jmayo wrote: » Ah come on he has trying obfuscate his political connections and history with ff. In other words he has actively lied about those connections. He has been so blatant that it is actually insulting to any common sense thinking non connected voter. I don't want a president that speaks with a forked tongue. None of them really inspire, but why do we need some Obamesque president ? In the grand scheme of things they are just a figurehead and that is why it is so important they have some honest decency and are not ultra conservatives like a couple of them. Michael D is the best and at least has an honest streak where he has in the past stood by his principles even though it might not have been the most popular or best course of action. I am in particular talking about his stance on US/Regan foreign policy. Ah come on now you have been at the forefront of his defense. You are now sounding like those ex posters around here who started their posts with "i am not a ff member/supporter but...." We will have a new party by next election. It will be called "We were not active in ff" and will be populated by all those who once were in ff. :rolleyes: Just call me cynical.
Wallflower wrote: » Little "spot-check" on this thread...........keep things in check, so to speak! Is Sean Gallagher telling lies? Yes. He is. Actually, lying through his bottom teeth (don't know if he has top ones, so I can't comment on that). Hope this helps.
jmayo wrote: » Michael D is the best and at least has an honest streak where he has in the past stood by his principles even though it might not have been the most popular or best course of action. I am in particular talking about his stance on US/Regan foreign policy.
CDfm wrote: » My recollection had Professor Higgins . . . supporting dodgy organisations like the Sandanista's . . . . . . very much anti US
edanto wrote: » There's nothing ordinary about this Joe. Extraordinary slick campaign. Wonder how much the TV ad slots cost?
CDfm wrote: » Higgins is part of the establishment and Gallagher is not.
CDfm wrote: » What is wrong with an ordinary Joe being President.
gizmo555 wrote: » Are you seriously suggesting a candidate who was a member of Fianna Fáil's National Executive as recently as nine months ago is a non-establishment "ordinary Joe"?
edanto wrote: » We voted Gallagher's Establishment out last time 'round.
Are you seriously giving out about 'the Establishment' in one post and then defending US hegemony/Foreign policy in another?
Make your mind up man.
CDfm wrote: » Higgins is and was very left wing
gizmo555 wrote: » Newsflash - Labour Party candidate holds left wing views shock!!!!
jonniebgood1 wrote: » Fair enough- but how much left wing is acceptable to the majority?
Ald wrote: » I think the issue of SG and the 'establishment' will be put to bed tomorrow in the papers. One paper is running a story of a secret FF fund raiser that cost €5000/head to attend, at which Cowen attended. Sin sin on that one I suppose.
raymon wrote: » Today when I was out for lunch I was shocked to see posters of Gallagher posted around the shopping centre. Didn't half put me off my lunch . I know the FFers, SGers will say that he only said he wouldn't use lampposts Fair enough this may not be an outright lie like the rest... but come on , this is a bit much....
gazman1975 wrote: » gallagher a bluffer we are in big trouble if he is president. doesnt have any presence only in the race for the money. there should be a huge pay cut in the salary same as for tds so you get candidates who want to do the job, not just there for the money.
isthatit wrote: » pay peanuts get monkeys
CDfm wrote: » David Begg of ICTU and the Central Banks Audit Commitee was a significant decision maker , unelected and as powerful as any politician on any day and still is.
I am very against our social partnership behind closed doors style of government.
I am trying to be objective here and have not made a decision on who to vote for yet.
gizmo555 wrote: » We'll see when the votes are counted I suppose. Unlike Gallagher, Higgins is not trying to play down his long-term political affiliations, so the voters will be clear on what he stands for.
edanto wrote: » Any more detail on that story? Was it a fundraiser for the Gallagher campaign?
gizmo555 wrote: » We paid well over the odds by any standards for the crew that ran this country on to the rocks.
isthatit wrote: » what exactly do labour stand for. half of them where in the ira yet they are anti republican. they claim to be left wing but continually go into power with the most right wing party in the country and implement there right wing policies. they claim to be against corruption and cronieism and yet take bribes from the self serving unions and give public jobs to their buddies. in fact even during the last election when they saw their popularity falling they changed thei policies halfway through the campaign
gizmo555 wrote: » Newsflash - Labour Party candidate holds left wing views shock!!!! At least he's running as the candidate of the party he belongs to, and not resigning from it with the specific intent of standing for election as an allegedly "independent" candidate.
Ald wrote: » Yes, it was a fund raiser for SG. Only heard the headline from the Late Debate paper review on RTé. Didn't get what paper it's going to be in either. Will be an interesting read... .
Happyman42 wrote: » Front page headline in the Indo tomorrow. Gallagher down in a ball of flames I'd imagine.
