Comical Lenny

hotmail.com

Anyone else listen to the Finance Minister on the News at One repeating his usual deluded nonsense about it not being the government's fault and crisis, what crisis, sure we're grand. Not to mention some of his famous one liners

October 2008 on the bank guarantee:

" It's the cheapest bank bail out in history"

Budget speech in December 2009:

"We've turned a corner"

He admitted that he didn't read a report about a controversial deposit of €7 billion in Anglo Irish Bank.

The budget adjustment for 2011 was meant to be 3 billion, but now it's 6 billion. I could go on.

Through all of this, confidence in Ireland's ability to pay it's bill drops to record levels.

Like many others, I've reached the conclusion that Brian Lenihan is just a spoofer, that frankly hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He's a barrister after all, finance is not his expertise.

Anyway, I would like to start a campaign to assign a nickname to Lenihan. Comical Lenny seems like the obvious one of course, I've also heard of Laughable Lenny. Has anyone got any other suggestions?

PanchoVilla

He knows what he's talking about. He has all the facts and knows exactly what this will cost the country. He's just lying through his teeth. The government believes if the break the news slowly it will prevent people from going apeshít. I'm starting to think it's working. This country has been sold out from under us and I just don't think people get it yet. By the time they do understand, it will probably be too late. Ireland will be made to suffer so that bond holders in Europe won't have to. And they said slavery was abolished in 1833. :rolleyes:

hotmail.com

PanchoVilla wrote: »

He knows what he's talking about. He has all the facts and knows exactly what this will cost the country. He's just lying through his teeth. The government believes if the break the news slowly it will prevent people from going apeshít. I'm starting to think it's working. This country has been sold out from under us and I just don't think people get it yet. By the time they do understand, it will probably be too late. Ireland will be made to suffer so that bond holders in Europe won't have to. And they said slavery was abolished in 1833. :rolleyes:

I agree with that too. Any nicknames suggestions? Hoping we find a nickname on this site and a journalists uses it and it becomes huge!

PanchoVilla

hotmail.com wrote: »

I agree with that too. Any nicknames suggestions? Hoping we find a nickname on this site and a journalists uses it and it becomes huge!

Lyin' Brian, Lyin' Lenny...

Edit: "The Lie-fe of Brian" for our Daily Mail and Sun/Star readers.

jmayo

As one of his long time, sorry make that always, critics I have noticed his defenders have not been as prominent of late.
Hell they must know the game is up and all the spin won't change the facts his tenure in finance has been one long continous list of cockups, each one out doing the previous one in terms of the negative impact on the Irish state and it's people.

He is a purveyor of untruths so is it any wonder he elquently voiced his approval of wee willie o'dea.
Birds of a feather and all that.

ROS123

Correct me if I am wrong (likely) What A Merkel was talking about negotiating was debt that was not the taxpayers fault. German and other big banks took a punt on Anglo and Allied Irish and so why should we, the taxpayers pay. We will of course repay money borrowed to run this country to pay the budget deficit.

Is there a difference between paying back that and what the Banks owe.

cdb

This sums it up pretty well



Taken from 'you laugh you lose' thread here

DeVore

I'm Brian and so is my wife!

DeV.

Mr.Micro

As many have said the full extent of the crisis has not been forthcoming. With a few comforting noises from the G20 today the Bond rates have eased to 8.5%, how long that will last is another story. Ireland is the laughing stock and we will all have to take the medicine whether we were prudent or not. Lenny has made so many gaffes now that he is close to par with Calamity.

flutered

lie- nehan

NewHillel

hotmail.com wrote: »

Anyway, I would like to start a campaign to assign a nickname to Lenihan. Comical Lenny seems like the obvious one of course, I've also heard of Laughable Lenny. Has anyone got any other suggestions?

Patriot, perhaps?

Despite, his obvious ill health he has stayed the course, when lesser politicians would have taken "the package", and moved on. Regardless of how this turns out, he has given his all to try and stave off disaster. He's an example to politicians of every hue.

hotmail.com

NewHillel wrote: »

Patriot, perhaps?

Despite, his obvious ill health he has stayed the course, when lesser politicians would have taken "the package", and moved on. Regardless of how this turns out, he has given his all to try and stave off disaster. He's an example to politicians of every hue.

What does his ill health have to do with anything? Completely irrelevant.

Stave off disaster - what evidence have you got for that? Because all I see is disastrous decisions and inaccurate predictions. (and downright lying).

Liam Byrne

NewHillel wrote: »

Patriot, perhaps?

Despite, his obvious ill health he has stayed the course, when lesser politicians would have taken "the package", and moved on. Regardless of how this turns out, he has given his all to try and stave off disaster. He's an example to politicians of every hue.

I'm sick of people dragging up his ill health! He's either able for the job or he's not.

And he's not, but it has nothing to do with his health.

oppenheimer1

I personally believe hes tried his best in what are very difficult circumstances.

mickos

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I personally believe hes tried his best in what are very difficult circumstances.

His best is nowhere near good enough.

NewHillel

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm sick of people dragging up his ill health!

In the context of a thread trying to denigrade the man, his health is of clear relevance.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

He's either able for the job or he's not.

And he's not, but it has nothing to do with his health.

I agree that his ability to do "the job" should be assesed independently from his state of health. I also agree that his track record has been patchy. There is no evidence to suggest that others, from any party, could have done better, given the unique set of circumstances.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I personally believe hes tried his best in what are very difficult circumstances.

I agree.

thebman

Lenihan's biggest problem is that despite his ill health, he is doing what he believes needs to be done to save the party then the people.

He is doing his best but his best to save FF from complete destruction not his best for the Irish people.

NewHillel

thebman wrote: »

Lenihan's biggest problem is that despite his ill health, he is doing what he believes needs to be done to save the party then the people.

He is doing his best but his best to save FF from complete destruction not his best for the Irish people.

That's a pretty cynical view that, despite my antipathy toward FF, I don't share.

Liam Byrne

NewHillel wrote: »

In the context of a thread trying to denigrade the man, his health is of clear relevance.

I would have viewed it as a thread detailing the impression that his incompetent work performance has given people, and therefore anything personal is irrelevant, be it home life or health or pastimes.

The guy is incompetent and lies. Fact.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would have viewed it as a thread detailing the impression that his incompetent work performance has given people, and therefore anything personal is irrelevant, be it home life or health or pastimes.

The guy is incompetent and lies. Fact.

Thats a big statement. Can you provide us with evidence? (Real evidence and not sweeping opinion please)

gimme5minutes

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Thats a big statement. Can you provide us with evidence? (Real evidence and not sweeping opinion please)

Eh, every statement he has made along the way over the last two years has turned out to be false. It's been all over the papers for the last few weeks. There's your evidence.

gandalf

On a personal level I really sympathise with Brian Lenihan. He really should have walked away and fought his cancer in private. It probably would have improved his prognosis and the countries as well.

Professionally as the Minister for Finance he has been an absolute disaster. His proclamations like the infamous one where he stated "we had turned the corner" have been proven to be totally false. Either he was so incompetent that he actually believed that or he was lying purposely to mask the reality of the situation which has become apparent. Neither of those possibilities bode well for our Finance minister when we as a country face the most challenging times that we have ever faced in the nearly 100 years of our existence as a sovereign state.

CrankyCod

Can you provide us with evidence? (Real evidence and not sweeping opinion please)

Here's some evidence for ya: the fact that the yield on Irish bonds has eased back to a rate that would have been viewed as catastophic a year ago.

The fact that Lenihan guaraneted the banks "unconditionally and irrevocably" without bothering to carry out due diligence.

I could go on but I'm too busy stockpiling tinned food...

oppenheimer1

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Eh, every statement he has made along the way over the last two years has turned out to be false. It's been all over the papers for the last few weeks. There's your evidence.

He is a man who is careful with his words. For them to be lies they would have to have been untrue statements at the time and he would have had to have known what he was saying was untrue.

Saying what you believe something to be and it turning out otherwise is different from lying. The knowing intent to deceive is key and I've seen nothing in the press showing this.

As I said if the dept of finance get a projection wrong its different from the minister lying.

oppenheimer1

gandalf wrote: »

On a personal level I really sympathise with Brian Lenihan. He really should have walked away and fought his cancer in private. It probably would have improved his prognosis and the countries as well.

Professionally as the Minister for Finance he has been an absolute disaster. His proclamations like the infamous one where he stated "we had turned the corner" have been proven to be totally false. Either he was so incompetent that he actually believed that or he was lying purposely to mask the reality of the situation which has become apparent. Neither of those possibilities bode well for our Finance minister when we as a country face the most challenging times that we have ever faced in the nearly 100 years of our existence as a sovereign state.

At the time the economy had stabilised and the projections for world growth were positive. He had every reason to believe things were going to improve. He cannot be blamed for following afterwards that global sentiment nosedived again

gimme5minutes

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

He is a man who is careful with his words. For them to be lies they would have to have been untrue statements at the time and he would have had to have known what he was saying was untrue.

Saying what you believe something to be and it turning out otherwise is different from lying. The knowing intent to deceive is key and I've seen nothing in the press showing this.

As I said if the dept of finance get a projection wrong its different from the minister lying.

He has got it so BADLY wrong so many times at this stage that he is either lying when he comes out with one of his BS statements or he is ridiculously incompetent. Par for the course when it comes to the FFail party.

oppenheimer1

gimme5minutes wrote: »

He has got it so BADLY wrong so many times at this stage that he is either lying when he comes out with one of his BS statements or he is ridiculously incompetent. Par for the course when it comes to the FFail party.

Incompetence is subjective and you're entitled to your opinion. Lying isn't however and I asked you to provide evidence yet you could only provide opinion.

thebman

NewHillel wrote: »

That's a pretty cynical view that, despite my antipathy toward FF, I don't share.

Its not really when you look behind the words to how the country has been run for the past two years.

We are two years down the line, we have ballooned our deficit and during this time massive public sector reform was required and none of it has been achieved.

What FF and Lenihan have done, is continue with business as usual which required unsustainable borrowing or a turn around in the economy of a level only achievable if this was a fairy tale.

We are in this crisis two years, Peter Matthews and others knew at the start how large the problems were in Irish banks and the rough figures on how much the state would require to bail them out. It would be foolish to think the government was not aware roughly of the size of the problem.

When the bank guarantee was given, the government knew the taxpayer was on the hook for billions. Within weeks, they could see our economy (and the tax take) collapsing. At that point exactly, public sector reforms which were already required (long overdue) should have begun. Why wait two years? For a laugh?

No because FF wanted to hold power for as long as possible is the only logical answer TBH. FF have survived on a property boom and not rocking the boat in Irish politics. Thinking since everything appeared okay, they should avoid making any major decisions that might affect their popularity. Even to this day, Lenihan and this government wait until alarm bells are ringing and we are at an all hands on deck, brace for impact stage before making any decisions on any issues.

Its either in an attempt to keep the government up and avoid election (which it clearly is) and FF facing the people which could destroy the party or it is gross incompetence on a size never before witnessed in this country.

hotmail.com

NewHillel wrote: »

In the context of a thread trying to denigrade the man, his health is of clear relevance.

Why can't Lenihan supporters make an argument about his performance as Finance Minister without raising the issue of his health.

It's only his supporters that have decided to raise the matter. I cannot see how it is relevant in the slightest to the topic at hand. His detractors have not made any personal attacks or made fun of his ill health. So can we have a debate about Lenihan without mentioning his health.

It's clear that Lenihan has struggled in the position as Finance Minister and has been shown up on numerous occasions. We're about to seek outside help in the form of a humiliating bailout, enough said about his work in the past two and a half years.

CoalBucket

I am not a fan of the man at all and I don't feel he is up to the job at all. As a minister for finance he has demonstrated complete ineptitude. Time after time his statements have proved erroneous and at times drastically wrong.

I wouldn't say that he is a liar. I don't have the proof to say it.

What I would say is that if he is the honest and moral man that FF supporters claim he is, he should resign.

That FF supporters view him as the leading light in the government shows how much trouble the government and by default the country is in.

flutered

as some one who has oncology problems, i can readily say i have trouble dealing with day to day issues, never mind trying to run the finances of a country, any one who claim othewise is talking complete and utter bolxix

Liam Byrne

flutered wrote: »

as some one who has oncology problems, i can readily say i have trouble dealing with day to day issues, never mind trying to run the finances of a country, any one who claim othewise is talking complete and utter bolxix

No-one's saying otherwise! What we are saying is that it's irrelevant.

Either he can do the job (with or without the ill-health) or he can't.

Track record shows that he can't.

I don't know whether or not the ill-health is a factor in why he can't, and it's not my place to say.

All I know is that he's in a position of key importance to this country and he's made massive errors in every decision made.

Would he have made those in full health ? I suspect so, but I can't say for definite.

It's up to him to decide whether to blame the illness for his crap judgement calls, and I wouldn't begrudge him if he did call it a day.

But continuing to "do" a job (and get paid well for said job) that he obviously can't do is wrong, and - as I said - that statement would apply even if he weren't sick.

NewHillel

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would have viewed it as a thread detailing the impression that his incompetent work performance has given people, and therefore anything personal is irrelevant, be it home life or health or pastimes.

The guy is incompetent and lies. Fact.

The thread was started as "a campaign to assign a nickname to Lenihan". It is personal and offers little positive in terms of political debate.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The guy is incompetent and lies. Fact.

The matter of Brian Lenihans competence is a matter of opinon and a legitimate matter of debate. A statement that he lies, in the absence of compelling evidence, is no more than a political slur. It ranks alongside Willie O'Dea's infamous comments that were, rightly, condemned here on Boards. (If you don't have such evidence you should have the good grace to withdraw the accusation.)

flutered

NewHillel wrote: »

The thread was started as "a campaign to assign a nickname to Lenihan".
as i already said LIE-NEHAN, liveing up to, and proving it more and more, each passing day.

Liam Byrne

NewHillel wrote: »

The thread was started as "a campaign to assign a nickname to Lenihan". It is personal and offers little positive in terms of political debate.

Well I don't comment on personal stuff, and don't subscribe to the pop culture of writing someone off - or on - based on non-work-related crap. For example when Cowengate happened I stated that I couldn't care less if he was an alcoholic as long as he did his job.

The matter of Brian Lenihans competence is a matter of opinon and a legitimate matter of debate. A statement that he lies, in the absence of compelling evidence, is no more than a political slur. It ranks alongside Willie O'Dea's infamous comments that were, rightly, condemned here on Boards. (If you don't have such evidence you should have the good grace to withdraw the accusation.)

There's plenty of evidence unless the guy is completely deluded! Blaming Lehman's, shooting messengers.

Interesting that you raise O'Dea, too, because Lenihan voted confidence in him! Another reason why he's not credible.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I don't comment on personal stuff, and don't subscribe to the pop culture of writing someone off - or on - based on non-work-related crap. For example when Cowengate happened I stated that I couldn't care less if he was an alcoholic as long as he did his job.


There's plenty of evidence unless the guy is completely deluded! Blaming Lehman's, shooting messengers.

Thats an opinion or yours Liam. You called him a liar so come on show us the evidence you have that he knowingly mislead the public. Either that or retract the remark.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Thats an opinion or yours Liam. You called him a liar so come on show us the evidence you have that he knowingly mislead the public. Either that or retract the remark.

I will let the evidence speak for itself.

If someone misleads you once or twice, then you can give them the benefit of the doubt.

If they do so repeatedly, then they no longer have credibility.

boards.ie is a place for discussion and opinion, and the above is my opinion based on examination of his track record.

I have the same opinion of the many FF members who say they conveniently "didn't remember" something; I don't believe them.

So you're entitled to a different opinion, but I have no reason to retract or change mine.

I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but if they repeatedly give you reason to question it and insist on secrecy then they forego that.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that he really, really thought that Lehman's was to blame for our crisis ?

It's not my fault that Lenihan has zero credibility.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I will let the evidence speak for itself.

If someone misleads you once or twice, then you can give them the benefit of the doubt.

If they do so repeatedly, then they no longer have credibility.

boards.ie is a place for discussion and opinion, and the above is my opinion based on examination of his track record.

I have the same opinion of the many FF members who say they conveniently "didn't remember" something; I don't believe them.

So you're entitled to a different opinion, but I have no reason to retract or change mine.

But you called him a liar, a statement that must be based in fact. It has been noted that you cannot provide evidence to back up your claim. I imagine you'd be pretty annoyed if someone called you a liar without supporting evidence.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But you called him a liar, a statement that must be based in fact. It has been noted that you cannot provide evidence to back up your claim. I imagine you'd be pretty annoyed if someone called you a liar without supporting evidence.

If I had repeatedly misled a whole bunch of people to the tune of billions then I would have two choices :

1) Apologise, acknowledge that the misleading was intentional, and then resign

2) Brazen it out and add to it with even more discredited waffle

Lenihan could have done option 1 after the first or second time, and I would acknowledge that no deception was intended; despite the astronomical cock-ups, it would have been a genuine mistake.

His choice to go with option 2 is what leads me to believe that he has engaged in deception.

What's ironic is that I believe the above to be true; I might have no basis in fact for it, but I believe it.

You are then castigating me for expressing that opinion, while at the same time defending Lenihan for what - in your view - he may have believed at the time. He had no factual basis to "believe" that (as proven since, since he was wrong) but you still defend him and repeatedly ask me for facts ?

The same guy that claimed we had "the cheapest bailout in history" ?

What "facts" did he have to make that claim ? If he just "believed it to be true", then why are you castigating me for applying the same logic as you've obviously given him ?

I'm off to get my Alanis Morissette CD before your next post.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If I had repeatedly misled a whole bunch of people to the tune of billions then I would have two choices :
.............

So just because you believe something to be true, without any supporting evidence, gives you the right to make a defamatory remark. Interesting.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So just because you believe something to be true, without any supporting evidence, gives you the right to make a defamatory remark. Interesting.

You're dragging this thread seriously off-topic by harping on about my opinion.

There is plenty of "supporting evidence".

And as I said, there are 2 choices : 1) Lenihan is seriously deluded or 2) Lenihan lied.

Because NO-ONE believes that Lehman's caused our crash.

Option 1 : He's deluded and needs to resign (or rather, needed to 3 years ago)
Option 2 : He lied

It's one or the other.

Would you prefer if "my opinion" was that he should be committed to an institution because he's so deluded ?

God forbid that I suggest that, considering that would be a "personal" issue that some people here would view as an excuse for his performance to date.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So just because you believe something to be true, without any supporting evidence, gives you the right to make a defamatory remark. Interesting.

What's even more interesting is that you completely ignored the obvious parallel with your view of what Lenihan has claimed along the way.

But hey - who cares about double-standards, eh ?

Monty Burnz

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I personally believe hes tried his best in what are very difficult circumstances.

Tried his best for who? If he was trying his best for the country, why did he keep making decisions that got us deeper and deeper in trouble?

He was either not looking out for the Irish people or he's an idiot. It has to be one or the other.

Laminations

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So just because you believe something to be true, without any supporting evidence, gives you the right to make a defamatory remark. Interesting.

I realise FFers have different words for lying and restrain themselves for calling a lie as is because their party survives on spin and bluff. There was a thread a few months back called FF myth lies spin - I suggest you consult it

from august 2009

During the 9pm news tonight RTE carried some propoganda from Brian Lenihan. He reckoned that the letter from the economists in the Times this morning said that there was a 75% crash in property. Lenihan then went on to say, " you can not find one valuer in town who agrees with this".

This is a barefaced lie. Last month in the High court, in the Flemming case, the CBRE valuation report stated that a loan of €22 million would be worth between €500k and €1 million if the project was completed.

For those not great at maths, thats between 2.27% and 4.55%.

RTE failed to report this after the interview, and refused to put this point to him.

Once more a blatant piece of FF lies goes unchallenged. Disgraceful.

From April 2010

"the organisation representing credit unions has said that it invested just 99 million in Anglo Irish bonds and has called on the government to "cease referring to these investments as justification for guarantees and the continuation of Anglo Irish Bank".

The Chief Executive of the Irish League of Credit Unions, Kieron Brennan, said "it as unwise and irresponsible" to suggest that Credit Unions had large investments in Anglo Irish.

"Brennan said that it was unfortunate that the credit unions were being used to justify arguments for government support for financial institutions." "The suggestion is that Anglo must be supported, as failure to do so would jeopardise large amounts of credit union investments" Brennan said. He added that this was not only untrue, but could have hte effect of undermining the confidence in credit unions.

The SPB confirms that Ministers and TDs have repeatedly cited large Credit Union bondholdings as a reason for the Banks Guarantee.

During the last Budget statement we were told by Brian Lenihan, "The worst is over", "Turned a corner", "making the right choices" and so on.

However 9 months later he has changed his tune, despite countless budgets and hardship for most everyday Irish citizens we are now told to expect tougher budgets ahead.

Clearly we have been lied to, and if they have lied once they will continue to lie and bluff.

Ok so you may not want to call these examples of lying, you may argue that lying involves intentional misleading and you may say these were not intentional mistruths, just errors of judgement. So if it's not intentional, if it's not lying, what is it? It's incompetence - that's your choice, he is a treacherous liar or a treacherous incompetent. What concerns a growing number of people is that FFers just don't care, in the face of overwhelming evidence they call foul if anyone comes to what they consider to be premature conclusions, they love to repeatedly give the benefit of the doubt, and love screaming 'due process' whether it be Berties corruptness, Cowens apatheticness, O Donaghues excessiveness, or O Dea's and Lenihan's truthfulness, you insist on waiting and seeing. 'Lets not act yet and we'll just wait and see how this pans out' is a FF mantra that has led to this crisis worsening and this country stagnating. Inaction is your MO, whether it be in assigning blame, making actual tough decisions or whether it be calling a spade a spade.

NewHillel

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's ironic is that I believe the above to be true; I might have no basis in fact for it, but I believe it.

Not good enough, Liam. Put up, or retract.

Laminations

NewHillel wrote: »

Not good enough, Liam. Put up, or retract.

See examples in my previous post and tell me whether that constitutes lies or incompetence

NewHillel

Laminations wrote: »

Ok so you may not want to call these examples of lying, you may argue that lying involves intentional misleading.

Is that a (small) level of understanding I see breaking through?? Just to help you, here are some common definitions: lying, lying, lying

Laminations wrote: »

if it's not lying, what is it? It's incompetence - that's your choice,

Its one choice, and may well be correct. With the benefit of hindsight it may well prove that poor decisions were made.

Laminations wrote: »

he is a treacherous liar or a treacherous incompetent.

Here we go again, trying hard to bolster your case. What is your evidence of treason?

Really, you should go for a walk, pat a dog, put flowers in your hair, whatever...

oppenheimer1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Tried his best for who? If he was trying his best for the country, why did he keep making decisions that got us deeper and deeper in trouble?

He was either not looking out for the Irish people or he's an idiot. It has to be one or the other.

Perhaps he thought what he was doing at the time was in the best interests of the nation? What would you have done differently in that same situation? Hindsight is a wonderful thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_oKve-bH0

NewHillel

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Perhaps he thought what he was doing at the time was in the best interests of the nation? What would you have done differently in that same situation? Hindsight is a wonderful thing

IMO the damage had already been done by the time BL took over. If the worldwide recovery had happened he just might have kept us out of the IMF/EU hands. I can't see that happening now.

Laminations

NewHillel wrote: »

Is that a (small) level of understanding I see breaking through?? Just to help you, here are some common definitions

Its one choice, and may well be correct. With the benefit of hindsight it may well prove that poor decisions were made.


Here we go again, trying hard to bolster your case. What is your evidence of treason?

Really, you should go for a walk, pat a dog, put flowers in your hair, whatever...

Economic treason. The nation was betrayed when private debts of FF stalwarts were moved to the public balance sheet. Ireland has a responsibility for it's sovereign debts, it's public borrowings, we should never have been held responsible for dodgy Anglo debt especially after it emerged the banks had lied about their predicament

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Perhaps he thought what he was doing at the time was in the best interests of the nation? What would you have done differently in that same situation? Hindsight is a wonderful thing

so i can justify any mistakes i make by claiming my critics are using hindsight? You'd swear he had no naysayers during the decision-making. So any politician can excuse any poor or disastrous decisions simply by saying he was 'acting in the best interests of the country' and was 'doing his best'. He is either a liar or incompetent, I've quoted things he has said that makes me think he has lied but overall I think his problems stem from incompetence and consistently being two steps behind. Your opinion is?

Was the boy who cried wolf a liar? What if he though he was seeing wolves? Then he's just incompetent and soon enough the villagers say 'get that retard off the hill, we need a new lookout, we can't trust that fella any more' and at that stage it matters not whether his mistakes were a result of maliciousness or incompetence, he needs to go

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

Economic treason. The nation was betrayed when private debts of FF stalwarts were moved to the public balance sheet. Ireland has a responsibility for it's sovereign debts, it's public borrowings, we should never have been held responsible for dodgy Anglo debt especially after it emerged the banks had lied about their predicament

Do we have irrefutable proof that the banks lied ? Proof that Hillel & Oppenheimer would accept ?

Or is that also an "opinion", albeit one that FF supporters won't object to because it suits their version of events?