renua etc. would prefer to see other women restricted and without choice for their bodies,because of their beliefs, which have NOTHING to do with any woman’s individual decision, and should have nothing to do with her freedom to make a choice.
“Your second and third points reveal how well you tolerate opinions other than your own.”
As I’ve said more than once here this week, the ‘I have a right to my opinion’ line is usually only uttered by people with nothing to say. I tolerate opinions that are different to mine but I attack *disgusting* opinions.
Attacking what you find as “disgusting opinions” is fair and honest debate. Attacking those who hold them reduces you and your argument to a rather feeble display of unintelligent, fearful hate.
You have a right to your opinion.
Tony, we’re different people.
Mosyest, my comment was on what Condescending Nana said about “rubbing out” people who had different opinions to her.
If he cared so much about abortion he’d be stopping women leaving for the UK.
But he won’t. Because he knows his true colours would shine and he’d be seen as the anti-women scumbag he is.
Haha. Poor thing.
You just can’t trust someone with such a small face
And permanent, baked-in frown. It’s a perma-frown. He just cannot un-frown.
It’s like somebody drew a face on a balloon then inflated it more.
Maybe his face stopped growing at 10?
along with the brain…
I didn’t know he had one of those. Thought he was a conduit for some sky fairy.
He looks like Lee Mack’s stunt double.
I just think he looks like a *unt.
*unts don’t look that bad
He might be an *unt but he’s our *unt
His point seems to be that people who are obsessed with one issue keep getting asked about that issue. While people with a broader world view get asked about broader issues. Yea, that’s probably true. I have one question for him. “When will you go away, Quinn?”
That’s not really the point Mark.
Quinn is obsessed with abortion all right, but the politico’s that are constantly asked about it because they might be pro-life aren’t. He has a point.
Yeah, but he’s complaining that pro-lifers are treated as single issue candidates but then goes on to urge people to vote for them solely because of that single issue. He’s basically arguing against himself there.
+1
So Mark his point is that single issue candidates tend to be asked constantly about their single issue?
Have the electorate no shame?
I back this 100%
Voting for Regressa on social issues splits the right wing vote on economic issues. Have at it, troglodytes!
Was thinking same :)
Every cloud…….
Why give this scum the time of day? He is a moron that can’t comprehend the modern world or can’t take the fact that he is wrong about a lot of the issues he feels passionate about, his writing is ridiculous and he can only get printed in rags like the indo, the irish catholic or alive. We are better ignoring this bottom feeder then dropping down to combat his low standard opinions on how we should live our lives.
Exactly. This entire article is essentially an advert for Renua. I suspect the Independent gets a fee for publishing this toad.
+1
Breda gets published in the Irish Times virtually every Saturday
No one reads
The crap papers
Except maiden aunts
Unfortunately he has a podium, one which reaches people who listen to his hateful nonsense.
So, I’d prefer everyone keeps hacking at it until he falls off.
What about Pro-life supporters who think Renua candidates are dangerous for the economy ?
They could find another pro-life candidate. Or decide if pro-life or economic issues are more important to them.
The casual hate on BS in the name of virtue is charming. Drogg, are you a liberal? An atheist? If so you are a sterling ambassador for your people.
Being an atheist has nothing to do with anything here. Keep your church-centric bigotry inside your home and inside the church gates.
Well people seem to hate him because he has religious views- oh and a small face, oh and he’s scum vile and disgusting…. Just wondering the source of the hate and why so many share the same view. It must emirate from some standpoint and liberal atheism seems to be the common thread.
“Well people seem to hate him because he has religious views”
Bullsh1t and you know it – he is disliked because he tries to force society into being restricted by his religious views. Religious views are no one’s business but the holders, seeking to curtail my freedoms to suit his holy prejudices is the problem.
How is he trying to force anything? He is writing an opinion piece in a country with libel laws and a democracy. Where is the forcing?
He campaigns for it, with the aim of securing 51% support for denying the 49% rights and freedoms that do no affect the 51% in any event.
Same sex marriage was a case in point. If he wins, I lose. If I win, nothing changes for him. His entire politics is about restricting other people – their sex life, their love life, their reproductive choices, their right to safety in childhood, their right to an education free of superstition.
+1
And you campaign for your points of view. Thats a democracy. I dont see him reducing himself to the personal invective on here. But thats ok I guess. Its just the way of BS commentators.
Just found the Internet Tony? We’re all different people you know, and there are loads of viewpoints. It just so happens most of us think he’s a complete sap.
Yeh his comment after the Yes vote (along the lines of how he was philosophical about the result, like he had lost some dry academic arguement) made my blood boil. A no vote would have been devastating to me and so many others, and would have been such a kick in the teeth for the LGBT community. A yes vote changed nothing for him, nothing at all.
I despise his catholic 1950’s world view, his repeated attempts to influence state social policy (with no mandate from anyone), his fake “institute” and his constant media presence. Having spent years listening to lies and homophobia from him and his cronies, i feel utterly justified in my hate towards him.
“And you campaign for your points of view.”
Except his points of view aren’t being forced on anyone. David Quinn’s life has not been affected in any way by gay marriage yet he tried to stop gay people from having the right to get married.
“Thats a democracy.”
Trying to stop someone from doing something because you think it’s icky is not democracy. It’s mob rule.
Ah the comfort of the mob Bobby. Its nice to all hate together. Almost gives it a sense of virtue.
An Irish chap spoke at a neo Nazi rally in Germany recently. I suppose you think we should all respect his views and not say mean things about him, yeah?
You are well aware that you have lost the argument when you invoke the Nazis aren’t you? yourself and Drogg weren’t long reaching for the swastika…
Except I’m not invoking Nazis. I’m asking you to show consistency in your whining. You are accosting people for not showing respect on tolerance for “opposing views”. Well, Neo Nazis have an “opposing view” so what tolerance should we show them, Tony?
And as hard as it may be to understand, actually excluding these people is quite and progressive and more creates a safer and more inclusive society.
Can you make a list please Bobby? Just so we all know.
I don’t hate him because he has a small face. I do find it funny that all that lip-pursing he does about us slutty women has made his face implode. Hopefully the process continues until he is a speck on the horizon.
I hate him because he is an idiot AND he has a small face.
Hey, I said something about them being vile and disgusting. It’s not so much directed at them as individual people, it’s more about the far right wing ideological positions that formulate inside their minds, and of the minds of any other right wing bigots. So all of these people are vile and disgusting, but that’s just like, my opinion man.
I suppose it’s part and parcel of being against things like authoritarianism and fascism.
Fascism is interesting. It normally involves the curtailing of certain views and the persecution of those that hold them.
Yeah I know.
@ Tony
Holding the view that slavery is fine and dandy didn’t become ‘curtailed’ or unpopular due to fascism. Society moved on, became enlightened. Imprisoning pregnant girls, selling their babies, prosecuting gays for being gay, banning civil weddings for same sex couples, banning women’s autonomy over their own reproductive system – that’s a societal curve that’s been running for a while. None of it is fascism. It’s growing up.
He is free to have his views, we are free to mock those views. Yay democracy!
And the right to express an opposing opinion? Where do you stand on that in your upward curve?
Of course you are free to mock the views. Why don’t you Don? Ive often seen you on here calling for respect, inclusivity and other noble things. Shouldn’t you live to your own standards? Id hate to think you are a hypocrite?
Jesus Tony…. do you have a small face too? Is that it? I am sorry for your loss.
You’ll be met with a non serious response to that question, so if I may indulge my ego, there is a difference between the general principle of ‘attacking people personally for opposing views’ and attacking someone personally for a SPECIFIC view. There are people out there who think black people shouldn’t even be allowed to step foot in Ireland. Should we show respect to those racists, Tony?
Tony, quit trolling or try for a better standard of comprehension.
No-one, anywhere on this thread has suggested he has no right to express his views.
He does NOT have a right to a universal positive reaction to those views.
He has a right to offend – and does so.
He does NOT have a right to cossetted from offense at reactions to him.
You have the right to say slavery was a good thing – I’ll defend that right.
But I’ll also call you out on it – that’s MY right.
Tony what sort of cogitative process is going on inside you? They express their ‘opinions’ all the time, constantly! They’re never stopped from airing their regressive and hateful nonsense. Did you know they used to attack, I mean psychically attack the initial pro-life and gay-rights demos?
You’ve got it all backwards, trying to change the ideas in fascists heads is inclusiveness. And as hard as it may be to understand, actually excluding these people is quite and progressive and more creates a safer and more inclusive society. We actually know historically what letting these people dominate social issues leads to. Fascists aren’t a academic or social phenomenon to be looked at, they’re a bad thing that need to be dealt with.
I happily and openly live with whatever contradictions I might have in order for people, including myself, to be, or to retain some freedom and safety. When the aul Fash took over in Italy, Germany, Spain, or any other far right wing country, it was people like myself that got tortured and killed, it;s not even that long ago. So there’s also self preservation you know..
“actually excluding these people is quite and progressive and more creates a safer and more inclusive society.”
At least you are honest Bobby. if only the rest of them said that they want censorship too, we could avoid all this hoo ha and get on with our Fridays. Thanks.
*Sorry, I meant to elaborate more on the anti abortion and anti gay thugs that used to come out. Doubt Quinn was there.
No tony, for the third time, this is the Internet and we’re all different. Yes I want to stop Fascists so I don’t die and migrants get murdered etc.
You’re welcome for clarity on anti-Fascism that you could have found on Wikipedia
“if only the rest of them said that they want censorship too”
I was reading about cognitive dissonance only the other day. This is a great example of it. Everyone opposes Quinn’s disgusting views so, instead of coming up with a coherent defence of his disgusting views, or considering that there might be a reason why people refer to his disgusting views as disgusting, you tell yourself that people want to *silence* those disgusting views so you can tell yourself you have the moral high ground instead of admitting you are wrong.
No Bobby. you want to exclude peoples points of view for a more progressive society. thats what you want. Don’t be ashamed of it or trying to backtrack. You have articulated the point of many here but they would dare be as brave as you have been in saying it openly. For that, again, I thank you.
Can you not see how wrong you are here? Bobby is not attempting anything like what you describe. Hyperbole at its finest. If a person makes an inflammatory statement (and Quinn did, and knew precisely what he was doing) people will react. And given the social climate in the country at the moment, that is as inflammatory as you get. Quinn is entitled to his views, as are you, but to say that Bobby is attempting to “silence” Quinn is farcical.
Sorry Tony, I can assure you there is no backtracking.
I’ll make this clear so you can see what I’m trying to get here. I am an anti Fascist, that is, against Fascism as an idea, and against those who are proponents of said idea.
Also, I am very far from a liberal and I’m Ignostic. Sorry I don’t tick your boxes.
Though you could be one of those people that has a bad grasp of what ‘liberal’ means. Don’t worry, lots of people do.
Don, I expect better. Please answer me- how do you reconcile how you call on others to behave re tolerance etc, with your own behaviour in attacking people personally for opposing views? Its called being hypocritical.
I expect better too Tony but what can you do except be massively sanctimonious online?
is it really that difficult to explain yourself? As for being sanctimonious, I have nothing on you Don. Its not that easy to reconcile your call for tolerance when you openly engage in ad-hominem attacks on those that have opposing views is it? Hardly the model for tolerance is it? or is it ok?
Tony, if someone came out saying there’s nothing wrong with marrying 12 year olds, should we show tolerance and respect for that “view”?
Ooo get you!!!
Ha ha ha Tony you are such the David Quinn supporter if he attacks women seeking abortion, gay people or people who hold different beliefs he is virtuous, but when i call him a moron because of his idiotic and moronic world view its suddenly an attack.
Say anything you like about the view. Thats my point. However if the view the person is expressing is legal (which your example isn’t) then in a free country, that person is entitled to that view and should not be subjected to a mob hate for having it. unless th mob doesn’t care about freedom of speech, democracy and the right to ones name.
Bobby has spoken for you all
“actually excluding these people is quite and progressive and more creates a safer and more inclusive society”..
All hail Bobby.
What are you seriously saying that because abortion is not legal in this country because of backwards thinking morons like Quinn we can’t call him out for keeping it illegal? Do you even see what you are writing? you have caught yourself in a loop.
Tony, answer the question please. You have been looking down your nose at everyone in the thread, laughably trying to take the moral high ground and accusing people of not tolerating an “opposing view”. If someone came out and said there’s nothing wrong with marrying 12 year olds, should we show that “opposing view” tolerance and respect? I’m simply asking you to keep to the standards that YOU have set. Why can’t you do that? Is it because you have no integrity?
I answered it there moyest
Ok, so, for the record, Tony thinks we shouldn’t attack pedophiles and show tolerance for their views. Thanks for admitting it, Tony. It’s probably time for a new username now.
I speak for all! Sorry about the mistakes on behalf of everyone..
Paedophilia is illegal Moyest. Read my answer again. What Quinn is doing is totally legal. But not surprised that you have introduced paedohilia and tried to insinuate my tolerance of it. par for the course.
Sure, it’s illegal NOW but if someone got a public platform to say there’s actually nothing wrong with pedophilia, you’ll be giving out to anyone who shouts at him, right? You’ll be telling everyone that we should ‘tolerate’ his ‘opposing views’, right?
What about Muslims who want Sharia in Ireland, Tony. If someone got a piece published in the Indo calling for Muslims to take over Ireland, you’ll be saying that he shouldn’t be attacked for that view, right?
@Bobby – with great power comes great responsibility. Use it wisely Oh Great and Glorious One
*cues fanfare*
Sorry to disappoint you Moyest. I said “if it was legal”.
I think you are a bobby man
actually excluding these people is quite and progressive and more creates a safer and more inclusive society.
Do you agree with Bobby Don?
“Sorry to disappoint you Moyest. I said “if it was legal”.”
And taking to a public platform to simply *say*, to just give an opinion, that pedophilia is actually fine, is not illegal. So, you’ll be supporting folks who want to just *say* that there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia, right? Why is that, Tony?
Because it is illegal, as is racism, slander, libel and so many other things. But what Quinn is saying is not illegal, so why are you conflating paedophillia, nazism, sharia law and racism with an opinion on something legal written in a paper? Or do you always reach for hyperbole when cornered?
Saying *anything* is not illegal, Tony. You made your bed here. I’m asking you to either get in it, or admit *to yourself* that you made it wrong. You’re whole shtick here is Quinn shouldn’t be attacked for having “an opposing view”. That applies to everything. Pedos, racists, thieves, everything. You can’t defend what he says so you try and make out that people have *no right* to attack him. It’s YOU who opposes free speech here.
I have always said that to attack views is fine, in fact i applaud it. but to attack a man is for having those views is contemptible and the sign of intolerance, bigotry and ignorance. Its even worse when it is bathed in the glow of virtuousness worn by so many on here. That is all.
So if someone had a column published in the Indo and said there’s nothing wrong with marrying children or that we should use black children for slave labour to help our ailing economy, you’ll be getting on your high horse if anyone says he’s an arse for thinking and publishing that opinion?
“However if the view the person is expressing is legal (which your example isn’t) then in a free country, that person is entitled to that view and should not be subjected to a mob hate for having it. unless th mob doesn’t care about freedom of speech, democracy and the right to ones name.”
You’re fairly nimbly dancing around the question.
A view can only be opposed if it’s illegal to utter such a view? It’s not illegal to say the age of consent should be lowered to 12 – that’s not an instance of proscribed speech, libel, slander or anything. You won’t get a knock on the door from the guards for saying it, just as it wasn’t illegal when gays campaigned for the age of consent for same-sex sex to be brought down from 21 to the same (17) as straights.
Does that, perfectly legal, view and the person expressing it deserve respect, tolerance and respectful discourse?
Both those are illegal. Why dont you try the nazi pedophile line again?
Publishing newspaper columns to give your opinion that they are fine is NOT illegal, Tony. So, you’ll be giving out to anyone who attacks someone who says we should use black children as slave labour, yeah?
So by your reasoning it is ok to attack a person for having a point of view about something that is legal? how does this fit in with tolerance and freedom of expression. Do you not see that people would be afraid to express themselves for fear of being attacked? you’re getting pretty close to bobby there….
Em, sorry moyest. using black children (or any child) as a slave is illegal. You are becoming quite tiresome. Want to try muslims? or gay people? Or travellers?
FFS.
Getting married to someone of the same sex was illegal six months ago – expressing a viewpoint in favour of something that is currently not legal isn’t a generic, catch-all way to avoid the question.
Attack the view, not the man. That is all.
So Tony, if someone SAYS pedophilia SHOULDN’T be illegal, and someone calls him a bad person for saying it, you’ll be giving out to that someone and telling them to tolerate his views and show him respect, right?
Yawn.
I’ll take non response as proof that you have no valid response because you know you’re wrong but you can’t admit it.
Sorry Moyest. you’re not as clever as some of the others on here, and thats ok. But stop trying to be like them. Its doesn’t suit you x
Did you just attack me personally? LOL.
This is gold
Fine,I’ll make the popcorn this time.
Tony quit trying to silence Moyest!
Source of my “hate” as you call it…..
…..is the fact that he himself lies consistently to make his points, misquoting research and making up research, and smirks when found out (no one of integrity would do that).
He misleads the people he speaks to. And even carries a disclaimer on his site to avoid being called on it.
He sits atop a lobby group posing as a charity and so cheats us all out of tax payments that should be made.
Refuses to register with SIPO.
Hides accounts of IONA from inspection because it’d be found to be funded mostly from abroad (which would result in he and the other IONA liars not getting anywhere near half the media time they currently do)
He’s a dogmatic propagandist of the RCC.
An apologist for the RCC.
…I could go on…..
I really like Tony
Hate? Hate is devoting your life to restricting the freedoms and choice of other people, trying to force society into the narrow, regressive box you’re confined in.
Calling him names is pretty harmless in that context. This is a religious fundamentalist working tirelessly to drag us back to the days of no women’s rights, no LGBT rights, no children’s rights.
He has a point of view. Surely the best way is to convince more people to have an opposite one. Thats of course if your respect peoples right to have an opposing point of view. Do you?
His point of view involves the restriction of liberty for everyone but straight, catholic men. Ironic.
I respect everyone’s right to have an opposing point of view.
That’s completely different to respecting that point of view. People have the right to believe in child-sacrifice, I have a right to find that disgusting and dangerous.
If your respect his right to have a point of view, do you approve of the ad-hominem attacks on here and the terms used?
My reaction is ‘meh’.
He’s hurt a lot of people over the years with his dog-whistling and dismissal of the validity of living a life different to his world-view – I don’t blame anyone for having a bit of a slag. Christ knows we’re exposed to his crap enough.
He has the right to have a point of view as i have the right to ridicule and lambast him for sticking such a view in peoples faces.
I would respect an honest point of view.
David Quinn, Breda, IONA all lie and do not have honest points of view. That’s why they carry a disclaimer on their website, so they can mislead, misinterpret and make up stuff to convince people to see things their way.
It’s not a “point of view” he’s putting across, it”s dogmatic propaganda and lies. And that deserves no respect.
How come so many of you respond with the “we”??? Who are you referring to as “we” ahjayzis? Right thinking people? Or the BS massive?
By ‘we’ I of course meant my retinue of courtiers and attendants. I thought that was obvious.
Why did you put three question marks after your question? Please, delve into that mystery for us. It’s really pertinent. Is it because you think your question is a triple-priority? Is it a reference to the Trinity?
Nice cover up ;-)
Tones, I think we can all see who’s covering up. Pivoting to irrelevant, pedantic questions over word use is the tactic of someone with nothing further to add to a sinking argument.
I know. You dont like it when you are questioned about the obvious gap between your call for tolerance from others and the naked display of intolerance you show on here.
But Bobby has spoken-
actually excluding these people is quite and progressive and more creates a safer and more inclusive society.
Do you agree?
I’ll repeat myself the once for you in shorter sentences;
You can express any opinion you like.
I can express any opinion I like in response.
You can offend me.
I can offend you back.
Reciprocal rights to freedom of expression. You do understand that, right?
And no, I don’t agree. Quinn’s predecessors in the fundamentalist catholic tribe excluded and persecuted people like me for millennia. I’m better than that, let his abhorrent views have the full oxygen of publicity.
Quickly, stop talking about Quinn and talk about this sentence I wrote. Context not needed.
Well done ahjaysis. Maybe we agree. I only joined this thread because I saw people writing hateful stuff about a columnist rather than deal with his points of view. I expect this on the journal where people make no pretensions of being tolerant. But here on BS where tolerance and inclusivity and diversity are championed with ferocious passion, I am constantly surprised to see the glee in hating individuals and competing to have the basest insult. Sad that discussion must be reduced to people hating.
There’s nothing wrong with hating wanna be fascists that want to bully and impose their personal morality on everyone else. He has nothing valid to say, just like the Irish neo Nazi who spoke at a German rally during the week.
Nazis and pedophiles…. dont you think thats a bit OTT? or si that your usual goto?
Tony you’re confusing tolerance with respect and general niceness.
I don’t respect, like or have any intention of being nice to Quinn or his beliefs, he doesn’t respect or like me or mine.
Toleration is not opposing the basic existence of something. We tolerate each other in the sense that we’re not trying to kill or silence each other.
I’m talking about OPINIONS, Tony. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Some people have an OPINION that foreigners should be second class citizens. Some people have an OPINION that gay people shouldn’t be married or that women shouldn’t allowed to control their own bodies.
I presume you ask yourself the same question when Breda and David use the royal “we”.
They use it to speak for all Catholics here in Ireland. They are an independent lobby group who claim to represent Catholics but have no remit from the people they purport to represent.
Please ensure you ask the same question of all the IONA liars Tony.
‘ambassador for your people’
I wish I could make a tut noise at you.
I’d hardly call myself a liberal, i am generally of the opinion that gay married couples can protect their marijuana plants and and rights to bodily autonomy with large calibre weapons. But as you ask yes i am an atheist, no i don’t want to discuss my lack of beliefs and no i don’t want to discuss your beliefs. David Quinn is no more virtuous then Hitler or Stalin, he is a fascist bigot that can’t comprehend change or the modern world, i don’t care what religion he is from what i care about is the fact that he thinks i and everyone else should live to his small minded ideals.
Here is a small definition for you.
fascism
ˈfaʃɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; More
antonyms: democracy, liberalism
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
“this is yet another example of health fascism in action”
“David Quinn is no more virtuous then Hitler or Stalin……”
That’s a jaw-dropingly over the top statement. Even if you dislike the man and everything he says and does.
It confirms his regular remarks concerning the type of crazy abuse he gets for offering an opinion in a democracy.
But its not an opinion on democracy, he actively hates democracy because it is actively changing the protected world of white catholic male, i stick by my viewpoint and he still is not virtuous.
You are ridiculous.
Drogg, that is sad.
Coming from you two that is a complement and tony would you like to expand on why that is sad?
He actively hates democracy? As evidenced by his opinion piece on the upcoming election?
I’m not sure you’ve thought this through at all Drogg.
No, not because “it’s evidenced by his opinion piece on the upcoming election?” but “because it is actively changing the protected world of white catholic male”. It’s right there in the post you responded to. Happy to help.
Thanks i hate repeating myself.
Its sad Drogg, because you had to reach for hitler so early in the discussion. To be so limited in your armoury is sad.
Its not limited i like referring to Hitler anytime i here the idiotic statements coming from Quinn and his supporters because they compare so easily, i am a big fan of Godwins Law.
What’s he said that makes you think he’s no better than Hitler Drogg?
I never said he was no better then hitler i said he was no more virtuous then hitler, but since you ask his support for the Magdalene Laundries where the systematic abuse, slave labour and murder of un-virtuous women has a very similar comparison to what Hitler was into.
Can you provide a link to where he’s supported those things Drogg? Where he’s been all hitleresque and supporting murder.
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/proportionate-view-magdalen-laundries
Thanks Drogg. I’ve read through that and can’t seem to find any support for abuse, slavery or murder. It all seems pretty reasoned. Did you maybe link to the wrong article?
Maybe you could quote the passage(s) that make you think he’s worse/no more virtuous than Hitler or Stalin?
He said that Quinn supported the Magadeline Laundries where slavery and murder took place. It’s right there in the post you’re responding to. This is the second time you’ve done this on the thread. Do you actually read the posts or are you a bit simple?
I’m very simple Moyest. I can’t quite see how David Quinn is worse than Adolf Hitler.
Maybe you could help explain it to me?
Clearly you’re very simple because nobody said he was worse than Hitler. Good God.
No. Drogg just said:
“David Quinn is no more virtuous than Hitler or Stalin…..”
You can see how you’re needed to help explain that one to me.
Yeah, saying he’s “no more virtuous” than Hitler does not mean he’s “worse than” Hitler. It’s not even close to meaning that. Seriously, I’m not even joking, that’s incredible.
Except that it is Moyest.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtuous
It’s not even got to do with the word, virtuous. ‘No better than’ does not mean ‘worse than’. Seriously. Jesus.
But the meaning of virtuous, and how it didn’t mean “worse than” was the exact point you raised.
You’re a rogue Moyest.
Wow. I mean, you assume you’re speaking to sane, rational adults when you’re here but then you find yourself in exchanges like this. I *actually* scratched my head in confusion reading that. Holy crap.
Your words Moyest:
“…saying he’s “no more virtuous” than Hitler does not mean he’s “worse than” Hitler.”
You don’t understand basic English. I get it. You don’t need to underline the fact.
Saint Paul would like to douse both of you in holy urine
Just sayin
Oh god make it stop.
Newsjustin, I accept you’re being earnest. The other fella, well, he just can’t help himself. Hopefully he’ll see it eventually.
He doesn’t offer opinion, he offers his dogma, backed up with lies.
I’m going to have a ball
Aren’t I
David Quinn wants pro-life voters to vote for pro-life candidates. Well I never!
In other news, Pope confirms his status as a lifelong catholic.
But what what he also kinda said that some candidates might be pro- life and not declare it to the electorate cause they want to appear more concerned about other policy issues. Like USC. Housing. Transport. Healthcare. And all the other stuff they can talk about and answer with a shoulder shrug.
And that pro- choicer Candidates have nothing else on their manifestos.
Sum up
Pro Lifers have far more interesting and relevant issues for the voter. So vote for them.
Pro Choice Candidates are single issue that is wasted on male voters and females over 45.
That’s not actually what he said at all.
That’s not what he said at all.
That’s what I read
Give Ulysses a miss so :)
Where did he say, or even suggest, that pro-choice candidates were single issue? (For one thing….)
Hey
Note this now
And note it well
If David Quinn and others like him,
Be they legally, financially or personally connected to him,
Or in anyway endorse/ fund the activities and utterances of the very same,
Are in the practice of lashing sh1te out there to see what sticks
Then so can I
Haha.
Fair play Frilly.
Back at ya NT
This is the retardation and polarisation of political discourse in Ireland – so-called LIberal vs.so-called Conservative, it dumbs down any nuance to two opposing intractable worldviews, the falsely important, contrived debates will takeover the airwaves to the detriment of every other important issue facing us that needs to be discussed. See. I just wasted a whole minute typing this comment about this self-important clown and his so-called ‘institute’.
This!
Bodger: “I quite fancy a half day today”
Chompsky: “Has David Quinn anything in the Indo there?”
Comment of the day, this actually made me laugh out load at my desk.
Ew
Dammit pornhub.
Less jerky while you worky yeah?
hahahaha
Brilliant Mikey!
Saint Paul fancies them swilling their double decaf skinny chai mint lattes
Ha!
Classic, fexer.
*giggle*
Haha :)
Only a minority will vote on the basis of social issues.
This is the really interesting quote he has , I sort of thought we might get a few opinions on it, but instead as usual people have made themselves feel better by pointing out how much better they are than this guy.
I’m not sure he’s correct with the statement, I’d guess that it changes depending on the prevailing political climate. Certainly both sides of the abortion debate are doing their utmost to make it an election issue. I suspect that the electorate might have bigger fish to fry though and he might be right in this case.
I dunno
I think he’s using “the electorate have much more intelligent issues on their minds than this 8th amendment liberal thingy” as a decoy
Single issue candidates have gotten elected from one hospital closure to the next barracks deployment to anti water charges to legalising weed
And the biggest turnouts in the last century were for single issue plebiscites
Get back to basics folks
This is Iona’s bread and butter
Without this issue
Iona is not a going concern
And he’s redundant
Its about the money
Real FG or Progressive Regressive, you decide.
In all honesty, Renua are probably better off hiding behind their pro-life credentials than their economic policies.
Ha!
I thought Lucinda had written off repeal of 8th as a non-issue for her party
She made the whole party do a show of hands on it… on that, I commend her. No whip used.
I think the point is that it’s not a party issue, but she’s letting her members go with their own conscience.
Because abortion and gay rights are moral issues.
Whereas the blind pension, bereavement grants, A&E closures, deliberate understaffing of police are purely fiscal, academic issues.
Simple rule for remembering;
– Other people’s sex lives = serious moral issue
– Everything else = pounds, shillings and pence, vote as your told then go fix the potholes.
All the more reason why the Mná Na .ie should be left alone and allowed look after their own wholes
From the article: “The other issue that grabbed attention was its flat-tax policy… This topic is way outside my field so I simply can’t say who is closer to the mark.”
Do you know what other topic is way outside your field, Dave? Being pregnant.
*applause*
*Does a little curtsey in gratitude*
Nice one, Daisy
Excellent Daisy.
The BS commentators are on the ball this mornng
Choked on my quinoa laughing at this :D
+1
Elderflower cordial everywhere.
does he not realise how transparent his manipulations are?! election hasn’t even started and they’re already pulling the bullying-victim card to avoid being asked about topics that voters actually care about
My read of it is that he’s saying the majority of the voters don’t care about the abortion issue actually.
polls say otherwise
Ask the english labour party what the polls say.
or why even go that far, check the polls before the SSM referendum.
His entire argument is based on his claim that “journalists will incessantly ask a politician who is socially conservative about issues like abortion”. Nowhere does he attempt to demonstrate that this claim is true. Repeal of the 8th is a hot topic at the moment so it is likely to come up over the election and parties are sure to be asked their opinion or stance on it when it comes to launching manifestoes. Asking politicians about topical issues is part of a journalist’s job.
Boiled down his argument is that they (the media, which he is part of, and the 95% of the electorate that don’t vote on social issues) are all out to get him and his fellow travellers and only a few leading lights in Renua can be trusted with a vote.
Amazing how David Quinn comes out and insults people of his own faith.
He seems to believe that practicing catholic women will ditch the faith and rush to book volume discounted abortions through Groupon or something.
Have some faith in your own supporters, man. Your berating of your own is disgusting.
+1
The question of repealing the 8th ammendtment will have to go to a referendum anyway. Is he scared that the pro life argument won’t be strong enough to sway it when it’s put to the people?
In Tom Waits song “Lucinda” Lucinda I’m pretty sure was the Devil.
So I’m taking that as an indicator that Lucinda is the Devil and REgaNUA are the devils party.
This is the 2nd long haul thread I’ve gotten meself inta this week
Which is against my norm
But
And I’m putting this here now
As it seems the best location
2 items for the 2016 planner
Whatever game plan and strategy Iona and their connections adopt. So will I. And I won’t be as polite. So expect to be offended
Every candidate I chance on
And any currently elected
Or nominated
MEP TD CllR Senator
Will be asked are the Pro Life
Or Pro Choice
And I will name them and their party and constituency
And any other info
If Broadsheet or anyone else want to host that as a public record. Great
If not.
Follow me on Twitter to stay informed
@frillykeane
Frilly, certain advocacy groups are already working on such a list. Let me know if you want to collaborate.
Are they looking for poets?
Hi Lorcan.
Course I do. PM me there.
I’m not on twitter myself but I’ll let the guys know
“Follow me on Twitter to stay informed
@frillykeane”
lol
I hope they all have media savviness and block you.. lol
Just wondering, are your tweets written in verse too?
How do you overcome the 140 characters for the poems?
Ah here. Sort out your meds would ya.
Just messin’ with ya Frilly, you’re a tad off your rocker, so it’s hard not to laugh sometimes.
I suppose all these tweets will be relayed back here will they?
But cmere, if you want broadsheet to let you put up a few posts, why don’t you try having some manners towards them like? They’re pretty obliging it seems to me.
I sent in a crumpet that looks like Ireland once.. your stuff might have a chance. :)
Meself and BSHQ get along just fine
So Iona, are advocating a vote for Renua? Oh dear. That’s Renua down to 0.5% so.