Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

Teclo · 22-10-2011 08:38PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

Why would you associate the Labour party with the last depression more than Gallagher, who was a card carrying member of the dominant party in government? That's a bizarre level of mental gymnastics.

Higgins was a senior(ish) member of a member of the opposition. The opposition have a duty to hold the government to account. Labour failed to offer coherent criticism of the issue that really mattered - high spending based on property bubble revenue, in fact they were so eager for the government to keep on spending there is no evidence to believe that they would have slowed down the building industry if they had been in power at the time.

CDfm · 22-10-2011 08:57PM

Teclo wrote: »

Higgins was a senior(ish) member of a member of the opposition. The opposition have a duty to hold the government to account. Labour failed to offer coherent criticism of the issue that really mattered - high spending based on property bubble revenue, in fact they were so eager for the government to keep on spending there is no evidence to believe that they would have slowed down the building industry if they had been in power at the time.

And another issue to is how so unaccountable the system seems to be to parliment with the politicians just caring about winning elections and their out of parliment alliances as oppossed to what is in the countries best interest.

He is one of the ruling mob.

raymon · 22-10-2011 09:00PM

CDfm wrote: »

And another issue to is how so unaccountable the system seems to be to parliment with the politicians just caring about winning elections and their out of parliment alliances as oppossed to what is in the countries best interest.

He is one of the ruling mob.

Cdfm this is about the fifth time you have derailed this thread , can you stick to the Op please

The thread is about Sean Gallagher and his telling lies .

Callan57 · 22-10-2011 09:09PM

CDfm wrote: »

Ahem less of the Trisha bashing , its unpatriotic.

You can bring Trisha anywhere

Well at least neither SG nor the wife will have high hairdresser bills.

Sir Oxman · 22-10-2011 09:27PM

CDfm wrote: »

For a start, I do not have an anti-Labour Party bias and have sometimes voted for Labour candidates.

I don't believe if Labour pulled out of coallition that Higgins would give Fine Gael the opportunity to form a government with others.

The issue that keeps coming here is that SG is a party man and it just brings me back to that idea that Higgins is a party man too and will put his party first.

Simple as.

I don't believe that arises.
The president's powers in this regard extend to a refusal to dissolve the Dail - ie, the opposite of what you are saying.
Kenny could go to him/her to dissolve the Dail but if there is a chance of an alternate govt being formed, the pres. can refuse to dissolve and ask the Dail to negotiate on forming a new govt.
Hillery, an FFer, refused unoffiocial pressure from his former party colleagues to dissolve the Dail in the 80s, to his credit.
The person doing the pressuring, Lenihan Snr at the behest of his 'friend' Haughey then had the neck to run for the office in 1990 and got found out spoofing. And lost.

Hopefully, history repeats itself with the spoofery being found out this time as well!
I'm totally disheartened at the latest poll figures for Gallagher

puffdragon · 22-10-2011 09:30PM

yes

Sir Oxman · 22-10-2011 09:34PM

Callan57 wrote: »

Well at least neither SG nor the wife will have high hairdresser bills.

Yeh, President Baldy O'Bollocks and the one outta V.;)

CDfm · 22-10-2011 09:36PM

raymon wrote: »

Cdfm this is about the fifth time you have derailed this thread , can you stick to the Op please

The thread is about Sean Gallagher and his telling lies .

I just answered the questions I was asked as it would have been impolite not to.

CDfm · 22-10-2011 09:51PM

gambiaman wrote: »

I don't believe that arises.
The president's powers in this regard extend to a refusal to dissolve the Dail - ie, the opposite of what you are saying.
Kenny could go to him/her to dissolve the Dail but if there is a chance of an alternate govt being formed, the pres. can refuse to dissolve and ask the Dail to negotiate on forming a new govt.
Hillery, an FFer, refused unoffiocial pressure from his former party colleagues to dissolve the Dail in the 80s, to his credit.
The person doing the pressuring, Lenihan Snr at the behest of his 'friend' Haughey then had the neck to run for the office in 1990 and got found out spoofing. And lost.

The point is it is a discretionary power.

I would want someone who would put the country first as Hillery did and he was exceptional and considered quitting politics and going to Africa as a medic in retirement except the presidency came up.

I'm totally disheartened at the latest poll figures for Gallagher

What only 40% , don't be disheartened as presidential polls are hopelessly inaccurate.

Bergkamp 10 · 22-10-2011 10:27PM

Good to see Sean winning the polls. Hope he can go ride the wave of abuse and finish well and become president.

Finally a working class president to be proud off. Him and Mr McGuinness are who the working class are behind.

The elites and the Sunday Independant are trying everything to stop either man gain power.

Hopefully either win and we see the two fingers given to the upper class bankers and RTE media drones.

jonniebgood1 · 22-10-2011 11:06PM

CDfm wrote: »

And another issue to is how so unaccountable the system seems to be to parliment with the politicians just caring about winning elections and their out of parliment alliances as oppossed to what is in the countries best interest.

He is one of the ruling mob.

Because Higgins was in parliament for a long time he has become part of the establishment. This seems to be the biggest reason not to vote for him. As part of the establishment would Higgins just fulfil the role quietly or would he try and push the boundaries?

CDfm · 22-10-2011 11:15PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Because Higgins was in parliament for a long time he has become part of the establishment. This seems to be the biggest reason not to vote for him. As part of the establishment would Higgins just fulfil the role quietly or would he try and push the boundaries?

And the safe thing is to vote with the establishment.

So what are his credentials to push the boundaries ?

He has been friends with the Tainiste since the 1970's

swampgas · 22-10-2011 11:21PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Because Higgins was in parliament for a long time he has become part of the establishment. This seems to be the biggest reason not to vote for him. As part of the establishment would Higgins just fulfil the role quietly or would he try and push the boundaries?

IMO the president should be uncontroversial and just get on with the job.

If you want changes to government policy, you vote for it at a General Election - that's how I thought it was supposed to work, anyway.

K-9 · 22-10-2011 11:35PM

CDfm wrote: »

He probably is a bit of a fossil. The anti-american thing bugs me as lots of the middle east types he support/s/ed don't like us very much.

And, you are right about the LP not being socialist. It may be that I associate him and others with the last depression/recession.

I think you said you weren't in Ireland much during the 80's so maybe that explains the above statement! No party in power did themselves any favours in the late 70's to late 80's in Ireland. The parties in power all share credit in getting us out of that depression/recession from the late 80's to late 90's. Labour in particular changed its spots!

Higgins wasn't/isn't anti-American, he was anti Bush and wasn't afraid to criticise Israel. I don't see anything wrong with somebody prepared to buck the political norm and stand by his beliefs and feck the dollar now and again.

Ireland used to be a great example of a country standing up for small, independent countries in the 50's and 60's, we'd an independent foreign policy, now it's too afraid of voicing a few words criticising America or Israel! That's what Britain is for, to be the US lapdog!

CDfm · 22-10-2011 11:38PM

swampgas wrote: »

If you want changes to government policy, you vote for it at a General Election - that's how I thought it was supposed to work, anyway.

The opposition have a job of being in oppostion and as jonnie said Labour hardly did that.

Policy is not easy to change as you also have the Social Partnership and client groups and politics that occurs outside the context and constitutional structure.

A politician does not have to be in power to be an insider.

swampgas · 22-10-2011 11:46PM

CDfm wrote: »

The opposition have a job of being in oppostion and as jonnie said Labour hardly did that.

Policy is not easy to change as you also have the Social Partnership and client groups and politics that occurs outside the context and constitutional structure.

A politician does not have to be in power to be an insider.

I don't necessarily disagree with that - but I don't see the presidential role as a solution. The president is to a large extent a figurehead, and should remain that way.

As far as I'm concerned, the president should be above party politics, regardless of which party they may be aligned with before being elected.

And the office of president should abolutely NOT be used to try to change government policy - that's what the general election is for. If that hasn't worked so well in the past, it's because we have repeatedly voted muppets and shysters into the Dáil. Small wonder the country is in the state it's in.

WhatNowForUs? · 22-10-2011 11:55PM

CDfm wrote: »

And the safe thing is to vote with the establishment.

So what are his credentials to push the boundaries ?

He has been friends with the Tainiste since the 1970's

I wouldn't have considered MDH to be part of the establishment. He allways seemed to talk his own mind.

Fianna Fail on the other hand......... thats establishment

jonniebgood1 · 22-10-2011 11:59PM

swampgas wrote: »

IMO the president should be uncontroversial and just get on with the job.

Higgins is the man for the job if this is your view. I think this may be hindering his support at the moment as people are desperate and want a more positive choice than just doing the job.

swampgas wrote: »

If you want changes to government policy, you vote for it at a General Election - that's how I thought it was supposed to work, anyway.

I agree that this should be the case but the last general election here didnt work like that. When people voted for change they got more of the same policy just from different people.

jonniebgood1 · 23-10-2011 12:04AM

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

I wouldn't have considered MDH to be part of the establishment. He allways seemed to talk his own mind.

Fianna Fail on the other hand......... thats establishment

I would associate the establishment with being overpaid for their roles with the kind of benefits that are not in the real world that most people posting here would be dealing with. Higgins to me is part of this although I do admire some of his views. The pensions he gets though are in the type of numbers that Fianna Fail establishment would be getting, TD pension, Ministerial pension, college lecturer pension. To me that is establishment.

CDfm · 23-10-2011 12:07AM

K-9 wrote: »

Higgins wasn't/isn't anti-American, he was anti Bush and wasn't afraid to criticise Israel. I don't see anything wrong with somebody prepared to buck the political norm and stand by his beliefs and feck the dollar now and again.

But American foerign policy does not really change each administration and being anti republican is cherrypicking

Ireland used to be a great example of a country standing up for small, independent countries in the 50's and 60's, we'd an independent foreign policy, now it's too afraid of voicing a few words criticising America or Israel! That's what Britain is for, to be the US lapdog!

Like whio ?

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

I wouldn't have considered MDH to be part of the establishment. He allways seemed to talk his own mind.

Fianna Fail on the other hand......... thats establishment

Oh if it were that simple.

I know what the constitution says but it aint been working like that for quite some time.

MDH is certainly an establishment figure.

puffdragon · 23-10-2011 12:08AM

Oh Honestly! does anyone believe that Sean Galagher was not a member of Fianna Fail until very recently , go on pick and prod at it as much as you like but rest assured if you vote for Galagher then you are only continuing on with the same old same old we have had for the last ten or more years , My Father sort of made me vote for Fianna Fail until he died five years ago so i'm used to all the bul****, im 49 now and have a different slant on things since since my country as been sold down the drain , but that's maybe too much empathy for this thread , My President should be a fighter who will not languish in the state room of a bankrupt state but rather get up and go, get up and get jobs, go and get employment, we dont want to turn the ARAS into a nursing home for Michael D nor do we want to waste our money on high rolling wasters .

CDfm · 23-10-2011 12:14AM

puffdragon wrote: »

My President should be a fighter who will not languish in the state room of a bankrupt state but rather get up and go, get up and get jobs, go and get employment, we dont want to turn the ARAS into a nursing home for Michael D nor do we want to waste our money on high rolling wasters .

+1

K-9 · 23-10-2011 12:32AM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Higgins is the man for the job if this is your view. I think this may be hindering his support at the moment as people are desperate and want a more positive choice than just doing the job.

Gallagher is probably appealing to a younger vote, the politically naive vote and there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

Thing is, he doesn't have much power to do anything. Suppose he can go on a few trade missions and explain how he's an entrepreneur and was on Dragon's Den, not really my thing, but such is life.

Higgins probably appeals to the more politically aware, as in people who know what the President actually does. He has a good grasp of law, might challenge the odd law, honourable, informed, decent men seem to get farmed out there!

Hyde, O'Dalaigh, Hillery and even DeV when he was harmless! McAleese was a safe choice too, in case I was sexist!

I agree that this should be the case but the last general election here didnt work like that. When people voted for change they got more of the same policy just from different people.

What does Gallagher actually offer in the way of change?

CDfm wrote: »

But American foerign policy does not really change each administration and being anti republican is cherrypicking

How is he Anti Republican?

Like whio ?

African countries on the 50's, Frank Aiken in particular:

Frank Aiken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aiken was Minister for Finance for three years following the war and was involved in economic post–war development, in the industrial, agricultural, educational and other spheres. However, it was his two periods as Minister for External Affairs that Aiken fulfilled his enormous political potential. As Foreign Minister he adopted where possible an independent stance for Ireland at the United Nations and other international forums such as the Council of Europe. Despite a great deal of opposition, both at home and abroad, he stubbornly asserted the right of smaller UN member countries to discuss the representation of communist China at the General Assembly. Unable to bring the issue of the partition of Ireland to the UN (because of Britain's veto on the Security Council) and because of unwillingness of other Western nations to interfere in what these Western nations saw as British affairs at that time (the US taking a more ambiguous position), Aiken ensured that Ireland vigorously defended the rights of small nations such as Tibet and Hungary, nations whose problems he felt Ireland could identify with and had a moral obligation to help.

Aiken also supported the right of countries such as Algeria to self-determination and spoke out against apartheid in South Africa. Under Ireland’s policy of promoting the primacy of international law and reducing global tension at the height of the Cold War, Aiken promoted the idea of areas of law, which he believed would free the most tense regions around the world from the threat of nuclear war.

He also introduced the so-called 'Aiken Plan' to the United Nations in an effort to combine disarmament and peace in the Middle East, Ireland a country being on good terms with both Israel and many Arab countries. In the UN the Irish delegation sat between Iraq and Israel and formed a kind of physical 'buffer' and in the days of Aiken (who as a minister spent a lot of time with the UN delegation) both the Italians (who on their turn sat in the vicinity of the Iraqi delegation), the Irish and the Israeli claimed to be the one and only UN-delegation of New York, a city inhabited by many Irish, Jewish and Italians.

Aiken was also a champion of nuclear non-proliferation and he received the honour of being the first minister to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 in Moscow.

Aiken's impact as Minister for External Affairs was such that he is sometimes seen as the father of Irish foreign policy. His performance was praised in particular by a later Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fine Gael's Garret FitzGerald.

CDFM wrote:

MDH is certainly an establishment figure.

Yet you repeatedly point out how he is Anti American/Republican and Israel.

Jaysus, I've seen a few posters take a dislike to candidates but this is bizarre!

Bergkamp 10 · 23-10-2011 12:43AM

Higgins appeals to people more politically aware?

Again this is the same sort of elitish bull****, that would never have me on the wavelength of him or his supporters. Look down on others is the way of the likes Higgins.

Anyway he seems to have changed his tune on all his abnormal foreign policy views. As an ex FF man, and Labour candidate he must be well tuned to hiding his own views until he gets into power, meanwhile spouting as much populist crap as he can. Sickens me, but alas it seems to work.

K-9 · 23-10-2011 01:14AM

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Higgins appeals to people more politically aware?

Again this is the same sort of elitish bull****, that would never have me on the wavelength of him or his supporters. Look down on others is the way of the likes Higgins.

Anyway he seems to have changed his tune on all his abnormal foreign policy views. As an ex FF man, and Labour candidate he must be well tuned to hiding his own views until he gets into power, meanwhile spouting as much populist crap as he can. Sickens me, but alas it seems to work.

It's my analysis, objective as possible.

Not as bad people saying Higgins is establishment, but yet then saying, out of the other side of their mouths, his anti American or Israeli views are worrying!

K-9 · 23-10-2011 01:17AM

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Anyway he seems to have changed his tune on all his abnormal foreign policy views.

Care to explain what abnormal foreign policy views are?

CDfm · 23-10-2011 01:30AM

K-9 wrote: »

How is he Anti Republican?

He ws hardly calling for Obama's arrest during his visit

Yet you repeatedly point out how he is Anti American/Republican and Israel.

Jaysus, I've seen a few posters take a dislike to candidates but this is bizarre!

I think bannasidhe has been giving me online couselling on it

K-9 · 23-10-2011 01:35AM

CDfm wrote: »

He ws hardly calling for Obama's arrest during his visit

Fair point, but I suppose he would look at Obama as an improvement on Bush, I'd agree, but how much of an improvement is probably for the US Elections board!

I think bannasidhe has been giving me online couselling on it

I should hope so, unresolved issues there in my unqualified opinion!

I'd worry if you didn't have any!

oceanclub · 23-10-2011 04:58AM

puffdragon wrote: »

OhMy Father sort of made me vote for Fianna Fail until he died five years ago so i'm used to all the bul****, im 49 now and have a different slant on things since since my country as been sold down the drain ,

Er, wait, so you voted for Fianna Fail 'til you were 44 because of what your dad though?

P.

jonniebgood1 · 23-10-2011 12:14PM

K-9 wrote: »

Gallagher is probably appealing to a younger vote, the politically naive vote and there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

Thing is, he doesn't have much power to do anything.

The politically naive vote!!!!

Maybe we should raise the voting age.

An alternative view is that the younger voters are the very ones who are more interested in planning for the future as opposed to voting based on the past?

Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

Comments