"FF may support FG" & "Lenihan criticises Greens, Sinn Féin & Labour&quo

CelticRambler

Two headlines from RTE this afternoon. Has the civil war finally come to an end, with both sides realising they've more ideas in common than differences? Could it be just another couple of months till we see the first Fianna Gael :rolleyes:Taoiseach?

Kristopherus

They have some neck. Anything to hang on to a semblance of power.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

UDAWINNER

Kristopherus wrote: »

They have some neck. Anything to hang on to a semblance of power.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

couldn't agree more

flutered

they are as thich as mules, they just cannot see reality, or realise that they are not wanted.

Killer Pigeon

CelticRambler wrote: »

Two headlines from RTE this afternoon. Has the civil war finally come to an end, with both sides realising they've more ideas in common than differences? Could it be just another couple of months till we see the first Fianna Gael :rolleyes:Taoiseach?

Did you misspell that purposely (as in Fianna Fáil + Fine Gael = Fianna Gael)?

If not then I hope you realise that their has been previously Fine Gael Taoisigh.

steelcityblues

They are trying to lure FG into false sense of security.

Don't be fooled by all of this!

Killer Pigeon

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Did you misspell that purposely (as in Fianna Fáil + Fine Gael = Fianna Gael)?

If not then I hope you realise that their has been previously Fine Gael Taoisigh.

Pretty certain it was intentional on the OP's part.

It does raise an interesting question though, would it be a good thing for the country if they both joined together? There's absolutely no need to, as it would only increase Labours share of the vote as they become the real "alternative"

yoshytoshy

I'd say this is an attempt to damage fine gael's votes.
Anti Fianna Fail people will stay clear of fine gael.

pigeonbutler

Papa Smut wrote: »

Pretty certain it was intentional on the OP's part.

It does raise an interesting question though, would it be a good thing for the country if they both joined together? There's absolutely no need to, as it would only increase Labours share of the vote as they become the real "alternative"

It's a good thing. It means people will have a choice of policies rather than personalities.

Those of the centre-right by voting FG/FF i.e. acceptance of broad parameters of 4 year plan and closing the deficit primarily by spending cuts rather than tax increases.

Or can vote for Labour, ULA, SF etc to get the policies of the left, hard left and leftovers (as McDowell used to call them). Those policies being closing the deficit over a more protracted period (i.e. borrowing yet more...), opposition to almost any cuts in public service or welfare rates or further taxes on low and middle income earners and instead increasing further taxes on the high earners.

If people would prefer to vote for one of FG or Labour and then end up with a coalition of the 2 and thus some half-assed compromise in each of the many areas where the parties differ, then I think that's a terribly irrational view. FF have admitted they're expecting some time in opposition. If FG get 70 seats plus and are committed to making the cuts necessary it's only sensible that FF should support them in doing that, even if it's doing so from the opposition benches.

Liam Byrne

Interesting that it's NOW that they suggest this, when they know they're in for a hiding based on their track record.

Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it.

later12

I have to say I would much prefer a minority FG government along the lines of the Tallaght Strategy (or indeed a majority FG Government) to one which had any truck with the Labour party who have constantly opposed cuts to public expenditure and only seem to come up with picemeal vagaries of corrective policy.

Nozebleed

FF will say anything at this stage..i wouldn't believe a word.

Mr.Micro

A minority FG Government relying on FF support would be like the vile Greens supporting Fianna Failure it does not bear thinking about. All the while FG having to discuss with FF for this support. The sheer arrogance of a party who hopefully will be rendered impotent and insignificant after the GE.

CelticRambler

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Did you misspell that purposely (as in Fianna Fáil + Fine Gael = Fianna Gael)?

Yeah - hence the :rolleyes: !

At this stage in the political game, it's hard to see why the two don't merge into one. It would be preferable for FF to get hammered into oblivion but as that's unlikely, it would surely be in the country's interest for them to do their deals now and let everyone know. That way, either both can be sunk together or Muintir na hEireann gets a reasonably coherent majority party that'll last 4/5years.

Both FG and Lab seem determined to enter into coalition even while sneakily tearing strips off each other, and no-one will admit to wanting to pal up with SF, so what other option is there? 51% independents? That'd be interesting!

Liam Byrne

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah - hence the :rolleyes: !

At this stage in the political game, it's hard to see why the two don't merge into one. It would be preferable for FF to get hammered into oblivion but as that's unlikely, it would surely be in the country's interest for them to do their deals now and let everyone know.

Why would they do any deal with FF ? You're speaking as if that's a given, which it's not.

Judgement Day

It's just cynical maneuvering by Micheal Martin to try and cause friction between 'flaky' Labour and FG. In the best traditions of Fianna Fail I hope that all Boardsies will vote early and often.

talla10

I would hope (and expect TBH) Fine Gael to come out in the next day or two and firmly state they will will never enter government with FF. I know Labour have already said they never will go into power with FF and i don't believe FG ever will but they still would need to come out and say so. Fianna Fail pathetic attempts makes me so angry, the absolute arrogance of them is unbelieveable

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting that it's NOW that they suggest this, when they know they're in for a hiding based on their track record.

Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it.

What have they 'suggested' ? . . All I have heard is that FF will support any party in government who progress the 4 year plan . . seems entirely reasonable to me . .

Judgement Day

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What have they 'suggested' ? . . All I have heard is that FF will support any party in government who progress the 4 year plan . . seems entirely reasonable to me . .

For the good of the country of course and not a desperate attempt by a bunch of losers to look statesmen like. :rolleyes:

the groutch

let's just hope we don't end up with a Tallaght strategy

hallelujajordan

Judgement Day wrote: »

For the good of the country of course and not a desperate attempt by a bunch of losers to look statesmen like. :rolleyes:

.. as opposed to voting against a Finance Bill that you have facilitated and which you secretly support you mean ? . .. (sssshhhhh, don't tell anyone)

yoshytoshy

People are saying Michael martin is a great guy ,but I don't trust him at all. I hate to say it ,but he comes across as a bit of a snake to me.

Dannyboy83

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's just cynical maneuvering by Micheal Martin to try and cause friction between 'flaky' Labour and FG. In the best traditions of Fianna Fail I hope that all Boardsies will vote early and often.

I disagree, listen to his recent Newstalk interview.

It seems he is much more in line with Fine Gael, ideologically, than Labour are.
The only area where he strongly disagreed was in Health - but as much as I am in favour of 'Fair Care', I found myself actually agreeing with MM on the reasons against it.

Dannyboy83

yoshytoshy wrote: »

People are saying Michael martin is a great guy ,but I don't trust him at all. I hate to say it ,but he comes across as a bit of a snake to me.

I usually find a lot of my views in accordance with your own Yoshy.
On this occasion, I don't tho.
I'm interested to know why you feel like that.

I guess it's inevitable given what his party have done to the country, but people aren't giving him a fair crack of the whip.

Bear in mind that DeValera drove this country into the ground, but his successor, Lemass, turned it on it's head. It is possible.
I'm not saying that this is reason enough to go out and vote for FF, I think they definitely need time out of government, but I do think it will do more harm than good to entirely write off a future option.
Looking forward, we will probably need to boot Fine Gael out of office in 5 years - as we've seen with FF, when one party stays in power too long, it goes to their heads and the sh1t rises to the top.
I couldn't possibly entertain voting for Labour in their current form and unless we get a new credible option, that would only leave FF.

This time last year, I couldn't imagine saying that I would ever consider voting for FF in the future, but I think MM has a lot to offer and time will tell.

I understand that people are pissed off that he didn't speak out over x,y,z during his tenure, but we also have to be conscious that this is the failing of our parliamentary system.
MM made reference to this himself in his newtalk interview - speaking on some of the weaknesses of political system, he explained that in his view, it's already too widely open to abuse - that we already have a failing in our political parties and system where the 'Yes Men' are the ones who make it to the top.

Reading between the lines, I'd say it's fair to assume he was talking about Cowen there, among many others in the party.

yoshytoshy

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I usually find a lot of my views in accordance with your own Yoshy.
On this occasion, I don't tho.
I'm interested to know why you feel like that.

I just don't trust anyone from Fianna Fail ,they were all happy to have Brian Cowen as leader and now suddenly Cowen is gone.
Martin needs to get the hell away from them cronies altogether ,otherwise it's just the same old spin tbh.

Liam Byrne

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Martin needs to get the hell away from them cronies altogether ,otherwise it's just the same old spin tbh.

Correction : Martin is (or at least was) one of those cronies, and voted accordingly up to his sudden rehabilitation.

Brenireland

Great to see Fianna Fail making a recovery at this early stage,And also seeing that Mr.Martin is indeed the favoured leader out of the 5 I feel Fianna Fail should indeed participate in government with Fine Gael should that be the case.

This would give us a right wing government and left wing opposition,this is where Marxist SF & Labour should be in the opposition.

gandalf

Yes FG & FF should merge they are both centre right parties. Burying Civil War bull would be a major step forward with politics in this country.

However for people eulogising about Michael Martin as some new FF messiah maybe they should step back and remember that he was in a leading capacity at the cabinet table during the total mismanagement of Ireland by the last two FF lead Governments.

Far from distancing himself from cronyism he is one of the cronies who has helped sink our economy. What this stinks of is an attempt by FF to try and weasel their way back into Government via the back door when they should be consigned to the opposition for at least two terms to reform.

maynooth_rules

Brenireland wrote: »

Great to see Fianna Fail making a recovery at this early stage,And also seeing that Mr.Martin is indeed the favoured leader out of the 5 I feel Fianna Fail should indeed participate in government with Fine Gael should that be the case.

Why is it great to see them make a recovery? What in gods name does it say about some of the electorate of this country if they change their opinion on FF based on them replacing a man who was instrumental in our economic collapse as a nation with a man that was sitting at cabinet table during our economic demise. Martin is almost every bit responsible as Bertie and Biffo, and a few measly half heated apologies should not wash with educated voters. I have trust in FG and believe they have a lot of strength in the party, for that reason I cant see them going near the cesspool that is Fianna Fail

Sir Oxman

Nozebleed wrote: »

FF will say anything at this stage..i wouldn't believe a word.

They are akin to cornered rats, their survival is on the line.

My first thought was this is an attempt to mop up FG transfers as FF are poison to any decent transfers from other parties.

There's a rule of thumb when support/coalition is offered from the FF organisation and it's run a fckin mile and don't look back.

Pete_Cavan

gandalf wrote: »

Yes FG & FF should merge they are both centre right parties. Burying Civil War bull would be a major step forward with politics in this country.

IMO, FF are not a centre right party at all, well at least under Bertie they were not. They were political whores who would do or say anything to get votes, it was this short-sighted "keep everyone happy" approach that has lead to our serious long term problems. A lot of FF policies over the past 13 years have been predominantly left wing, they worked very closely with the unions on social partnerships increasing public sector pay to among the highest in EU, they increased social welfare payments to among the highest in EU and increased the minimum wage to among the highest in EU. Maybe they will be more right orientated now under Martin.

FG, on the other hand, are a genuine centre right party, they stuck to their principles while FF were promising the sun the moon and the stars, which is why they preformed so poorly in the 2002 general election.

Sierra Oscar

Both Fianna Fail & Fine Gael will do anything to prevent Labour getting a strong foothold in Irish politics. A third dominant Irish political party undermines FF & FG's dominance.

bmaxi

My advice to any political party approached by FF would be. "Beware Greeks bearing gifts".
At the moment FF are casting around for any straws and ultimately when they sink the straws will sink with them.

DeVore

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Both Fianna Fail & Fine Gael will do anything to prevent Labour getting a strong foothold in Irish politics. A third dominant Irish political party undermines FF & FG's dominance.

Who's the second???

DeV.

raymon

Enda says that he can't see fg collaborating with FF.

FF are probably too tainted for any party to consider ever partnering with ever again

Maybe the shinners will be FFs friend now that enda has given them the 2 fingers

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting that it's NOW that they suggest this, when they know they're in for a hiding based on their track record.

Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69753133&postcount=18

You even PARTICIPATED in this thread. So don't come all holier than thou NOW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Correction : Martin is (or at least was) one of those cronies, and voted accordingly up to his sudden rehabilitation.

As already mentioned, once Lemass didn't have Dev looking over his shoulder he practically rewrote the book. Martin came out this week and admitted FF didn't tax enough, something I've been saying since 2006, and spending too much (I disagree, it was targeted incorrectly)

I no fan of Micheál Martin, but I'll have my chance to challenge him in person on Wednesday.

flutered

easy for martin to talk with ff nearly in olibivion, martin never mentioned that ff raped this country, apoligists for ff are many on boards, please tell why have you changed your avitar etc so often, is there a reason, please explain

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69753133&postcount=18

You even PARTICIPATED in this thread. So don't come all holier than thou NOW

A thread that is still within the timeframe of FF getting hammered because of what they've done, so I'm completely in the dark as to what you are trying to imply with your "holier than thou NOW comment.

ninty9er wrote: »

As already mentioned, once Lemass didn't have Dev looking over his shoulder he practically rewrote the book. Martin came out this week and admitted FF didn't tax enough, something I've been saying since 2006, and spending too much (I disagree, it was targeted incorrectly)

Irrelevant. Lemass didn't vote in favour of flushing billions down the tubes. Martin did. And no amount of "whoops, sorry, but shure you'll forgive me and forget it and vote for me again, won't ya ?" will make up for that despicable act.

ninty9er wrote: »

I no fan of Micheál Martin, but I'll have my chance to challenge him in person on Wednesday.

Based on the above, it doesn't appear that you're likely to "challenge" him on much, because - it appears - you've already taken his side.

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

FF are probably too tainted for any party to consider ever partnering with ever again

Maybe the shinners will be FFs friend now that enda has given them the 2 fingers

Nobody would touch FF with a barge pole for fear of the contagion spreading.

Tragedy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A thread that is still within the timeframe of FF getting hammered because of what they've done, so I'm completely in the dark as to what you are trying to imply with your "holier than thou NOW comment.

Because you faked outrage at this happening now, when you were part of a discussion about it months ago.

You're fantastic at faking outrage, have you ever thought of going into Politics? You'd fit right in, get angry, rant, shout a lot, be populist, and if anyone ever challenges you on facts, shout even louder or ignore them.

Liam Byrne

Tragedy wrote: »

Because you faked outrage at this happening now, when you were part of a discussion about it months ago.

Bull. That thread was LAST MONTH. So it's the exact same timeframe.

That thread was started on December 27th. On what planet is that "months ago" ? you're talking nonsense.

In addition, what I posted in this thread is 100% consistent with what I posted there.

So less of the "faked outrage" bull****, please. There wasn't even any "outrage" in my post in this thread; I just posted that it was "interesting". And I don't "fake" anything.......and even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on that and pretend that I did, you'd have to know me in order to judge the level of sincerity, and since you don't know me, it's obvious that you can't possibly make such a claim.

But hey, let's not let any facts get in the way of taking a pot-shot at me.

Tragedy wrote: »

You're fantastic at faking outrage, have you ever thought of going into Politics? You'd fit right in, get angry, rant, shout a lot, be populist, and if anyone ever challenges you on facts, shout even louder or ignore them.

Completely incorrect. And I'd suggest you either back that claim up with links to relevant posts or retract it immediately.

Tragedy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bull. That thread was LAST MONTH. So it's the exact same timeframe.

That thread was started on December 27th. On what planet is that "months ago" ? you're talking nonsense.

I misread it as November, it's still over a month ago with you faking outrage in this thread about it being new.

Also, 4 weeks ago isn't the same as today, sorry to break that to you.

In addition, what I posted in this thread is 100% consistent with what I posted there.

Except you posted in this thread
"Interesting that it's NOW that they suggest this, when they know they're in for a hiding based on their track record.

Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it."

You know that since the other thread, the greens have gone into opposition, Cowen has resigned as leader of FF, FF have a new leader and the dail is being dissolved on Tuesday?
That's an awful lot of change for things to be the exact same as you claim.

So less of the "faked outrage" bull****, please. There wasn't even any "outrage" in my post in this thread; I just posted that it was "interesting". And I don't "fake" anything.......and even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on that and pretend that I did, you'd have to know me in order to judge the level of sincerity, and since you don't know me, it's obvious that you can't possibly make such a claim.

I don't need to know you personally to see you on every single possible thread on this forum being outraged and ranting.

Completely incorrect. And I'd suggest you either back that claim up with links to relevant posts or retract it immediately.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?do=finduser&u=84799

Here you go.

Posters like you are why people can't seriously discuss, debate and argue politics. You take over threads, hijack discussions, and shout your angry viewpoint at every opportunity stifling everybody who dares disagree with you.

Liam Byrne

I'll give this one last chance.

Tragedy wrote: »

I misread it as November, it's still over a month ago with you faking outrage in this thread about it being new.

Also, 4 weeks ago isn't the same as today, sorry to break that to you.


Except you posted in this thread
"Interesting that it's NOW that they suggest this, when they know they're in for a hiding based on their track record.

Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it."

You know that since the other thread, the greens have gone into opposition, Cowen has resigned as leader of FF, FF have a new leader and the dail is being dissolved on Tuesday?
That's an awful lot of change for things to be the exact same as you claim.

I didn't claim it was "the exact same". The other thread was a "made-up" scenario, suggested by a poster, with reference to a newspaper article re FG strategists, whereas this one is based on FF themselves suggesting it via their new leader.

What I said in that one was relevant, and NOW, when FF have lost the Greens, they are suggesting it themselves.

So my post is 100% consistent AND reflects the changes since, and no amount of twisting will change that fact.

Tragedy wrote: »

I don't need to know you personally to see you on every single possible thread on this forum being outraged and ranting.

Yes, I am outraged at what has been done to this country, but that's not the point. You claimed that it was faked outrage, and that - something which you left out of the above - is why you would need to know me personally in order for your post to have any credibility.

Tragedy wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?do=finduser&u=84799

Here you go.

I asked for one specific example of what you object to so much and you give me a search results list of all of my posts ?

Tragedy wrote: »

Posters like you are why people can't seriously discuss, debate and argue politics. You take over threads, hijack discussions, and shout your angry viewpoint at every opportunity stifling everybody who dares disagree with you.

:rolleyes:

etcetc

works on another level too

trying to paint picture that both parties are basically the same, FF will support FG in government

hence if you the voter who always votes right and wouldnt dream of voting left is suddenly now left with dilemna of having to switch to FG you dont have to now you can still vote with us(FF)and keep out those nasty lefties

Tragedy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll give this one last chance.



I didn't claim it was "the exact same". The other thread was a "made-up" scenario, suggested by a poster, with reference to a newspaper article re FG strategists, whereas this one is based on FF themselves suggesting it via their new leader.

Excuse me?

"Fianna Fail leadership contender Micheal Martin and the retiring minister Noel Dempsey have both indicated they could support a Fine Gael government if it was implementing policies broadly compatible with those of Fianna Fail"

That's not a "made-up" scenario, suggested by a poster - that's something that the now FF leader indicated was a possibility over a month ago.

Strike 1.

What I said in that one was relevant, and NOW, when FF have lost the Greens, they are suggesting it themselves.

So my post is 100% consistent AND reflects the changes since, and no amount of twisting will change that fact.

See above.

Strike 2.

Yes, I am outraged at what has been done to this country, but that's not the point. You claimed that it was faked outrage, and that - something which you left out of the above - is why you would need to know me personally in order for your post to have any credibility.

It is faked, because over a month ago you participated in the thread discussing the possibility of FF propping up an FG government, with MM(the now leader of FF) indicating that it could happen, and now you're outraged because it's opportunistic based on the GP going into oppposition.

So, it is faked.

Strike 3.

I asked for one specific example of what you object to so much and you give me a search results list of all of my posts ?



:rolleyes:

Yes, because by the end of the first page of results people should know all they need to about you, your posting style, the content of your posts and your motives for posting.

Liam Byrne

Tragedy wrote: »

Excuse me?

"Fianna Fail leadership contender Micheal Martin and the retiring minister Noel Dempsey have both indicated they could support a Fine Gael government if it was implementing policies broadly compatible with those of Fianna Fail"

That's not a "made-up" scenario, suggested by a poster - that's something that the now FF leader indicated was a possibility over a month ago.

At a time that he wasn't leader and that Brian Cowen was flatly refusing to even contemplate stepping aside. PLUS the main thrust of the article was that FG were supposedly considering it, not the last line of the article.

And again, that was still within the timeframe of FF being on the ropes, so that part of what was said then and now still applies, while the "officialness" of it now applies now that Martin is leader.

Tragedy wrote: »

It is faked, because over a month ago you participated in the thread discussing the possibility of FF propping up an FG government, with MM(the now leader of FF) indicating that it could happen, and now you're outraged because it's opportunistic based on the GP going into oppposition.

Tragedy wrote: »

So, it is faked.

Look, that's your opinion and frankly nothing I say will change your mind, particularly since you blanketly write off ALL of my posts (despite not being able to specify a single one that you actually object to).

You're obviously wrong, but I couldn't be arsed arguing.

Tragedy wrote: »

Strike 3.

You know what you said about engaging in discussion and debate ? Does that involve actually discussion and debate, or point-scoring ?

Tragedy wrote: »

Yes, because by the end of the first page of results people should know all they need to about you, your posting style, the content of your posts and your motives for posting.

So leaving aside that I gave you the benefit of the doubt re somehow seeing "27-11-2010" as November, you repeat the claim that I stonewall debates and shout people down ?

There is only ONE of those 3 that could possibly be derived from my posts. Anything else is a personal dig and pure conjecture, since I don't have any "motives" for posting.

So post reported. And - since that's 3 times in a row you've taken a pot at me, rather than merely the posts - goodbye and good luck. I am - as you put it - out, albeit for different reasons.

And you can spin that any way you want about "not wanting to engage", because it won't be true. I will debate and discuss, but I will not tolerate being repeatedly personally swiped at by someone who doesn't even know me.

Tragedy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

At a time that he wasn't leader and that Brian Cowen was flatly refusing to even contemplate stepping aside. PLUS the main thrust of the article was that FG were supposedly considering it, not the last line of the article.

Backtracking. First it was "a "made-up" scenario, suggested by a poster, with reference to a newspaper article re FG strategists, whereas this one is based on FF themselves suggesting it via their new leader.", now it's that he wasn't leader at the time.
You just completely changed your argument.

And again, that was still within the timeframe of FF being on the ropes, so that part of what was said then and now still applies, while the "officialness" of it now applies now that Martin is leader.

But part of your argument was that they were doing this now that the GP had left them, and the GP hadn't left back then.
More backtracking.

Look, that's your opinion and frankly nothing I say will change your mind, particularly since you blanketly write off ALL of my posts (despite not being able to specify a single one that you actually object to).

You're obviously wrong, but I couldn't be arsed arguing.

How could it be real, when you are 'outraged' at this 'new' event - when you were discussing the now leader of FF indicating it as a possibility over a month ago?
It's nonsensical to claim it's real.

You know what you said about engaging in discussion and debate ? Does that involve actually discussion and debate, or point-scoring ?

Because the one quote from the newspaper article and thread completely destroyed all your arguments?

So leaving aside that I gave you the benefit of the doubt re somehow seeing "27-11-2010" as November, you repeat the claim that I stonewall debates and shout people down ?

Seeing as how you've changed your argument multiple times in this thread already, and backtracked twice attempting to change the meaning of posts that meant something entirely different in the last post alone... yeah

There is only ONE of those 3 that could possibly be derived from my posts. Anything else is a personal dig and pure conjecture, since I don't have any "motives" for posting.

Everyone has motives for posting. They support someone or something, they don't support someone or something, they're angry at someone or something, they like someone or something, they dislike someone or something. Everyone has motives for posting and to claim you can post motive free is ludicrous.

So post reported. And - since that's 3 times in a row you've taken a pot at me, rather than merely the posts - goodbye and good luck. I am - as you put it - out, albeit for different reasons.

You asked why I gave a search list of your posts instead of one, I explained why. Nowhere does "people should know all they need to about you, your posting style, the content of your posts and your motives for posting." contain a personal attack, or even a judgement(unlike a previous post) - so what exactly are you reporting? The same is true for me, the same is true for almost any poster.

And you can spin that any way you want about "not wanting to engage", because it won't be true. I will debate and discuss, but I will not tolerate being repeatedly personally swiped at by someone who doesn't even know me.

You've refused to debate and dicuss on this thread, instead constantly and consistently changing the argument, revising what you've posted and attempting to create a new argument.

Liam Byrne

This is getting ridiculous, but I'll give logic one last shot.

Back in December (just barely over a month ago) there was no question of Martin becoming leader and no suggestion that FF would take his proposal seriously, with Cowen brazening it out until the election, or so he said. Even if there had been a heave - which looked unlikely in itself - it was widely mooted that Lenihan would become leader of FF, and in that scenario Martin's own personal views would have been irrelevant, and would certainly not have been accepted by the party.

In that context, anything said in the previous thread (at least from my part) was in the context of the vast bulk of the article; that FG were supposedly looking into it. What individual FF members with zero clout at the time say is irrelevant (a la O'Dea saying he'd support Shannon, the party had the final say).

NOW that Martin is leader, the party is OK with that being proposed out loud as a party.

Is this related to Martin taking over ? Possibly.
Is this related to the Greens - FF's only support - pulling out ? Definitely

Hence it is not the only factor, but I'd be curious as to whether Martin would have had the go-ahead with the backing of his party to say it had the Greens NOT pulled out.

We'll never know.

Therefore it was not a standalone issue, which is why I said nothing more than the fact that it was interesting. And it is inextricably linked to the Greens pulling out, because if they hadn't finally put their foot down Martin wouldn't even be leader.

Everyone has motives for posting. They support someone or something, they don't support someone or something, they're angry at someone or something, they like someone or something, they dislike someone or something. Everyone has motives for posting and to claim you can post motive free is ludicrous.

It's a discussion board. Not a blog, not a rant, not anything else. It is possible to just post an opinion. Therefore claiming that everyone has motives for every post is equally ludicrous.

You asked why I gave a search list of your posts instead of one, I explained why. Nowhere does "people should know all they need to about you, your posting style, the content of your posts and your motives for posting." contain a personal attack, or even a judgement(unlike a previous post) - so what exactly are you reporting? The same is true for me, the same is true for almost any poster.

Because there is no way that people should know all they need to know about me from my posting, and likewise there is no way that they can deduce motives from those postings.

In addition, both of those are related to me, and the second is your own conjecture, rather than the middle one which is related to the posting; and postings directed at a poster rather than the post are not permitted. You also repeatedly used the word "fake" relating to my views, something which echoes Ahern's dismissal of the concerns of the public last week. Hence the report.

However, since that hasn't been acted on, I will take it with good grace, in the same way as I will point out that despite your linking to every post of mine and claiming that they are objectionable, only a tiny percentage have been viewed as such by moderators, and most of those on reflection I can see where the objection lay.

Therefore, the point is that while you may have an opinion that I always shout down posters and act unacceptably that is quite obviously not the case.

Anyway, all this is completely off-topic. I have now clarified (not backtracked, not changed my story, not anything of the sort) for the last time, and I will not contribute to this any further as it is miles off-topic.

Is there an argument that Martin simply got the party to agree to what the one-line at the end of the report suggested was his own view ? Yes

Did it register enough with me at the time, given that he wasn't leader and wasn't likely to be, and the newspaper report was related to FG's tactics ? No

Is it still - as I said - "interesting" that FF only do this NOW, and haven't done this over the past 5 years ? Yes.

So my point stands.

You've refused to debate and dicuss on this thread, instead constantly and consistently changing the argument, revising what you've posted and attempting to create a new argument.

No, I haven't. As I said, I took the other article relating to it's key point, and commented accordingly because Martin's point (albeit still within a timeframe in which FF were likely to be annihilated) didn't have any authority.

Now that Martin is leader, his comments have authority.

But if FF were in a stronger position and their coalition partners hadn't bailed, it wouldn't have happened (not least because Martin wouldn't have been leader, so his personal views would still be largely irrelevant, but also because IMHO the party simply wouldn't have agreed to it).

That is as clear, concise, honest and transparent as I can make it, and if anyone still doesn't accept it then there's nothing more I can say to clarify or correct them.

Tragedy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous, but I'll give logic one last shot.

Back in December (just barely over a month ago) there was no question of Martin becoming leader and no suggestion that FF would take his proposal seriously, with Cowen brazening it out until the election, or so he said.

In that context, anything said in the previous thread (at least from my part) was in the context of the vast bulk of the article; that FG were supposedly looking into it. What individual FF members with zero clout at the time say is irrelevant (a la O'Dea saying he'd support Shannon, the party had the final say).

Instead of responding to you yet again changing your argument, I'll give fact one last shot.

Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it.

That directly contradicts what you are quoted as saying above.

In addition, what I posted in this thread is 100% consistent with what I posted there.

Factually, this is a lie. I have just proved it.

I didn't claim it was "the exact same". The other thread was a "made-up" scenario, suggested by a poster, with reference to a newspaper article re FG strategists, whereas this one is based on FF themselves suggesting it via their new leader.

What I said in that one was relevant, and NOW, when FF have lost the Greens, they are suggesting it themselves.

Directly contradicts what you are quoted as saying above.

So my post is 100% consistent AND reflects the changes since, and no amount of twisting will change that fact.

I have just proven that your posts are directly contradicting each other.

NOW that Martin is leader, the party is OK with that being proposed out loud as a party.

Is this related to Martin taking over ? Possibly.

A policy that MM indicated was possible before becoming leader, and then being announced days after he becomes leader, is only possibly related to him becoming leader?
Ok...

Is this related to the Greens - FF's only support - pulling out ? Definitely

Except the new leader already indicated it was a possibility before the Greens pulled out, therefore there is zero correlation between GP pulling out and MM announcing this.

Hence it is not the only factor, but I'd be curious as to whether Martin would have had the go-ahead with the backing of his party to say it had the Greens NOT pulled out.

He's the leader of a sinking ship, I don't think he's asking for the go-ahead on every single thing he says, I would suggest he's making his mark and telling the party "love it or lump it".

We'll never know.

But you just above said "definitely"...

Therefore it was not a standalone issue, which is why I said nothing more than the fact that it was interesting. And it is inextricably linked to the Greens pulling out, because if they hadn't finally put their foot down Martin wouldn't even be leader.

Uhhuh.

It's a discussion board. Not a blog, not a rant, not anything else. It is possible to just post an opinion. Therefore claiming that everyone has motives for every post is equally ludicrous.

It's a discussion board on politics in Ireland, populated with Irish people. Trying to say you or anyone else is motiveless is absurd.

You also repeatedly used the word "fake" relating to my views, something which echoes Ahern's dismissal of the concerns of the public last week. Hence the report.

I said your outrage was fake, based on the fact that you were outraged at this being a new development despite ninty9er proving that you were aware of Martin indicating this was a possibility in December.
Again, how can your outrage at this being a new possibility by FF be real if you were aware of Martin indicating it was a possibility over a month ago?
Logically, your outrage was faked, or you forgot about what Mr. Martin said in December.

I have now clarified (not backtracked, not changed my story, not anything of the sort) for the last time, and I will not contribute to this any further as it is miles off-topic.

I have proved with evidence and facts, based wholly on your own posts in this thread, that you have both backtracked and changed your story.

Ya know what, you could have just accepted that you were wrong and had been melodramatic posting about how outraged you were by this new development, instead you've spent about 8 posts trying to find a way to explain it away.

Liam Byrne

Tragedy wrote: »

That directly contradicts what you are quoted as saying above.

Factually, this is a lie. I have just proved it.

:rolleyes:

I said that FF wouldn't have considered it. You yourself said that Martin may now be telling them "like it or lump it". In fact, you related it yourself to the fact that it's a sinking ship, part of which is down to a lack of support from the Greens.

He's the leader of a sinking ship, I don't think he's asking for the go-ahead on every single thing he says, I would suggest he's making his mark and telling the party "love it or lump it".

So DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF LYING.

A policy that MM indicated was possible before becoming leader, and then being announced days after he becomes leader, is only possibly related to him becoming leader?

Again, a personal view of his has become a policy because of what you outlined above, which is precisely down to a lack of support.

You've basically said EXACTLY what I was saying.

Except the new leader already indicated it was a possibility before the Greens pulled out, therefore there is zero correlation between GP pulling out and MM announcing this.

When he said it before, he had no authority. It is now a party policy. The difference being : the Greens pulled out.

I said your outrage was fake, based on the fact that you were outraged at this being a new development despite ninty9er proving that you were aware of Martin indicating this was a possibility in December.
Again, how can your outrage at this being a new possibility by FF be real if you were aware of Martin indicating it was a possibility over a month ago?
Logically, your outrage was faked, or you forgot about what Mr. Martin said in December.

Y'see you are projecting the "faked" part, even though you yourself put the "or" in the last sentence. You are now backtracking on multiple accusations of "faked" by adding in an "or".

I've already said that Martin's statement didn't register strongly, because he had no authority. It's not quite "forgetting" on the level of some FF people, but it is a case that a relatively irrelevant - at the time - sentence in an article related to FG didn't register strongly enough.

But none of that changes the fact that the FF party as a whole have now accepted this - as you said yourself - because they are a sinking ship. After the Greens bailed.

Which was my point in the first place.

I have proved with evidence and facts, based wholly on your own posts in this thread, that you have both backtracked and changed your story.

You haven't. You've actually emphasised - and possibly clarified - my reasoning in your own words. FF would not have accepted what Martin voiced in December unless the Greens had bailed. And that fact is interesting.

But g'day anyway. Sheesh!

Tragedy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I said that FF wouldn't have considered it. You yourself said that Martin may now be telling them "like it or lump it". In fact, you related it yourself to the fact that it's a sinking ship, part of which is down to a lack of support from the Greens.

Christ on a stick. Now you've resorted to quibbling about "Did I mean FF the party, FF two of it's Ministers, FF the Leader of the party, or some new iteration I can use to get out of my being wrong"

Again, a personal view of his has become a policy because of what you outlined above, which is precisely down to a lack of support.

You've basically said EXACTLY what I was saying.

No I 'basically' haven't. A Minister talking about supporting another political party isn't a personal view. What's your evidence that there was a lack of support?

When he said it before, he had no authority. It is now a party policy. The difference being : the Greens pulled out.

He was a Minister and already a likely candidate for next leader(as the RTE news report itself states). There was also a second FF Minister who indicated the same thing.

Y'see you are projecting the "faked" part, even though you yourself put the "or" in the last sentence. You are now backtracking on multiple accusations of "faked" by adding in an "or".

I'm not backtracking, I ruled out it being you forgetting because when ninty9er pointed out you had posted on the previous thread, you had a perfect opportunity to state that you had forgotten and instead started your campaign to backtrack and change the argument out of being caught out.
See? Not backtracking, being consistent the whole way through.

I've already said that Martin's statement didn't register strongly, because he had no authority. It's not quite "forgetting" on the level of some FF people, but it is a case that a relatively irrelevant - at the time - sentence in an article related to FG didn't register strongly enough.

So why did it take you about 5 or 6 posts of backtracking, changing the argument and quibbling to admit that?

But none of that changes the fact that the FF party as a whole have now accepted this - as you said yourself - because they are a sinking ship.

I didn't say that. I said the FF party are most likely accepting any decisions MM are making, because he's the new leader and he's their last chance. I didn't say they've accepted this decision because they're in trouble, I said they'll most likely be accepting any decisions he makes.

Which was my point in the first place.

No it wasn't.
Your original point was
"Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it."
Quibble all you want, two government Ministers equals considering it.

FF would not have accepted what Martin voiced in December

How do you know this? Two Ministers stating this publicly is going a long way to acceptance.

unless the Greens had bailed. And that fact is interesting.

But it isn't, because the new Leader of FF who has indicated this, had indicated he was potentially supportive of it in December. Before the greens bailed.
There is no fact.

Now, are you going to yet again come back and try to argue that

Up to now, with the Greens backing up their incompetent and corrupt asses, they wouldn't have even considered it.

The other thread was a "made-up" scenario, suggested by a poster, with reference to a newspaper article re FG strategists, whereas this one is based on FF themselves suggesting it via their new leader.

What I said in that one was relevant, and NOW, when FF have lost the Greens, they are suggesting it themselves.

So my post is 100% consistent AND reflects the changes since, and no amount of twisting will change that fact.

At a time that he wasn't leader and that Brian Cowen was flatly refusing to even contemplate stepping aside. PLUS the main thrust of the article was that FG were supposedly considering it, not the last line of the article.

And again, that was still within the timeframe of FF being on the ropes, so that part of what was said then and now still applies, while the "officialness" of it now applies now that Martin is leader.

these three things are internally consistent, don't contradict each other and prove that you haven't changed your argument once?