The tragic Flaw of Irelands children . . . What will you do for Ireland ?

Drumpot

I remember being in school and my teacher talking of the tragic flaw of certain characters . . In the stories, the protaginist was always so close to their goal, but something always twarted their victory . .In every instance you were always throwing your hands to your head asking how somebody could be so stupid, especially somebody who had surely been so burned that they wouldnt make the same mistakes.

Well .. . .

I was watching the Vincent Brown show tonight and couldnt help but feel a strong jolt of irony . . We had Eamon O'Quiv on the vinnie B show and what saddened me was not that FF had finally figured out what means most to our people, but it was that the other parties wouldnt be arsed implementing the kind of prudent measures an already lame FF government have figured out too late are good for our country.

If anybody in boards.ie thinks that an FG/Lab led government is going to lead us out of this crisis based on what they have suggested, Im afraid there is alot of dissapointment to be dished out.

For those of you struggling to understand what I am saying, I must first put your mind at ease by saying I am not defending the actions of FF or their incompetence of previous years. What I am saying is that , just because they have royally fked up, doesnt mean they dont do anything right, no matter how angry we are.

Michael Martin would not of been my first choice as leader of FF (in terms of "new political structure") but at least he is prepared to debate what is right for this country and force our potential future leaders to debate the issue.

For the people who call me "pro Fianna Fail", I call you pro "ignorance", pro "anti Ireland" as you simply define ignorance.

I personally challange all our leaders to not tell us not simpy what people want to hear, but to tell the Irish people what is ahead of us. I am not against Labour , I just for once want a government thats not afraid to be honest with its people. Anybody with an ounce of financial integrity knows that Labours policies are that of fiction. While I am completly supportive of their principles , I opposed their economic illiteracy.

I dont really care much for insinuations of who I support. Dont really care if people accuse me of being pro FF (simply because I am not anti FF), but I challenge ANYBODY to challenge my principles . . I want to see a proper election and a grown up Irish electorate CHALLANGE their candidates . .

If anybody is under any illusions as to why we are so screwed its because we didnt challenge our politicians in the past . .

I challenge all FG, Lab, SF and independants to offer a proper mandate for the people.

And for the people voting, what will you do for your country ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Drumpot wrote: »

I challenge all FG, Lab, SF and independants to offer a proper mandate for the people.

And for the people voting, what will you do for your country ?

I agree . Saying "we are not FF" just isn't good enough. i especially want to know

1. what they will tax more?
2. what they will cut?
3. whether they will reject the IMF deal altogether

If they don't reject the deal, even if they renegotiate it, then we are back to 1 and 2.

bmaxi

What I hope is, but I'm not holding my breath, the next government will bring some integrity.
FF is corrupt at every level and is this corruption, rather than ineptness that caused them to take the decisions they did.
On the same VB show, the point was made,and I have made this point before on Boards, that every FF Taoiseach since Seán Lemass has had a cloud over them when leaving office, from Jack Lynch's poor memory to Cowen's poor choice of golf partners. It is not FF who have failed to learn a lesson, it is the Irish people, we are the ones who lack integrity while we persist in voting for gombeens and cute hoors and the promise of the crock of gold.
Unfortunately the truth does not go down well around election time and people want to be told that things will get better. I've no doubt that whomever is Taoiseach after the GE, his first address to the nation will include the words "Things are much worse than we were led to believe", this is the standard get out clause at every change of Government, before the axe falls.
We need to hold the people who govern us accountable, not return crooks to office over and over again as we have done in the past. If we accept low standard of our rulers, we can't pretend to be surprised when they live up to them.

Laminations

I'm definitely going to vote based on policies, policies which I've gone and researched myself (as well as clarifications and questioning on specific issues to canvassers when they call). But I'll make my choice from a selection of parties that doesn't include FF. And I'd maintain that if the OP can't exclude FF from his choice then he is somewhat pro FF. To keep them under consideration after they bolloxed the country shows bias, they should be ruled out completely.

After his notch of FAS, Roddy Molloy wasn't asked to hang around and lay out his views for the future. Neary wasn't asked to give a plan on where he sees the regulator going in an attempt to keep his job - when you fvck up, you're fvcked out. So im not ABFF, I'll make an informed vote rather then writing preferences in any order excluding FF. But how informed is the OP if he is still even considering voting FF?

starbelgrade

Drumpot wrote: »

For those of you struggling to understand what I am saying....



For the people who call me "pro Fianna Fail", I call you pro "ignorance", pro "anti Ireland" as you simply define ignorance.


I challenge ANYBODY to challenge my principles . .

You have some way to go with your debating skills.

You've thrown out more insults & insinuations than any opening post that I've seen in a long time.

Therefor, I won't accept your challenge... not because I'm ignorant of failing to grasp what you are saying, but quite simply because I could not be arsed.

Balmed Out

it annoys me that there not a party trying to clean the system up.

Id like them to stand up and say if elected were going to shrink the dail. despite the fact itll mean less jobs for td's. Were going to prevent td's doing county council work which just adds a ridiculous workload to the civil service.

Were going to reduce the number of quangos, were going to pay those sitting on those boards that remain less and were going to change how they are selected so thier not full of political appointees who are often completely unqualified. we spend nearly 13 billion on these things each year.

FG who I normally support have made noises but not enough that i think theyll do much.

Dravokivich

Drumpot wrote: »

Michael Martin would not of been my first choice as leader of FF (in terms of "new political structure") but at least he is prepared to debate what is right for this country and force our potential future leaders to debate

And for the people voting, what will you do for your country ?

when i saw a caption earlier on about him calling for a debate... i was thinking great, he's going to get the podium arguements in early for the election. a debate doesn't show an eagerness for progress. a discussion with opposition leaders on how to conduct the dail for the remainder of term would be progress...

in regards to what am i going to do?

i dont vote by parties or currently associate myself with a political ideal. if someone going up for election in my constituency earns my confidence and i agree with what they intend to do, i'll vote for them.

BlaasForRafa

ISAW wrote: »

I agree . Saying "we are not FF" just isn't good enough.

Its a good start.

At least we'd have less of the cronyism, corruption and gombeenism that seems to be endemic in FF.

ednwireland

Drumpot wrote: »

I
If anybody in boards.ie thinks that an FG/Lab led government is going to lead us out of this crisis based on what they have suggested, Im afraid there is alot of dissapointment to be dished out.

Michael Martin would not of been my first choice as leader of FF (in terms of "new political structure") but at least he is prepared to debate what is right for this country and force our potential future leaders to debate the issue.

and FF will lead us out of it ? , not seen any evidence of that in 2 years just kicking hard decisions down the road

Martin, a man who has spent the last 13 years in cabinet and who didnt see a report which had the advice that taking peoples old age pensions in nursing homes is probably unconstitutional, not a man i ever want to see as taosaich (he just smells of indecision and incompetance)

as to the other parties we have labours frank mcbrearty and fg's dinny mcginley (gravy train artist of the highest order)

i see independants picking up my votes

Drumpot

starbelgrade wrote: »

You have some way to go with your debating skills.

You've thrown out more insults & insinuations than any opening post that I've seen in a long time.

Therefor, I won't accept your challenge... not because I'm ignorant of failing to grasp what you are saying, but quite simply because I could not be arsed.

Thanks for the "constructive" criticism and for the advice on debating. Lets break down your pearls of wisdom and see if we can tease out the irony/contradiction:

• You insult my ability to debate and then refuse to get involved in the debate and pronounce your lack of interest in discussing the topic
• You accuse me of insulting people (when all I was doing was clarifying my position) just after insulting my ability to debate
• You say you couldnt be arsed engaging in debate after accusing me of being poor at it.

The reason I gave a pre-empted "for thos who think Im FF" because it is a serious problem on boards.ie, whereby some people will not engage in political debates if you dont sign up to the "FF are the most corrupt party ever" (or something to that effect). I wasnt looking to offend anybody just get over the usual sh*t that these threads end up.

I can only ascertain that people with your attitude (and pointless posts that do little to progress a debate), are either interested in spoiling the debate (for fear it could actually expose the frailties of their own party) or you are incapable of engaging in meaningful debate.

Laminations

Drumpot, have you ruled out FF from consideration in giving your vote?

If you have not, after all they've done, that makes you pro FF. Same as if a board member in FAS tried to argue that Roddy Molloy should be considered to stay on in FAS after the haimes he made. I'm anti FF, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for 'anyone' else.

Drumpot

ednwireland wrote: »

and FF will lead us out of it ? , not seen any evidence of that in 2 years just kicking hard decisions down the road

Martin, a man who has spent the last 13 years in cabinet and who didnt see a report which had the advice that taking peoples old age pensions in nursing homes is probably unconstitutional, not a man i ever want to see as taosaich (he just smells of indecision and incompetance)

as to the other parties we have labours frank mcbrearty and fg's dinny mcginley (gravy train artist of the highest order)

i see independants picking up my votes

I wasnt suggesting that FF should lead us out of it . .

What is funny is that if I was coming into Ireland and knew nothing of any party or what they had done, I would consider FF's leader to be the strongest of the three.

That doesnt mean we should ignore or forgive what happened, but it means it should focus our minds on pushing for a better alternative.

I mean, look at Enda Kenny and his declining of a leaders debate. . If FF did it, there would be riots, yet people will lamely accept "ah sure hes more to lose by engaging the debate" as if this is an acceptable reason for our future leader to dodge tough questions. Its not ok for our opposition to sh*tty things that we wouldnt let FF away with simply because they are not FF.

This is a serious problem. FG and Lab already look like they are getting used to the whole "we answer to nobody" culture that followed this FF government for so long. Some of their public performances have been little short of shockingly poor, but "acceptable" in many peoples eyes simply because they are not FF. Its a crying shame that some politicians will get elected soley on them not being FF, I dont support anybody who thinks this is a great principle for progression.

What is encouraging is people on the front line, on the Tom Dunne show ( http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/programmes/all-programmes/tom-dunne/tom-dunnes-doorstep-hit-list/ ) trying to get the Irish people to fess up to our responsibilitys (as voters of our leaders) and to challange ALL our politicians. You can see by many responses in many debates in these forums, people looking to spoil debate and stop people engaging more in politics (because their candidates/party want a nice easy ride). In truth they are relying on electorate ignorance being a powerful tool.

hinault

Drumpot wrote: »

For those of you struggling to understand what I am saying, I must first put your mind at ease by saying I am not defending the actions of FF or their incompetence of previous years. What I am saying is that , just because they have royally fked up, doesnt mean they dont do anything right, no matter how angry we are.

Hmmmmmmm.
FF only got two things right that I can think of.
Smoking ban and the Northern Ireland peace process.

FF have managed to get practically everything else wrong.

Interesting rant anyhow.

Drumpot

Laminations wrote: »

Drumpot, have you ruled out FF from consideration in giving your vote?

If you have not, after all they've done, that makes you pro FF. Same as if a board member in FAS tried to argue that Roddy Molloy should be considered to stay on in FAS after the haimes he made. I'm anti FF, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for 'anyone' else.

I havent seen the candidates for my constituancy . .

I dont think ruling out FF candidates (simply because they are in a party) makes you pro FF, it makes me objectve. Put simply if I had Einstein (FF) on my doorstep and a Jackie Healy Rae (Lab/FG etc) I know who I would vote for, but I would make it clear that I will only support Einstein with a push for political reform.

I dont see the rational behind ruling out FF candidates, particularly good ones. They will not be in government the next time around and its not like they have superb candidates everywhere, but I certainly will not vote for an inferior (ability) politician simply because they are not FF. They are desperate to get back on track (which is the way a government should be) and I think this desperation is exactly what Lab/FG are missing. That fear of the people is what keeps governments doing what is the wish of their people, I just dont see it with our opposition who look like they are more determined to do little to upset their current public standings then grasp the nettle and show the Irish People how wrong we were with FF.

I am not promoting that FF get back in (I think a couple of years out of government is what the party needs to shape up), I am promoting that people challenge all their politicians/candidates.

You dont have to agree with my stance on FF, to agree with the principle behind my argument.

meditraitor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its centre right policies that got us were we are, you always seem to forget that when you post your regular anti gilmore/labour diatrites...

A definition of the term "centre-right" is necessarily broad and approximate because political terms have varying meanings in different countries. Parties of the centre-right generally support democratic capitalism, the market economy, limited forms of government regulation, private property rights, and opposition to socialism and communism. Such definitions generally include political parties that base their ideology and policies upon conservatism and economic liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-right

Now if you want to argue the case for high ps and cs wages being the major cause of our current trouble go ahead, but anyone else who has half a brain knows that lax regulation and market capitalism is the real reason for us being in the proverbial poo....

Laminations

Drumpot wrote: »

I mean, look at Enda Kenny and his declining of a leaders debate. . If FF did it, there would be riots, yet people will lamely accept "ah sure hes more to lose by engaging the debate" as if this is an acceptable reason for our future leader to dodge tough questions. Its not ok for our opposition to sh*tty things that we wouldnt let FF away with simply because they are not FF.

??

Did you read past the RTE headline? Kenny said he wanted a 5 leader debate, so he didn't decline to debate, he disagreed with FF dictating the structure. It's the precedent that the Taoiseach engages in this leaders debate so with putting Martin forward is it not FF who are dodging?? And while you're talking about running away and dodging tough questions, both Bertie and Micheal Martin were invited onto radio to explain Berties comments on the one o clock news, they declined. And it is fair to treat the opposition differently because they aren't (as) culpable.

hinault

Drumpot wrote: »

I havent seen the candidates for my constituancy . .

I dont think ruling out FF candidates (simply because they are in a party) makes you pro FF, it makes me objectve. Put simply if I had Einstein (FF) on my doorstep and a Jackie Healy Rae (Lab/FG etc) I know who I would vote for, but I would make it clear that I will only support Einstein with a push for political reform.

I dont see the rational behind ruling out FF candidates, particularly good ones. They will not be in government the next time around and its not like they have superb candidates everywhere, but I certainly will not vote for an inferior (ability) politician simply because they are not FF. They are desperate to get back on track (which is the way a government should be) and I think this desperation is exactly what Lab/FG are missing. That fear of the people is what keeps governments doing what is the wish of their people, I just dont see it with our opposition who look like they are more determined to do little to upset their current public standings then grasp the nettle and show the Irish People how wrong we were with FF.

I am not promoting that FF get back in (I think a couple of years out of government is what the party needs to shape up), I am promoting that people challenge all their politicians/candidates.

You dont have to agree with my stance on FF, to agree with the principle behind my argument.

If a candidate in the election is running as a FF candidate, that candidate is subject to the record of his party in government since the last election.
Separately, that FF candidate is subject to the policies as planned for the next 5 years.

If we take you at your word that you are being objective, I cannot see how any FF candidate can expect to garner support based on the last 5 years.

Laminations

Drumpot wrote: »

I havent seen the candidates for my constituancy
I dont think ruling out FF candidates (simply because they are in a party) makes you pro FF, it makes me objectve. Put simply if I had Einstein (FF) on my doorstep and a Jackie Healy Rae (Lab/FG etc) I know who I would vote for, but I would make it clear that I will only support Einstein with a push for political reform.

That's exactly what makes you pro FF. That you fail to recognise that a candidates membership to a certain party reflects on them as an individual. If you had Einstein campaigning for the Nazi party would that make you consider voting for Nazis? If you had Einstein standing for the BNP would that make you vote BNP?? I don't think so because the acts and ethos of the party would be enough to taint any candidate. Now without equating what FF have done to Nazis or racists, they have ruined the country and it is obvious that you don't think that the economic ruin of a country, the cronyism and relationship with developers (Galway tent), the feeling that they have a divine right to govern, the voting of confidence in corruption, perjury, lies, incompetence, all this is quite obviously not bad enough to exclude members of FF from consideration for you. So yes it makes you pro FF because you are willing to overlook all this. Rather than consider it, because if you considered it you'd rule out ANY FF candidate, even an unlikely Einstein

Laminations

Hinault beat me to it. Objective my ass

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

Hinault beat me to it. Objective my ass

Are you suggesting that immediately ruling out Fianna Fail - as you are doing - is being unbiased?

raymon

Drumpot wrote: »

For the people who call me "pro Fianna Fail", I call you pro "ignorance", pro "anti Ireland" as you simply define ignorance.
:.................
And for the people voting, what will you do for your country ?

2 things,


1) What will you do for your country ? What have you done. Have you left your armchair.?
2) I don't understand about if I call you FF then I become anti Ireland........... no ...........still not seeing the big picture here.

Nice heartwarming story all the same

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

Hinault beat me to it. Objective my ass

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Are you suggesting that immediately ruling out Fianna Fail - as you are doing - is being unbiased?

Would ruling out the Nazis be considered biased? Unless you consider it a bias against fascism.

When faced with the facts of what FF have done, ruling them out is not done out of a bias, unless you consider it a bias against incompetence, cronyism, and the idea of accountability.

starbelgrade

Drumpot wrote: »

I wasnt looking to offend anybody just get over the usual sh*t that these threads end up.

Fair enough. No offense taken... oh, wait.. hold on a second....

Drumpot wrote: »

I can only ascertain that people with your attitude (and pointless posts that do little to progress a debate), are either interested in spoiling the debate (for fear it could actually expose the frailties of their own party) or you are incapable of engaging in meaningful debate.

:rolleyes:

Anyone for a nice big slice of "Get over yourself" cake?

blahfckingblah

Drumpot wrote: »

Thanks for the "constructive" criticism and for the advice on debating. Lets break down your pearls of wisdom and see if we can tease out the irony/contradiction:

• You insult my ability to debate and then refuse to get involved in the debate and pronounce your lack of interest in discussing the topic
• You accuse me of insulting people (when all I was doing was clarifying my position) just after insulting my ability to debate
• You say you couldnt be arsed engaging in debate after accusing me of being poor at it.

The reason I gave a pre-empted "for thos who think Im FF" because it is a serious problem on boards.ie, whereby some people will not engage in political debates if you dont sign up to the "FF are the most corrupt party ever" (or something to that effect). I wasnt looking to offend anybody just get over the usual sh*t that these threads end up.

I can only ascertain that people with your attitude (and pointless posts that do little to progress a debate), are either interested in spoiling the debate (for fear it could actually expose the frailties of their own party) or you are incapable of engaging in meaningful debate.

infairness to his response you did suggest that anyone that doesnt support ff are anti ireland and ignorant which isnt exactly a credible arguement. peoples political opinions will always differ and having a different opinion to yours doesnt automatically make someone ignorant.

aside from that, on the debating skills, bulletpoint 1 and bulletpoint 3 are basically the same thing re-worded. while i agree that there wont be radical reform whoever is elected i do believe that this country needs a change from ff. i think michael martin is good for ff but at the present time ff arent good for ireland.

i think including every leader in debates would be a big step towards finding out what kind of a spectrum is out there. im not a labour fan but i would like to know what you call economical illiteracy? in my opinion ff are guilty of economic illiteracy and have been for years.

Drumpot

blahfckingblah wrote: »

infairness to his response you did suggest that anyone that doesnt support ff are anti ireland and ignorant which isnt exactly a credible arguement. peoples political opinions will always differ and having a different opinion to yours doesnt automatically make someone ignorant.

aside from that, on the debating skills, bulletpoint 1 and bulletpoint 3 are basically the same thing re-worded. while i agree that there wont be radical reform whoever is elected i do believe that this country needs a change from ff. i think michael martin is good for ff but at the present time ff arent good for ireland.

i think including every leader in debates would be a big step towards finding out what kind of a spectrum is out there. im not a labour fan but i would like to know what you call economical illiteracy? in my opinion ff are guilty of economic illiteracy and have been for years.

Please quote where I said anybody who doesnt support FF is Anti Ireland or ignorant ?

Or perhaps you (like some of the others), didnt understand what I wrote -

For the people who call me "pro Fianna Fail", I call you pro "ignorance", pro "anti Ireland" as you simply define ignorance.

Ok, I will break it down. I am not Pro FF, I am pro choice. Anybody who thinks I am pro FF, simply because I dont despise them or rule out voting for one of their candidates (if they are superior), is ignorant and anti Ireland as they are allowing their anger towards FF cloud their voting judgement. Being anti Cowen/Bertie/JOD/Healy Rae makes sense. If anybody thinks voting in 2nd best candidates simply cause you dont like a party is the right way forward for our country, then I respectfully disagree, greatly..

The vast presumption made by the vast majority of angry Anti FF's is that all the TDs were in on the act. They are all to blame for what has happened.

Quite simply, the biggest problem that this country faced was the banking crisis and the lack of regulation. While it was the party that let down the country, how can every politician in that party be responsible for the derugaltion of our financial system ? I am not saying there werent failures in other areas, but the banking one is the single biggest problem that has ruined the country. If a HR manager does a poor job, is the whole management of a company tarnished with the same brush ?

Drumpot

Laminations wrote: »

Would ruling out the Nazis be considered biased? Unless you consider it a bias against fascism.

When faced with the facts of what FF have done, ruling them out is not done out of a bias, unless you consider it a bias against incompetence, cronyism, and the idea of accountability.

Hold on . . So I dont rule out any party, so surely by the warped logic of the ridiculously narrow minded anti FF brigade, Im technically Pro - FG, Lab, SF , Inde etc . . Im pro choice and will not be bullied by those who cant see beyond the red mist . .

Good comparison with the Nazi party. Mass Genocide is comparable with incompetency, thanks for that Mr Gilemore.

I love the whole "you are either a supporter of them or not". This kind of childish logic thats a part of the problem of this country that is lacking in the clarity of mind, the courage and the vision to try and get true political reform.

Drumpot

raymon wrote: »

2 things,


1) What will you do for your country ? What have you done. Have you left your armchair.?
2) I don't understand about if I call you FF then I become anti Ireland........... no ...........still not seeing the big picture here.

Nice heartwarming story all the same

I was asking what people will do for their country , it wasnt an insinuation.

As you ask, I have been considering running as an indepdant. With my wife losing her job and another child on the way, it would be tough so I have also discussed the possibility of setting up an independent body to try and encourage better practises by our politicians. Sort of like the Boston Tea party. Basically you hold all politicians accountable for their actions v what they say and try to endorse the ones who are more principled orientated (and morally/ethically sound).

Not much, but its a start.

blahfckingblah

Drumpot wrote: »

Please quote where I said anybody who doesnt support FF is Anti Ireland or ignorant ?

Or perhaps you (like some of the others), didnt understand what I wrote -

For the people who call me "pro Fianna Fail", I call you pro "ignorance", pro "anti Ireland" as you simply define ignorance.

Ok, I will break it down. I am not Pro FF, I am pro choice. Anybody who thinks I am pro FF, simply because I dont despise them or rule out voting for one of their candidates (if they are superior), is ignorant and anti Ireland as they are allowing their anger towards FF cloud their voting judgement. Being anti Cowen/Bertie/JOD/Healy Rae makes sense. If anybody thinks voting in 2nd best candidates simply cause you dont like a party is the right way forward for our country, then I respectfully disagree, greatly..

The vast presumption made by the vast majority of angry Anti FF's is that all the TDs were in on the act. They are all to blame for what has happened.

Quite simply, the biggest problem that this country faced was the banking crisis and the lack of regulation. While it was the party that let down the country, how can every politician in that party be responsible for the derugaltion of our financial system ? I am not saying there werent failures in other areas, but the banking one is the single biggest problem that has ruined the country. If a HR manager does a poor job, is the whole management of a company tarnished with the same brush ?

surely to god if the best candidate in your local area is running for fianna fail even after the disasterous mistakes of their last stint in power the other candidates must be appauling.

im not anti ff and even if they didnt have all of this stigma about them they still wouldnt be getting my vote. they dont represent my views.

in saying that what your posts are basically saying is "forget about all the horrible things ff done as a group and only concentrate on one person" and i am not prepared to do that. if they done something great to the economy my local ff td wouldnt be too long in letting us know in his next campaign.

for someone who isnt pro ff you are very defensive of them. to answer your question, if a member of a company does a bad job often times the client will tell of the bad job that the company done. so yes. that is taking this completely out of context though and ignoring a number of factors.

not even wrong

Drumpot wrote: »

If a HR manager does a poor job, is the whole management of a company tarnished with the same brush ?

If the HR manager is allowed to do such a catastrophically poor job as to bring the company to the brink of bankruptcy then yes the rest of the management does share the blame.

While it was the party that let down the country, how can every politician in that party be responsible for the derugaltion of our financial system ?

Do you not know how the Dail works? These politicians voted in favour of the government that wrecked the country, therefore they are responsible. If they're not responsible then nobody is responsible for anything and hey, we might as well elect the Khmer Rouge because it wasn't their fault what Pol Pot did, they just put him in power.

Fitzerb

bmaxi wrote: »

What I hope is, but I'm not holding my breath, the next government will bring some integrity.
FF is corrupt at every level and is this corruption, rather than ineptness that caused them to take the decisions they did.
On the same VB show, the point was made,and I have made this point before on Boards, that every FF Taoiseach since Seán Lemass has had a cloud over them when leaving office, from Jack Lynch's poor memory to Cowen's poor choice of golf partners. It is not FF who have failed to learn a lesson, it is the Irish people, we are the ones who lack integrity while we persist in voting for gombeens and cute hoors and the promise of the crock of gold.
Unfortunately the truth does not go down well around election time and people want to be told that things will get better. I've no doubt that whomever is Taoiseach after the GE, his first address to the nation will include the words "Things are much worse than we were led to believe", this is the standard get out clause at every change of Government, before the axe falls.
We need to hold the people who govern us accountable, not return crooks to office over and over again as we have done in the past. If we accept low standard of our rulers, we can't pretend to be surprised when they live up to them.

Firstly I think this thread is excellent. It has a "meat" to it.
Let me tell you where I am stand before I recall some facts for you.
I am a FF voter but on the grounds that 13 years in Government for any one party is bad for any democracy I am not overly upset that we will have a different Government.
I think this populace shout that everyone in FF is corrupt is like reading the headlines of the Daily Mail, sounds great but is not factual. FF has had some excellent leaders as have other parties. Jack Lynch kept this country out of civil war when we were days away from Irish man taking arms against Irish man. It was an extremely difficult time for all politicians from all parties who held their nerve and saw us through the period. Reynolds had the guts to commence the peace process despite all the criticism from FG and from some FF of him talking to Gerry Adams. That guts deserves credit. To be fair to other parties they also had great leaders. A man called Frank Cluskey of the Labour party was a man of great principle and a person I greatly admired. I never rated Fitzgerald as I thought he was too high brow but he too showed great leadership of this country during a period when subversives were threatening to overrun the state and he deserves credit for that. Like all parties the career of all the leaders ends in failure
To say all FF is corrupt to the core is an insult to the many working class members of FF and is incorrect. On that basis do we consider some in the Labour party to be pervs because of Emmet Stagg? Do we consider FG to be Tax evaders because they were paying staff cash under the counter? Haughey was corrupt as was Burke but we have to await the finding of Mahon to judge Ahern. Because we don’t live under mob rule that is generated by cheap headlines we work the democratic process and live by its findings for better or worse. Every commentator accepts Cowen is not a corrupt person, a poor leader, a dreadful communicator but it’s a lie to say he is corrupt and despite his many errors I doubt he could have put in any more effort than he did. What FF is guilty off is losing touch with ordinary working people. They became too close to business and created a bubble of their own in the Dail. The cars and government jets are ok to a point and ok when needed but this is only a small town in the context of Europe and such an ostentatious display of wealth by our Government became a disconnect for the ordinary person, while at the same time we had homeless teenagers sleeping rough on our streets.

The entire anti FF group scream about the bank bailout but the facts are that most European experts say the right decision was made at that time. Others say it wasn’t. But no one has explained to me in any detail about the impact that would have happened had we burned the bond holders. Great populace shout, you can see the great Jim Larkin making that call from outside Clearys, but in my view (not a fact) we would have had the supply of cash and investment to this Country cut off and unemployment would be 40-60% worse. We are only insignificance within the European Union and as such they would let us drown. The banking bail out is a serious problem for us but in time Europe will burn the bond holders to some degree and it will get easier for us. That has to happen because in simple terms the money is not there in Europe to support other Countries that will in the next five years need a bail out. I don’t know if FF made the right decision but likewise I don’t know if they made the wrong decision.

I think people also forget and have not mentioned that this is not our first bank bailout........1970's Irish Trust Bank went broke and was bailed out.
Under a Labour FG Government the PMPA and the ICI went bust in the 80's and were bailed out for considerable sums of money at a time of great recession and when we were totally broke. ICI was part of AIB. Motorists still to this day pay a 3% levy on their insurance because of the PMPA issue. The IMF were knocking on the door then also but there was no single European currency so there was less pressure on us to sign up and stop any knock on to other European Countries.
You mention cute hoors, Enda is displaying some of that trait today by trying to avoid having a three way debate, so it’s not any one party that is all black and any other party is all white. We have a system that stinks we have learned nothing from our history (past Bank Bail Outs) and each party spends a fortune on employing spin doctors to tell us lies and what they think we want to hear. Most people want to know how bad is it, what our options are, and who the best person is / people to deliver on the option of choice. I would ban spin doctors and media experts. Tell it as it is and if a person gets something wrong let’s not burn him at the stake, we have politicians who have to have every statement checked by spin doctors earning 200K a year because our media in their race to the bottom will crucify anyone if they make a mistake. Jesus just tell it as it is or as you see it. If a person knowingly tells lies that’s different and he should be forced out of office and never be allowed to stand again.
Can I make one last point in my rant? The majority of the people do share some of the blame, and in my own case I knew we were heading for trouble when my son's friend at 22 and on his second week in work as a junior account was in our house and told me he had bought his first car. When I went out to see his purchase expecting to see a rust bucket (as my first car was) I was totally shocked to see a second hand Jag..... 22 / first car /Jag.
I knew then we were heading for some serious trouble when people see money that easy to come by.
I don’t blame the young lad. I blame Government policy that got us to a place where we did not value money, but let’s be honest FG and Lab were shouting very loud in 2007 that we have to spend more. I did blame his parents in my mind until I remembered that my own son of 21 had just bought a second hand BMW.... I remember working my ass off to get up the ladder I hope they can handle working their way back down the ladder.
We all need to mature a bit and start asking ourselves and our politicians the serious questions and demanding that we return to the days of politicians working for the people and leading by example. But as people we also have responsibilities to make that happen and not just jump onto the first populace headline we see.
WOW that’s a rant off my mind....

Laminations

Drumpot wrote: »

Hold on . . So I dont rule out any party, so surely by the warped logic of the ridiculously narrow minded anti FF brigade, Im technically Pro - FG, Lab, SF , Inde etc . . Im pro choice and will not be bullied by those who cant see beyond the red mist . .

No what you are saying is that everyone should give each party equal consideration no matter what, and you think that's unbiased. If the mistakes a party have made (and I'm not talking about ancient historical mistakes) do not alter your consideration of their candidates then you are biased. I can objectively rule out a babies nappy when I'm considering on what fruit to eat, that's not a bias towards fruit. I also (unlike yourself) am not willing to search out the few possible good apples somewhere within that diaper as their immersion in the sh1t taints them. You see no reflection on an individual from their voluntary membership of a larger group, I do. You are not pro choice, there is plenty of choice in the political spectrum without FF, you're making justifications to vote FF.

Good comparison with the Nazi party. Mass Genocide is comparable with incompetency, thanks for that Mr Gilemore.

It wasnt a comparison of deeds, it was an attempt to show you that individuals no matter how bright are defined in part by the groups with which they associate. Since you brought Einstein into it I'll put it this way. Even if a fascist party ran an Einstein candidate, I don't overlook ethical or moral issues based on ability, and I dint overlook past performance. I'm sure there are examples in America of the 'best people' being fired or turned down for jobs based on their affiliations.

I love the whole "you are either a supporter of them or not". This kind of childish logic thats a part of the problem of this country that is lacking in the clarity of mind, the courage and the vision to try and get true political reform.

You don't have to directly support them to be an enabler. You are a pseudo apologist and telling people not to exclude candidates because of their affiliation enables the continuance of bad political entities. Would you be so quick in telling people they should listen to BNP candidates? Or closer to home if your local Shinner was good would you consider voting for him or have you ruled out SF? Teue political reform should involve the death of FF sending a message to other parties and any new parties that if you mess up so badly, if you engage in cronyism and self enrichment then we will let you die.

Considering FF before they have gone through major reform is a moral hazard.

Fitzerb

hinault wrote: »

If a candidate in the election is running as a FF candidate, that candidate is subject to the record of his party in government since the last election.
Separately, that FF candidate is subject to the policies as planned for the next 5 years.

If we take you at your word that you are being objective, I cannot see how any FF candidate can expect to garner support based on the last 5 years.

How do you know that any other decision would have brought us to a better place ? I do agree with you that you are judged on your term in office but how do I know FG lab would have done it different ?

Laminations

FitzerB, I stopped reading after you mention Jack Lynch. Why should a man from 30 years ago influence how anyone votes? We deal with parties on how they are now and their recent history and performance. You seem like a legacy voter, you seem to equate FF with Ireland. We can survive without FF. We can survive without FG also or any party. It's not just that FF have been in government for 13 years and we need a change, it's what they've done with those 13 years, it's what they did with the tiger, how they blew the boom and squandered our potential on short term projects and election buy offs

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

You don't have to directly support them to be an enabler. You are a pseudo apologist and telling people not to exclude candidates because of their affiliation enables the continuance of bad political entities. Would you be so quick in telling people they should listen to BNP candidates? Or closer to home if your local Shinner was good would you consider voting for him or have you ruled out SF? Teue political reform should involve the death of FF sending a message to other parties and any new parties that if you mess up so badly, if you engage in cronyism and self enrichment then we will let you die.

Considering FF before they have gone through major reform is a moral hazard.

Are you saying that there was never cronyism in FG and Lab when they were in power ?
There was..... So in your world they should not be considered as should SF not be considered. By your rules we are left with Joe Higgins group and the greens. (depending on if Gromley attempted to use position to hold up the Ringsend incinerator

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

How do you know that any other decision would have brought us to a better place ? I do agree with you that you are judged on your term in office but how do I know FG lab would have done it different ?

Poor Larry Murphy should never have been imprisoned, he shouldve just said 'sure how do you know FitzerB wouldn't have done the same?'

Those arguments don't work. You are judged on what you've done, not what other people suggest you might have done if given the chance.

*Murphy is the only criminal that came to mind, I'm not in any way equating his horrible crimes with anything else

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

FitzerB, I stopped reading after you mention Jack Lynch. Why should a man from 30 years ago influence how anyone votes? We deal with parties on how they are now and their recent history and performance. You seem like a legacy voter, you seem to equate FF with Ireland. We can survive without FF. We can survive without FG also or any party. It's not just that FF have been in government for 13 years and we need a change, it's what they've done with those 13 years, it's what they did with the tiger, how they blew the boom and squandered our potential on short term projects and election buy offs

Well if you read the post you would notice I was replying to a post from Bmaxi who mentioned Jack Lynch theerfore my reason for mentioning him. But considering your approach and response to other posters who attempt to make their point I am quite satisfied that you did not read my full reply and look forward to you not reading any other reply I make.

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

Are you saying that there was never cronyism in FG and Lab when they were in power ?
There was..... So in your world they should not be considered as should SF not be considered. By your rules we are left with Joe Higgins group and the greens. (depending on if Gromley attempted to use position to hold up the Ringsend incinerator

For years I didn't consider SF but they are starting to become viable (for left leaning individuals), they are probably still out of my radar for consideration. I don't exclude them based on ideology (it's based on associations with violence and the IRA), I'm always open for my views to be challenged so I don't exclude left wingers or right wingers unless they are at the extremes.

Also I don't wxclude FF for just cronyism which does exist in far lesser extents in other parties. I exclude them because of their utter failure and bluff. I exclude them for their continued acceptance of very bad eggs. Other parties are not comparable in this regard.

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

Poor Larry Murphy should never have been imprisoned, he shouldve just said 'sure how do you know FitzerB wouldn't have done the same?'

Those arguments don't work. You are judged on what you've done, not what other people suggest you might have done if given the chance.

*Murphy is the only criminal that came to mind, I'm not in any way equating his horrible crimes with anything else

Your are ill informed. You are judged through a democratic process. If you are found guilty of a charge by your peers you are guilty and likewise if you are not found guilty then you are not guilty. You are not judged on what you done.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that your performance is judged on results but what in God's name has Larry Murphy got to do with that.
The mention of Larry Murphy is just sad.

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

Well if you read the post you would notice I was replying to a post from Bmaxi who mentioned Jack Lynch theerfore my reason for mentioning him. But considering your approach and response to other posters who attempt to make their point I am quite satisfied that you did not read my full reply and look forward to you not reading any other reply I make.

So now I have to give the same consideration to every post? I do read your posts, but I tend to focus on the shorter less waffley ones that don't use FF history to excuse current voting preferences. You'll see I read your posts as I've responded to a few of them

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

For years I didn't consider SF but they are starting to become viable (for left leaning individuals), they are probably still out of my radar for consideration. I don't exclude them based on ideology (it's based on associations with violence and the IRA), I'm always open for my views to be challenged so I don't exclude left wingers or right wingers unless they are at the extremes.

Also I don't wxclude FF for just cronyism which does exist in far lesser extents in other parties. I exclude them because of their utter failure and bluff. I exclude them for their continued acceptance of very bad eggs. Other parties are not comparable in this regard.

If you are ruling FF out becuase of results and failure then that is fair. You will be one of many. That is a fact that cannot be argued to a great extent. They were minding the house when the regulators failed to do their job. our system has the regulators at arms length from Government and that is wrong we need a system that polices the regulators as well.

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

what in God's name has Larry Murphy got to do with that..

Larry Murphy did very bad things. Nowhere along the line would it have been acceptable fof him to try and deflect blame by saying 'ah yer man would probably have done the same'. Fact is yer man didn't.

Fact is FG/Lab or any other opposition party didn't run this country into the ground, FF with some international help did that bad thing

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

So now I have to give the same consideration to every post? I do read your posts, but I tend to focus on the shorter less waffley ones that don't use FF history to excuse current voting preferences. You'll see I read your posts as I've responded to a few of them

.
Well I read a lot of waffle some of it even yours and I find some of it educates me and gives me a 360 degree view on issues. Then I make up my mind

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

.
Well I read a lot of waffle some of it even yours and I find some of it educates me and gives me a 360 degree view on issues. Then I make up my mind

But you don't read everything from everyone. And you're even less likely to read a posters posts who is a known troll and whose posts have previously consisted of waffle. Is that bias or a process of elimination and selection?

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

Larry Murphy did very bad things. Nowhere along the line would it have been acceptable fof him to try and deflect blame by saying 'ah yer man would probably have done the same'. Fact is yer man didn't.

Fact is FG/Lab or any other opposition party didn't run this country into the ground, FF with some international help did that bad thing

I finding this hard to explain.

Larry Murphy committed a crime and was found guilty through the legal process.
your opinion the Government made a b*ll*x of things but that is not a crime and therefore the comparison with Larry Murphy is the real waffle here.

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

If you are ruling FF out becuase of results and failure then that is fair. You will be one of many. That is a fact that cannot be argued to a great extent. They were minding the house when the regulators failed to do their job. our system has the regulators at arms length from Government and that is wrong we need a system that polices the regulators as well.

So why aren't you ruling out FF? That's what I want to understand

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

But you don't read everything from everyone. And you're even less likely to read a posters posts who is a known troll and whose posts have previously consisted of waffle. Is that bias or a process of elimination and selection?

I usually find when people fail to make logical arguments they resort to the above type of post. The opening line of my waffle explains my position in full and who I support. A troll is
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community,

Tell me whats off topic, whats inflammatory about my post or is your accusation is just populace ranting

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

So why aren't you ruling out FF? That's what I want to understand

I have not made my final decision yet for the following reasons.

1 you need opposition. SF are not for me. The Greens are on a different planet. I may vote for a local independent who is way to far left from my own views but who is a great worker, and who always locally had the under privileged issues to the fore.. I appreciate that Indos dont have power but if she speaks up for the young homeless youths on our streets and raises it to a national issue I would vote for her.

2. Would it any different under FG Lab. I dont rate Enda and a Government with a majority that is too big will be difficult to manage and can cause its own problems.

3. I dont see FF in the same light as you do. I can see they achieved some good during their period.

$ One party in power for so long is not good.

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

I usually find when people fail to make logical arguments they resort to the above type of post. The opening line of my waffle explains my position in full and who I support. A troll is
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community,

Tell me whats off topic, whats inflammatory about my post or is your accusation is just populace ranting

Let me be completely clear, I wasn't calling you a troll, I said you wouldn't read a trolls posts and I said that that wouldn't make you biased. The same way I won't entertain a FF candidate because of their performance as a party. You take your previous experience and use that to shape your interactions with people. When people can't voluntarily distance themselves from a group, generalising is discrimination. If people excluded me cos I'm Irish and so are the IRA that's discrimination and bias. If someone excluded me because I'm a member of the IRA then that's fine, I should be coloured by the behaviour of my associates, and if I don't want to be I should distance myself. FF candidates are not distancing themselves from FF, though they'll try and stitch up Cowen for the whole mess

dsmythy

meditraitor wrote: »

Its centre right policies that got us were we are, you always seem to forget that when you post your regular anti gilmore/labour diatrites...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-right

Now if you want to argue the case for high ps and cs wages being the major cause of our current trouble go ahead, but anyone else who has half a brain knows that lax regulation and market capitalism is the real reason for us being in the proverbial poo....

The socialisation of debt isn't really centre-right at all is it? Nor is the huge increase in spending over the past few years nor the complete lack of punishment for those who ran their own businesses (or banks) into the ground. The centre right is supposed to be for responsibility yet no-one is being held responsible. Fianna Fáil may have been pretending to be centre right but I think they made a poor show of it. Would the PD's have supported nationalisation of the banks if they were still around?

Drumpot

blahfckingblah wrote: »

surely to god if the best candidate in your local area is running for fianna fail even after the disasterous mistakes of their last stint in power the other candidates must be appauling.

im not anti ff and even if they didnt have all of this stigma about them they still wouldnt be getting my vote. they dont represent my views.

in saying that what your posts are basically saying is "forget about all the horrible things ff done as a group and only concentrate on one person" and i am not prepared to do that. if they done something great to the economy my local ff td wouldnt be too long in letting us know in his next campaign.

for someone who isnt pro ff you are very defensive of them. to answer your question, if a member of a company does a bad job often times the client will tell of the bad job that the company done. so yes. that is taking this completely out of context though and ignoring a number of factors.

Actually you will find that I am very defensive about my right to not rule them out . . Some People take anything remotely not negative towards FF as a sign that you are somehow supporting them and I strongly disagree with this sentiment.