Pearse Doherty's Education

Chucky the tree

dlofnep wrote: »

And I never stated that he endorsed all of their policies. What's your point?

"proposals on the current economic outlook" - He doesn't support there proposals, he supports one proposal.

dlofnep

Chucky the tree wrote: »

"proposals on the current economic outlook" - He doesn't support there proposals, he supports one proposal.

He doesn't support the bailout. He feels that the inflicted cuts have directly caused a recession. Krugman argued that Iceland is in a stronger economic position for their actions taken than Ireland is at present.

We cannot afford this bailout. So you can waste your time arguing about semantics, or you can look at the bigger picture. Sinn Féin believe that we should burn the bondholders - many leading economists agree with this.

Chucky the tree

dlofnep wrote: »

He doesn't support the bailout. He feels that the inflicted cuts have directly caused a recession. Krugman argued that Iceland is in a stronger economic position for their actions taken than Ireland is at present.

We cannot afford this bailout. So you can waste your time arguing about semantics, or you can look at the bigger picture. Sinn Féin believe that we should burn the bondholders - many leading economists agree with this.

Iceland and Ireland aren't comparable, especially an Ireland run by Sinn Fein though. Krugman could well be right in what he says, but SF economic policies are wrong and unworkable.

dlofnep

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Iceland and Ireland aren't comparable, especially an Ireland run by Sinn Fein though. Krugman could well be right in what he says, but SF economic policies are wrong and unworkable.

Um, I believe the current economic policies are wrong and unworkable. Who's right? It's your estimation that they wrong, but yet a number of leading economists support the burning of bondholders.

Chucky the tree

dlofnep wrote: »

Um, I believe the current economic policies are wrong and unworkable. Who's right? It's your estimation that they wrong, but yet a number of leading economists support the burning of bondholders.

Supporting one proposal does not mean there economic polices are workable.

dlofnep

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Supporting one proposal does not mean there economic polices are workable.

It is your opinion that they are not workable. That does not make it fact. It is the opinion of many international observers and economists that the bailout is unworkable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

wolfpawnat wrote: »

He is not doing a job in civil engineering and many people accuse SF of being uneducated. His lies are nothing compared to Bertie and BIFFO!

We all try to make our C.V.'s sound better than they are. I'd say many people have put things on their c.v.'s that are not true to try and get jobs in the recent times!

He has proven himself so far in the career he is in and that is all that matters so far!

Bertie only took a few brown envelopes too. I'm sure many people have done a nixer or two down through the years, perfectly understandable.

dlofnep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sinn Féin believes that certain cuts, and certain charges (USC) can be avoided by introducing a third rate of tax, and by using funds from the NPR for state-funding and job creation. It's all well and good to take handouts from the EU - But if we don't see any investment in getting people back to work - the state is going to be stagnant.

It's a question of who should take the burden - The low-paid, or the well-paid? For me it's a clear-cut issue. **** the bondholders - they made their bed and now they can sleep in it. Those who are earning very little, or who are in financial struggles should be protected. When people are dieing because their electricity is being cut off - we need to examine how we want our society to look.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Eh, no.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chucky the tree

dlofnep wrote: »

It is your opinion that they are not workable. That does not make it fact. It is the opinion of many international observers and economists that the bailout is unworkable.

Well it pretty much is fact. A simple read of their proposals and calculator will prove it.

dlofnep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No it doesn't - as Sinn Féin wishes to ease to burden of start-up companies, to to invest in a job creation strategy that will get people back to work and contributing to the Irish economy again.

If you don't support the bailout, and you don't support Sinn Féin's proposals - then let's hear yours. I'm all ears.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Well it pretty much is fact. A simple read of their proposals and calculator will prove it.

Er, no it isn't a "fact". It is your opinion, and it is subjective.

Chucky the tree

dlofnep wrote: »

Er, no it isn't a "fact". It is your opinion, and it is subjective.

SF plan on using €2bn of the €7bn NPRF to fund job stimulus. They then plan on using the €5bn left over to fund our €17bn deficit for the year after we burn the bondholders and reject the IMF and EU's money. How is this workable?

Einhard

dlofnep wrote: »

Sinn Féin supporters, defending their party.. What a shocking conclusion of events.

Actually, I think it is quite shocking that anyone would blindly support a political party, and defend proposals and policies purely on the basis that the party proposes them. FF supporters are rightly derided for their blind faith and loyalty in the party, and personally, I think such support is rather atavistic.

The issue here is a non-story being made out to be more than it is. Sinn Féin detractors will naturally inflate it, while people who are neither for or against the party will see it for what it is - a pre-election smear campaign on a well spoken and driven, young politician.

Doherty's fabrication of his record is indeed pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. However, the fact that Sinn Feiners rush to defend him and dismiss the issue, when they would relish having a go at another party's candidate for the same issue is quite revealing. And it's why I think SF are really just more of the same.

dlofnep wrote: »

Well given that Einhard wasn't specific with any single policy - Am I supposed to guess what is he is referring to? When people make blanket statements about Sinn Féin's economic policies, with offering a little insight - then there is hardly a basis for a reasoned debate.

When people misconstrue the words of other posters, it's hardly a basis for reasoned debate either. I didn't even make a statement on the content of SF's economic policies, let alone a blanket one. I stated that most people who dislike SF do so on the basis of their economic policies, and their recent murderous history. Pretty major difference.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

dlofnep wrote: »

A non-issue. Our country is falling apart and this is worthy of 8 pages?

Yet I bet you have gone on threads about ffers and ex FGers and complained about their ethics and lies ?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

He is not doing a job in civil engineering and many people accuse SF of being uneducated. His lies are nothing compared to Bertie and BIFFO!

Stop using ff as a benchmark. :mad:

wolfpawnat wrote: »

We all try to make our C.V.'s sound better than they are. I'd say many people have put things on their c.v.'s that are not true to try and get jobs in the recent times!

Maybe you did ?
Some of us didn't.
And if I ever come across someones CV where they have lied, I immediately make a conclusion about the honesty and trustworthyness of their character.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

He has proven himself so far in the career he is in and that is all that matters so far!

He has proven nothing. He has made some soundbytes. :rolleyes:

kippy wrote: »

As much as I dislike SF and a lot of what they have backed up in the past few decades I do think this is yet another smokescreen.
I am far more interested in the Martin bringing Willie O Dea back to the front bench - what a way to reward incompetence. Am also far more interested in Ivor Callelleys residential property interests and residential arrangements. Indeed, I'd also be more concerned about Biffos games of golf - all things that have been and gone in Irish History without as much of a murmur.

Lets also not forget Bertie, who had no issues despite numerous problems over his personal finances/education claims.

Again stop using ffers as a benchmark as an excuse for lying.
Fair enough he only lied on his CV during election, but it isn't a great start now is it ?

As regards SF's economics they are populist tripe, which are aimed at getting their core voting demographics (unemployed, low paid and young students, etc) to increase support.
All that is in there is the usual
"we will continue spending on the unemployed, the low paid and the public sector".
"We will tax the rich and tax the corporations".
"no one should earn above 100,000".
"We will burn the bondholders".

They know they spout this tripe, since they have shag all chance of ever getting into power and thus having their policies shown up as BS.

The only thing I agree on is spending on public infrastruture such as schools, hospitals and Prisons (which I don't think they bothered including :rolleyes:), as a way of getting some of unemployed construction workers back to work.
But I haven't a clue how this can be properly funded in the current situation ?

Genuine LOL at the accusation of people being SF supporters because they are outlining why anyone can be an engineer due to the name not being protected.

OhNoYouDidn't

Dónal wrote: »

Genuine LOL at the accusation of people being SF supporters because they are outlining why anyone can be an engineer due to the name not being protected.

Exactly. Terrible trend in this place that when anyone disagrees they must be a supporter of the party.

I'm not a shinner, but this is a very poor attempt at muck raking.

Always the same for the small parties before an election. Would be nice if policies were to the fore in this election over personilities, but doesn't look like that will happen

Einhard

Dónal wrote: »

Genuine LOL at the accusation of people being SF supporters because they are outlining why anyone can be an engineer due to the name not being protected.

The people who In responded to are admitted SF supporters.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Exactly. Terrible trend in this place that when anyone disagrees they must be a supporter of the party.

I'm not a shinner, but this is a very poor attempt at muck raking.

Always the same for the small parties before an election. Would be nice if policies were to the fore in this election over personilities, but doesn't look like that will happen

Well it is happening actually. But we can discuss policies, and still take issue with someone fabricating their credentials, and the defence of that by supporters of his party.

I don't get it to be honest. All SF had to say was, yeah silly mistake, apologies and people would have moved on from it. It is a pretty trivial issue in its own right. However, the reaction of SF, and SF supporters on this thread, have made it a much bigger issue- that of the toxic system which pertains, especially in Ireland, whereby party members and supporters will reflexively defend the party line, regardless almost of what it is. So, we get FF people defending Bertie's falsehoods about his academic CV, whilst lambasting Doherty for doing the same. And vice versa. It's not at all healthy in a democracy, as the fact that 15% of the populations till feel FF have nothing to answer for attests to.

OhNoYouDidn't

Einhard wrote: »

I don't get it to be honest. All SF had to say was, yeah silly mistake, apologies and people would have moved on from it. It is a pretty trivial issue in its own right. However, the reaction of SF, and SF supporters on this thread, have made it a much bigger issue- that of the toxic system which pertains, especially in Ireland, whereby party members and supporters will reflexively defend the party line, regardless almost of what it is. So, we get FF people defending Bertie's falsehoods about his academic CV, whilst lambasting Doherty for doing the same. And vice versa. It's not at all healthy in a democracy, as the fact that 15% of the populations till feel FF have nothing to answer for attests to.

Bertie's state biog said he studied at UCD and the LSE. He did neither.

Doherty was quoted as being a civil engineer when he is in fact a civil engineer technician.

There is a world of difference, both in intent and net result.

Bertie either studied in the LSE or he didn't. He didn't. Direct lie.

We can argue all day over whether Doherty is in fact an engineer or not, and there is no clear advantage to him from this misinformation, if indeed it was deliberate.

But as someone who is neither a FF or SF supporter, I can clearly tell the difference between the two 'scandals'.

Einhard

But as someone who is neither a FF or SF supporter, I can clearly tell the difference between a civil engineer and a civil engineer technician.

There's a pretty major difference between the two.

OhNoYouDidn't

Einhard wrote: »

But as someone who is neither a FF or SF supporter, I can clearly tell the difference between a civil engineer and a civil engineer technician.

There's a pretty major difference between the two.

But its a great deal more subtle a difference than saying you studied in not one, but two, universities you hadn't.

One may well be a misqoute, one certainly isn't. To try and compare PD and BA's CV 'gaps' is simply ridicilious.

I really don't care if PD is an engineer or an engineering technician. As has been said here there is no hard and fast rule about the use of the engineering title. Even if he were to stick to his guns, he is not wrong. Wheras Bertie was.

A Dub in Glasgo

Einhard wrote: »

But as someone who is neither a FF or SF supporter, I can clearly tell the difference between a civil engineer and a civil engineer technician.

There's a pretty major difference between the two.

Most people outside of the civil engineering fraternity will not see a major difference between the two.

Non civil engineering people on discussion groups (with access to a huge amount of information explaining the difference) will know the difference if they search. I have worked in the engineering field for over 17 years and I have met loads of people in the engineering field who do not care about 'engineer' status.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This comes to the crux of it -what is your view if they just said professor? As it stands, there is no qualification to call yourself an 'engineer'. Claiming you are a Chartered Engineer is a different story.

In short, just because the man on the street doesn't see a difference doesn't mean that no difference exists.

I was responding to Einhard who claims there is a pretty major difference and he can clearly tell the difference

M three

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not a chance that europe will allow us to do that given that france and germany are currently pushing a uniform tax rate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0205/1224289073180.html

What I'd like to see is how much cash the ida, enterprise ireland and all these other job creation quangoes give to foreign companies as sweeteners.
What if that money was instead invested in irish start ups, that are sustainable, and wont piss off to the far east just because some guy in new york decides he can save 2 dollars by doing so

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

M three

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

LOL, your crusade against doherty is really clutching at straws now!