Bring Back Bertie ?

Sulmac · 07-09-2010 12:18PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

Do we really need to go down that road again . .

Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.

If you can give me one clear example of corruption on Aherns part that satisfies these criteria then I will accept the charge and allow you to use the term unchallenged. .

From the same Wikipedia article:

Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement.

I can tick off a few of those words when thinking of Bertie.

hallelujajordan · 07-09-2010 12:22PM

Sulmac wrote: »

From the same Wikipedia article:

I can tick off a few of those words when thinking of Bertie.

And I can see why you would . . . but that's a little short of fulfilling the definition . .

Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 12:24PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

point me toward the alternative Fine Gael economic policies that you were tacitly supporting when you voted Green in 2007 ?

Why the fixation on FG ? What about Labour ? Or Independents ?

I don't support parties, remember ?

I know it's difficult for those entrenched in party politics to understand the concept, but you could at least try.

Also, why ask more questions without answering those that were posed to you ?

1) Why should those who had no hand, act or part in the boom be "collectively responsible" ?

2) What can we do to ensure that FF and FF voters "learn from their mistakes" ?

3) Why would anyone want Ahern back as Taoiseach when all he'll do is dismiss their concerns like he did before ?

raymon · 07-09-2010 12:27PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

Do we really need to go down that road again . .

Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.

If you can give me one clear example of corruption on Aherns part that satisfies these criteria then I will accept the charge and allow you to use the term unchallenged. .

Yes -

You mentioned before that you thought Charlie was corrupt.

It is a fact that Bertie supplied a series of blank cheques to Charlie

There are also about 16 dodgy dealings under investigation by the tribunals .

So lets think about your original post - what are you trying to achieve?

1) To gauge the public's response to accepting Bertie as a Taoiseach again

or

2) To blacken Bertie's name further by asking the respondants to dish the dirt on Bertie (is his wikipedia page not shocking and nauseating enough )

Bertie was a very sinister and dark figure in irish politics . He was also a very weak leader .

Himself and Ivor should be driven to Mountjoy immediately .

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 12:29PM

Sulmac wrote: »

I can tick off a few of those words when thinking of Bertie.

Don't even bother, Sulmac. I've had this discussion before and even the nepotism that Ahern admitted to wasn't viewed as corruption, because the "illegitimate private gain" caveat was repeatedly used to narrow the definition.

That's even leaving aside the fact that there's nothing in even that definition that says that it's the perpetrator has to be the one gaining, which would leave Ahern open to corruption that caused others to gain illegitimately, such as Haughey and Callely and all of those FF buddies in Anglo.

So basically - according to the FF handbook - if I push through a planning application that should be dismissed on behalf of a relative, it's not corruption because I'm not the one gaining.

Laminations · 07-09-2010 12:38PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

you were tacitly supporting Fine Gael economic policy which was no different to FF policy at the time.

Sorry why did you join FF again if all parties were so similar? I smell an apologist fanboy masquerading as a reformist.

The sheepishness of you to change your mind on Ahern depending on what Mahon says. Did you not hear the evidence? Hear of the unexplained money? Read of Berties inadequate accounts and conflicting stories? From all that you deem his conduct becoming and see him fit to lead again (unless of course Mahon tells you otherwise).

The rest of us have judged him to be unsuitable and his finances remain questionable, so unless Mahon has ironed out logical sources for all that money in Aherns non-existent accounts it doesn't matter if he rules in favour of Ahern in his report, we aren't basing our opinion of Ahern on the say so of Mahon.

You seem to need to be told what to think, perfect for FF

07-09-2010 01:40PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well the part you quoted was a reference to Ahern's well-known suicide remarks, and the rest is well documented at this stage : basing day-to-day spending on one-off, capital-project taxes, egging on the bubble, tax breaks, partnership agreements and general waste on every single project undertaken (including the ego ones and the ridiculous ones).

In fairness kenny's not immune from making gaffs we all do it.

As Minister for Finance and as taoiseach. Sloppy finances at that level ? Gimme a break!

We've only a small pool that go forward for election,most of them in all parties couldn't run a tap in my opinion.

Some people might be alright, in their rush to blame everybody so that it looks like hammering everyone is somehow "fair". :mad:

Again in all fairness,it's easy to portray oneself anonymously on an internet forum as all angelic and self righteous.
I'm long in the tooth enough and seen enough people in the world to not believe you.Sorry if I'm bursting your bubble on that but I suspect I'm not as theres always going to be a willing audience somewhere.

If I ever do end up leaving, it'll be to get away from that lie. It sickens me.

Your cries of leaving the country are unverifiable so I refer you to my previous statement.
I don't believe you.
Theres no such thing as perfection.
Self righteousness is a waste of time.Everybody is selfish including you.
Ergo we are all to blame in various ways for the mess we are in,whether it is the stupid selfish voter or the politicians that aren't qualified to do the jobs we give them constantly worrying if they'll offend the selfish voter by doing something right for a change.

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 01:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Again in all fairness,it's easy to portray oneself anonymously on an internet forum as all angelic and self righteous.

LMAO!!!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm long in the tooth enough and seen enough people in the world to not believe you.

If you want to call me a liar then you can stop posting anonymously for a start.

I could list reams of evidence on how wrong you are (including turning down a loan that a bank offered because I couldn't afford it, charging people a fair fee for work done, etc) but you probably wouldn't choose to believe that either. Therefore taking that stance leaves you in a position where the facts don't matter to you - it doesn't matter what I say because you can simply stick your fingers in your ears and say "I don't believe you".

As a result, I've reported your post and the mods can make of it what they wish; it certainly doesn't lend itself to any possible discussion, and it's ironic that if I said "I don't believe Ahern" then you'd be defending him.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your cries of leaving the country are unverifiable so I refer you to my previous statement.
I don't believe you.

And again. Handy, that. Do you choose not to believe people who disagree with you ? That's the approach that Ahern took.

Deleted User wrote: »

Self righteousness is a waste of time.Everybody is selfish including you.

Spout whatever rubbish you like. I don't believe you. And based on the above statement I have a better chance of being right, because I know the facts of my life and lifestyle and you don't.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ergo we are all to blame in various ways for the mess we are in,whether it is the stupid selfish voter or the politicians that aren't qualified to do the jobs we give them constantly worrying if they'll offend the selfish voter by doing something right for a change.

I don't believe you.

oceanclub · 07-09-2010 01:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

we are all to blame in various ways for the mess we are in

Oh look, it's Dermot Ahern.

P.

07-09-2010 02:37PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you want to call me a liar then you can stop posting anonymously for a start.

I said I don't believe you.

I could list reams of evidence on how wrong you are (including turning down a loan that a bank offered because I couldn't afford it, charging people a fair fee for work done, etc) but you probably wouldn't choose to believe that either. Therefore taking that stance leaves you in a position where the facts don't matter to you - it doesn't matter what I say because you can simply stick your fingers in your ears and say "I don't believe you".

I don't.It's as simple as that.I'm entitled to express that as my position.Mother Teresa wasn't perfect either and I'll just say I'm practical when I take people depicting themselves here as angelic and above reproach with some salt.
I've no problem with people taking what I say anecdotedly either with a pinch of salt.They'd be right as talking about my personal life here is unverifiable to readers.

And again. Handy, that. Do you choose not to believe people who disagree with you ? That's the approach that Ahern took.

Sometimes I argue the toss.Other times I agree to disagree.
I usually don't take offense.

Spout whatever rubbish you like. I don't believe you. And based on the above statement I have a better chance of being right, because I know the facts of my life and lifestyle and you don't.

See? theres a perfect use for the word ditto in response.

I don't believe you.

comedy gold

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 03:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I said I don't believe you.
I don't.It's as simple as that.

Well then your beliefs are wrong, and since you're using them as a basis to formulate an incorrect opinion, then I may as well hit ignore.

BTW, I notice that you completely sidestepped the "anonymous" claim. I guess that's because you were wrong about that as well.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll just say I'm practical when I take people depicting themselves here as angelic and above reproach with some salt.

Hang on a second there, before you run away with yourself.....I never claimed to be "angelic" or any such hyperbole.

I stated as a fact that I didn't borrow too much, get greedy, run away with myself, buy into the bubble, or fall for Ahern's lies and spin.

Those are the facts, and you casting doubt over that in order to support your preconception that "everyone's responsible" is ridiculous, because it turns the whole thing into a fallacy.

You choose not to believe it, and then you spout about everyone being collectively responsible. That's a handy cop-out, because you're choosing to believe something that you cannot prove (and, personally speaking, something that's 100% wrong) in order to support further claims.

It's basically the equivalent of someone saying "I never murdered anyone", and you saying that you don't believe them and that everyone should be locked up.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no problem with people taking what I say anecdotedly either with a pinch of salt.They'd be right as talking about my personal life here is unverifiable to readers.

Is that because you're posting anonymously ? Maybe you don't believe that "Liam Byrne" is my real name or something ? Maybe you don't believe that I didn't vote for FF ? Maybe you don't believe that I never murdered anyone ?

Maybe you don't even believe that the earth is round, for all I know.

Anyway, what you believe is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I know the facts of my life and my decisions and you don't.

So continue on in the deluded self-fulfilling stance that you have chosen if you wish, but don't expect a reply from now on; if you choose to disbelieve and ignore the facts then there's no point in discussing anything with you.

And please don't spin that as a method of avoiding a discussion; it is purely down to the fact that if you refuse to believe the facts then you cannot have a valid opinion from which to formulate a discussion.

Your stance suits your argument, and gives you a basis for further conjecture.

And your stance is wrong.

07-09-2010 03:41PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well then your beliefs are wrong, and since you're using them as a basis to formulate an incorrect opinion, then I may as well hit ignore.

You could ignore me just because I don't believe you I suppose but then wheres the fun in associating always with people who agree with you?
Thats just as dead an end to discussion.

BTW, I notice that you completely sidestepped the "anonymous" claim. I guess that's because you were wrong about that as well.

I've dealt with that I've no way of verifying your credentials and I've absolutely no intention of posting mine as I'm not completely mad just yet.
[cue I don't believe you...

]

Hang on a second there, before you run away with yourself.....I never claimed to be "angelic" or any such hyperbole.

I stated as a fact that I didn't borrow too much, get greedy, run away with myself, buy into the bubble, or fall for Ahern's lies and spin.

You see thats where I got the impression you were saying you were angelic in some way or if you want to put it less hyperbolic..better than the rest of us in some way.

Those are the facts, and you casting doubt over that in order to support your preconception that "everyone's responsible" is ridiculous, because it turns the whole thing into a fallacy.

Nothing unverifiable is a fact.

You choose not to believe it, and then you spout about everyone being collectively responsible. That's a handy cop-out, because you're choosing to believe something that you cannot prove (and, personally speaking, something that's 100% wrong) in order to support further claims.

I'm not choosing to believe something,I'm choosing to disbelieve something.
The only belief I have here is a disbelief in the verifiability of an anonomous post stating something unverifiable as fact.
No one is beyond reproach ever including me.

It's basically the equivalent of someone saying "I never murdered anyone", and you saying that you don't believe them and that everyone should be locked up.

No it's not it's much simpler than that,it's me saying that anonymous posting about ones own doings in real life is unverifiable and it's also me stating as fact and this bit is a fact that no one is above reproach,everybody is fallable and has skeletons.
Everybody in the case of our economy is selfish.

Is that because you're posting anonymously ? Maybe you don't believe that "Liam Byrne" is my real name or something ? Maybe you don't believe that I didn't vote for FF ? Maybe you don't believe that I never murdered anyone ?

Theres 100's of them in my phone book so I don't particularally care if it is or not,the fact remains to me,your lifestyle and your choices to date no matter how much they suit yourarguments here are unverifiable and I therefore choose to disbelieve them.

Maybe you don't even believe that the earth is round, for all I know.

Anyway, what you believe is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I know the facts of my life and my decisions and you don't.

Don't be ridiculous,I can easily verify the earth is round.I'd need to live with you for a few years to see what you are really like.

So continue on in the deluded self-fulfilling stance that you have chosen if you wish, but don't expect a reply from now on; if you choose to disbelieve and ignore the facts then there's no point in discussing anything with you.

And please don't spin that as a method of avoiding a discussion; it is purely down to the fact that if you refuse to believe the facts then you cannot have a valid opinion from which to formulate a discussion.

I haven't avoided any discussion.I've gave an opinion on your post.

Your stance suits your argument, and gives you a basis for further conjecture.

And your stance is wrong.

How is my stance on verifiability wrong?
Do you always run with things that are unverifiable as if they are fact?
Oh wait don't answer that I already see you do.

hallelujajordan · 07-09-2010 03:52PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why the fixation on FG ? What about Labour ? Or Independents ?

I don't support parties, remember ?

I know it's difficult for those entrenched in party politics to understand the concept, but you could at least try.

The reason I focus on FG is because it is impossible to see how a government could have been formed either in 2002 or 2007 whose economic policy was not driven by either FF or FG . . That is the reality . . if you want to ignore it and just focus on a local candidate then that is your choice. I consider that in a general election we are forming a government rather than electing an individual TD.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Also, why ask more questions without answering those that were posed to you ?

1) Why should those who had no hand, act or part in the boom be "collectively responsible" ?

Actually, now that I know you voted for a party that will have inevitably formed coalition with one of two parties with the same economic policies I no longer accept that you had no hand act or part in the boom . .

Liam Byrne wrote:

2) What can we do to ensure that FF and FF voters "learn from their mistakes" ?

Provide an alternative that is any different?

Liam Byrne wrote:

3) Why would anyone want Ahern back as Taoiseach when all he'll do is dismiss their concerns like he did before ?

Because he is a more capable leader than any of the alternatives (across the parties) . . . the article attached in post 1 outlines the rationale in a little more detail

Scofflaw · 07-09-2010 03:56PM

This thread is generating slightly more heat than light now, and it would be nice if people stepped back a bit from metaphorically hitting their interlocutors with their handbags.

I have to say, with respect to the vexed question of whether one can believe another poster, that it is normal to take what is claimed with a grain of salt, even if that poster chooses to use their real name as their username. The internet provides multiple levels of anonymity - someone called Joe Murphy may indeed be called Joe Murphy, but actually that tells us very little - we do not know which Joe Murphy they are, and, short of an in-depth investigation, we cannot really whether Joe Murphy is depicting accurately all the facts and opinions he offers as his own, nor what agenda he might have in offering any particular set of facts or opinions. As a result, we cannot really judge Joe's level of honesty, and it is not in any sense unreasonable to take what they say of themselves with a grain of salt. Nor is it rude, since people vary not only in their honesty, but also in their ability to assess facts accurately - I certainly know people who are entirely honest, but quite capable of badly misrepresenting facts out of a lack of ability to assess them accurately and objectively.

Normally, it is regarded as polite to suspend disbelief unless the poster contradicts by their actions in the forum what they state in the forum - if I claimed in some post not to be a Green voter, for example, it would be perfectly reasonable to disbelieve me, and not really impolite to say so, since I clearly defend the Greens on many (but not all) issues.

About real-life matters, however, there's no real possibility of ascertaining whether a poster is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That's not strictly even a function of the internet - it's the case whenever one attempts to judge anyone who one does not know well based purely on their self-reported word.

semi-moderately,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 04:43PM

Talking what Scofflaw has said on-board, I'm going to give this one final shot at being objective.

Deleted User wrote: »

You could ignore me just because I don't believe you I suppose but then wheres the fun in associating always with people who agree with you?

That's not the point.

Your view is that "everyone's to blame". You are refusing to believe my statement (and I'll admit that my statement is verifiable to me, but not to you) but your statement that "everyone's to blame" is in itself not verifiable.

But since your disbelief allows you to repeat your stance, you are OK with that.

Have you personally gone around the entire country and verified the accounts of everyone to "prove" that they bought into the boom ?

As I said, there is no point in me having a discussion with you, because I have first-hand verifiable to me knowledge that proves you are wrong, but since you refuse to believe me (and probably anyone who has similar stories to tell), you don't accept that; ergo, in your mind, your point is sound.

You then offer an equally unverifiable stance that "everyone's to blame", since you haven't discussed this with everyone, and even if you had you probably wouldn't believe them.

Deleted User wrote: »

How is my stance on verifiability wrong?

Because you are choosing to disbelieve the eye-witnesses in the case.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you always run with things that are unverifiable as if they are fact?
Oh wait don't answer that I already see you do.

:rolleyes: Objectionable and for obvious reasons, because I can verify that it is a fact.

I cannot convince you that you are wrong. I'll avoid taking being called a liar personally (it's my own choice to post under my own name and to stand over my statements, and that is an unfortunate side-effect of that), however you cannot verify that I am a liar.

Unlike the subject of this thread, who offered 5 conflicting explanations of the same cash, which means that at least 4 of those were false.

We'll drop this now, because you've indicated your stance, and I doubt that I can change it. I know you're wrong, but you don't have the benefit of watching my decisions and experience and therefore your choice not to believe me is based on that gap between what you've personally observed and actual facts and events.

But my main point is that your disbelief is the only thing that supports your argument. You chose not to believe that anyone could be "non-greedy", self-interested, etc.

I believe that lots of people are greedy, self-interested, etc, but I also believe from first-hand experience that lots of people aren't.

hallelujajordan · 07-09-2010 04:46PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

This thread is generating slightly more heat than light now, and it would be nice if people stepped back a bit from metaphorically hitting their interlocutors with their handbags.

I have to say, with respect to the vexed question of whether one can believe another poster, that it is normal to take what is claimed with a grain of salt, even if that poster chooses to use their real name as their username. The internet provides multiple levels of anonymity - someone called Joe Murphy may indeed be called Joe Murphy, but actually that tells us very little - we do not know which Joe Murphy they are, and, short of an in-depth investigation, we cannot really whether Joe Murphy is depicting accurately all the facts and opinions he offers as his own, nor what agenda he might have in offering any particular set of facts or opinions. As a result, we cannot really judge Joe's level of honesty, and it is not in any sense unreasonable to take what they say of themselves with a grain of salt. Nor is it rude, since people vary not only in their honesty, but also in their ability to assess facts accurately - I certainly know people who are entirely honest, but quite capable of badly misrepresenting facts out of a lack of ability to assess them accurately and objectively.

Normally, it is regarded as polite to suspend disbelief unless the poster contradicts by their actions in the forum what they state in the forum - if I claimed in some post not to be a Green voter, for example, it would be perfectly reasonable to disbelieve me, and not really impolite to say so, since I clearly defend the Greens on many (but not all) issues.

About real-life matters, however, there's no real possibility of ascertaining whether a poster is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That's not strictly even a function of the internet - it's the case whenever one attempts to judge anyone who one does not know well based purely on their self-reported word.

semi-moderately,
Scofflaw

I agree with your comments on anonymity and on the truth or otherwise of 'personal facts' posted on here . . None of it is anonymous in a true sense and none of it is verifiable . . for those reasons all of it is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant whether or not Liam Byrne (or anyone else) is a real person or a pseudonym. It is irrelevant whether or not he (or she) bought into the boom or not . . .

Given the irrelevance can I ask Liam and others to stop posting such personal testimony to counter the principle of collective responsibility which actually is very relevant.

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 04:49PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Given the irrelevance can I ask Liam and others to stop posting such personal testimony to counter the principle of collective responsibility which actually is very relevant.

But if we don't define the criteria & boundaries of "collective responsibility", then on what basis should this "collective responsibility" be based ?

Should we include someone in China or Australia in this "collective responsibility" ?

Should we include the newborn babies from 2010 in this "collective responsibility" ?

07-09-2010 04:53PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I believe that lots of people are greedy, self-interested, etc, but I also believe from first-hand experience that lots of people aren't.

Verifiably Show me one person thats never been greedy,selfish or just plain mean and I'll believe you on that one.
I know you can't,it's just not possible.
What you just said about there being some that aren't is just bunkum.

My point to you at the start was that holding your own unverifiable supposed actions up like "here I'm free of this sin" as proof we aren't all culpable to varying degree's in this mess is utterly unbelievable.
If you don't like being challenged like that,which is obvious,live with it,I exist,I'm giving my view on mankinds greed on the internet.
I read your views and disagree [some I agree with actually ,as over your posting history,I'm sure you'll find thanks from me somewhere] but on this fundamental issue,I think your stance is absolute bunkum to be honest.

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 04:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

My point to you at the start was that holding your own unverifiable supposed actions up like "here I'm free of this sin" as proof we aren't all culpable to varying degree's in this mess is utterly unbelievable.

Bearing in mind what was said in Scofflaw's warning, please stop adding even more fuel to the fire.

I've accepted that you view my actions as "unverifiable", but throwing in a "supposed" there is just baiting, and I will neither fall for it nor stand for it.

I've accepted that your lack of experience in my life means that you won't accept unverified truths; do not start casting additional aspersions on them by adding a double-dig "supposed".

07-09-2010 05:22PM

I withdraw the supposed but fully stand over my opinion on what I said about humans [especially Irish humans!] and their culpability in this mess and can't obviously accept your bonafidé's regarding innocence in this, or anybody elses on the internet or elsewhere for that stated reason.
The only thing I will say is that I do accept that there's varying degree's of culpability.
Lets leave it there with an agreement to disagree on that issue.

oceanclub · 07-09-2010 05:28PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Verifiably Show me one person thats never been greedy,selfish or just plain mean and I'll believe you on that one.

Fianna Failers it seems are now reverting to the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin in order to spread the blame.

P.

stumpypeeps · 07-09-2010 05:40PM

oceanclub wrote: »

Fianna Failers it seems are now reverting to the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin in order to spread the blame.

P.

Fine Gaelers still prefer the age old method of gathering in groups throwing stones at a scapegoat.

oceanclub · 07-09-2010 05:46PM

stumpypeeps wrote: »

Fine Gaelers still prefer the age old method of gathering in groups throwing stones at a scapegoat.

You'd have to ask a Fine Gaeler that.

P.

stumpypeeps · 07-09-2010 05:50PM

oceanclub wrote: »

You'd have to ask a Fine Gaeler that.

P.

Oh I wasn't suggesting you were.

Laminations · 07-09-2010 06:07PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I agree with your comments on anonymity and on the truth or otherwise of 'personal facts' posted on here . . None of it is anonymous in a true sense and none of it is verifiable . . for those reasons all of it is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant whether or not Liam Byrne (or anyone else) is a real person or a pseudonym. It is irrelevant whether or not he (or she) bought into the boom or not . . .

Given the irrelevance can I ask Liam and others to stop posting such personal testimony to counter the principle of collective responsibility which actually is very relevant.

And you're still talking bollox. It is not my responsibility or concern what effect of me buying a house has on the economy, I am responsible for me personal finances and we elect a government to take responsibility for the national finances. We cannot be collectively responsible because we are not Borg, we don't have a collective hive mind. The government got a mandate to manage the economy, an economy they told the electorate was doing great, very healthy and in for a soft landing if anything. The government were democratically elected but voters didn't have all the info, as of 2007 they can see the true mismanagement of FF

Biggins · 07-09-2010 06:08PM

No, NO and definitely NO!

The OP might not want a rehash of what has happened in the past with threads relating to Bertie but that does NOT take away from the disgusting standing recorded history, attitude, convenient faulty memory and further questionable antics of this one man.

Bring him back? You have got to be kidding me.
We would yet again make ourselves the laughing stock of Europe!

I would personally start a national campaign to refresh the memories of the nation about what this one man did in his past and would try to counter-balance future and present spin attempts of re-writing history so it looks better for (non)good old Bertie!
If that meant having to stick leaflets through every door in the country - by hell, I will do it!

He is a disgrace - correction - he is an utter disgrace and time and spin from any FF/Bertie supporters won't change that - as much as they'd like to!

Bring him back? Over my dead body - correction - over my ruddy dead body!!!

Liam Byrne · 07-09-2010 06:35PM

Quick question on this "collective responsibility" lark.....purely on the basis that I don't agree with it and don't understand how it applies to individuals.

I apparently am not allowed to say that I had nothing to do with the property bubble or the resulting crash, based purely on my - I dunno - being an Irish citizen.

IF that is the mantra, does it not follow on that every single member of FF is directly responsible and answerable for the actions of Ahern (and Haughey and Callelly and Burke and Lawlor and O'Donoghue and O'Dea) ? Based purely on them being an FF member ?

Or does "collective responsibility" only apply when it's used to absolve FF of its responsibilities and the consequences of its actions ?

oceanclub · 07-09-2010 06:39PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

IF that is the mantra, does it not follow on that every single member of FF is directly responsible and answerable for the actions of Ahern (and Haughey and Callelly and Burke and Lawlor and O'Donoghue and O'Dea) ? Based purely on them being an FF member ?

Or does "collective responsibility" only apply when it's used to absolve FF of its responsibilities and the consequences of its actions ?

I'm sure that if somehow the economy was booming, Fianna Failers would be quick to claim that's all their responsibility and nothing to do with anyone else.

P.

kuntboy · 07-09-2010 06:39PM

The real tragedy here is that our political system allowed someone of Bertie's caliber to rise to the top. Even more tragic is that he will almost certainly get to be President.

Biggins · 07-09-2010 06:40PM

kuntboy wrote: »

...Even more tragic is that he will almost certainly get to be President.

Not if I have anything to do with it! Like hell he will.

Bring Back Bertie ?

Comments