Is Bertie Ahern a liar?

gandalf

Sorry Dave this does not belong in the recycle bin. Sparks has made a very good point there. If I lied when I took this job up and was found out I would have been fired on the spot. Its apparent that Bertie or people who Bertie has responsibility for lied imho I think he should go.

Apart from the issue has Bertie lied I think we should add has he and his cohorts mismanaged the country badly and I feel that the answer is a definate yes. The Health Service has been mentioned numerous times, eventhough they are doing some work on Transport it is fragmented and I get the feeling they are chucking money at it without making sure we (the taxpayer) are getting value for money.

Gandalf.

Trebor

they should have borrowed and not had so many cut backs!

for instance they are selling the port tunel as soon as it is built!
why don't they toll it themselves instead of giving it to a private company to do it? has this country still not learned that it should not sell off it's infrastructure to an unaccountable private company?

Bertie should be fired for the lie's that have been proven as would any leader of a private company ( yes i know i just gave out about private company's running the country ) but the country should be run like a private company, only hire those who are trained for the job and not just some one who spends a few years as a member of a politcal party and is a good talker.

dahamsta

Since nearly everyone seems to have missed it:

This is not a troll, nor am I asking people to rant endlessly about Ahern, I'm simply looking for irrefutable examples of lying from Bertie Ahern, particularly in the last year or so. Call it a research project if you need some justification.

Ask a simple question, get a load of sh1te in response. Pathetic.

Thanks to the two, possibly three people who responded without spouting nonsense and rhetoric.

adam

Cork

Originally posted by gandalf
The Health Service has been mentioned numerous times, eventhough they are doing some work on Transport it is fragmented and I get the feeling they are chucking money at it without making sure we (the taxpayer) are getting value for money.

Gandalf.

I 100% agree. We need to spend our finate tax resources wisely. We cannot afford to implement party manifestos that were based on bouyant tax revenues without getting value for money.

The trouble is that it was well known that the tax revenue & growth set out in the manifesto were not achievable.

It is impossible to predict the lengh of an economic slow down. I think all party manifestos were best case sinarios. FGs compansation of taxi drivers & Eircom shareholders etc.

Financial/Business Jounralists did point out future pitfalls. This seems to have been completely ignored by various political partys.

Sparks

I think all party manifestos were best case sinarios.

Oh, that really is delicious irony

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks
Oh, that really is delicious irony

When you are going for an interview - you get all dressed up. You go in & butter them up.

But when you got the job - you have a job of work to do.

You may have limited resources & choices have to be made.

Sparks

When you are going for an interview - you get all dressed up. You go in & butter them up.

Indeed Cork, perfectly correct.
But "butter them up" and presenting yourself in the best light possible is radically different from a direct and outright lie.

But when you got the job - you have a job of work to do.
You may have limited resources & choices have to be made.

Indeed, and again, that's a radically different thing from an outright lie.

Ahern lied. I've shown offical documents that show that he lied.
End of story, really.

Let's move on to punishment, shall we?

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
When you are going for an interview - you get all dressed up. You go in & butter them up.

But when you got the job - you have a job of work to do.

You may have limited resources & choices have to be made.

Did you not see dahamsta castigating idiocy above?

I'm certainly one of the guilty parties cited but with all the respect that the above quoted post is due, I've rarely read something that so meets the definition of irrelevant, badly put, excuse-making, apologistic, soundbiting crud. I'm attacking your post by the way, not you. You could be the most intelligent person in the known universe, even if the above post is one of the worst reasons ever given for "lying is OK, really lads". Stop and think about what you're saying.

dahamsta

Put him on your ignore list sceptre. I think in the whole time Cork's been around, he's made perhaps three statements that people have agreed with; and considering the amount he posts, that's a very small drop in a very large ocean of bland non-statements and nonsensical non-arguments. He wastes time and energy by baiting users with idiocy, taking threads off-topic with daily tirades of incoherent and obtuse drivel. In that, he's a classic old-skool eff-effer, the type that would fawn over a liar, cheat and thief like CJH as he presents himself at yet another tribunal, to lie and cheat yet again in order to keep himself out of the jail cell he so richly deserves.

That's two campaigns I'm running today: Show up Mary Hanafin - another old-skool heif-heifer - for the useless O'Rourke that she is; and get everyone to Ignore Cork. If you met Cork in a pub, you'd bang him on Ignore almost immediately, so do the right thing and do it here too.

(Hey, you all had your rants and this thread is going nowhere. Only fair I get one too. [Edited on request.])

adam

Cork

Hold on there one minute. I am not making excuses for the act of telling lies.

There is no excuse for leading anyboby astray or lying to them.

Bertie should have given us a referendum on partnership for peace. I voted Green in the last European Election because of this.

Labour have been implying that we were mislead as a nation before the last election. Matt Cooper, David McWillaims etc all highlighted the worsening state of government finances.

I know that the Green party canidate in Carlow/Killkenny made widely reported cmments n this as well.

Accusations are also been trown at Blair & Clinton. When you are a public figure - your statements should be open to scrutiny.

But - you also have got to accept - people are entitled to change their minds.

Trebor

Originally posted by Cork

But - you also have got to accept - people are entitled to change their minds.

people are yes, politicans no.

they promissed us so many thing's in order to get elected now that can't do them yet all them seem to be doing is sitting on their arses not spending in the hope that more money will come from some where. they refuse to borrow for infrastucture and beacuse of this the Luas is going to be stoping traffic at the red cow round about every 2 and half mins because they couldn't afford to build a new overpass for it!

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Hold on there one minute. I am not making excuses for the act of telling lies.

There is no excuse for leading anyboby astray or lying to them.

Good. Now nothing in the rest of your post has anything to do with this topic.

Nothing.

Not one word.

Nada.

(Getting the hint yet?)

Adam asked a simple question. He didn't ask about Bertie's character, the reality of how politicians have to work, how nice and fluffy - or otherwise - anyone feels about any politican or party.

He asked a simple question, which has two simple answers :

1) Yes, I know of a case and here it is
2) No, I dont know of any cases.

If you want to make a side-point, make it once and move on. If you want to turn your sidepoint into a discussion, go to a new thread, or ask one of the mods to copy/move the relevant posts to a new thread so you can pick up the new topic there.

Now, lest there is some confusion, and people think that the above gives you license for "one more post" to close the issue.....let me make this clear -

to Cork and everyone else.....
THIS CRAP STOPS HERE AND NOW

If people continue to prove themselves incapable of doing the simplest task like staying on-topic, or moving to a new thread for a side-issue, then I will have to remedy that situation.

jc

bonkey

If your post is below this point, and off-topic, then do one of the following :

1) Delete it
2) PM me and ask me to delete it
3) Do nothing and I will delete it and you will get banned for 1 week.

SkepticOne

To be fair to Cork, the question forming the basis of the thread is very leading. It is only inviting responses from those who can supply essentially negative statements about Ahern.

The only meaningful responses that one can give are those that reinforce the idea that Bertie is a liar. There is a statement implicit in the question.

Let's leave aside for the moment whether Bertie is a liar (we all know the answer to that one). In this instance, since the topic is skewed, it is right to allow statements which are not strictly on topic in the interest of fairness.

dahamsta

To be fair to Cork, the question forming the basis of the thread is very leading. It is only inviting responses from those who can supply essentially negative statements about Ahern.

It's not leading for precisely that reason. If you think I was trying to make a political statement with my post, let me make it quite clear for the record: I was not. I specifically asked for factual statements, and I specifically asked people NOT to rant or opine. The reason I asked the question was so that I /could/ make a political statement at some time in the future, but that has no bearing on this thread directly.

Let's leave aside for the moment whether Bertie is a liar (we all know the answer to that one).

This assumes that I was trying to make a political statement, which again, I categorically was not. I wasn't taking the statement for granted, I wanted the truth. It seems to be a difficult concept for many posters in Politics, which I suppose I should have taken as par for the course.

In this instance, since the topic is skewed, it is right to allow statements which are not strictly on topic in the interest of fairness.

No it's not. The only defense against the factual statements I requested are factual rebuttals. Opinions have no place in a factual argument. Either Bertie Ahern is a liar or he isn't, period.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
Let's leave aside for the moment whether Bertie is a liar (we all know the answer to that one).This assumes that I was trying to make a political statement, which again, I categorically was not. I wasn't taking the statement for granted, I wanted the truth. It seems to be a difficult concept for many posters in Politics, which I suppose I should have taken as par for the course.

I'm not saying you were trying to make a political statement, just that implicit in the thread topic is a statement since the only responses that are 'on-topic' are the ones giving examples of Ahern lying.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
In this instance, since the topic is skewed, it is right to allow statements which are not strictly on topic in the interest of fairness.

Sure - except that there is a world of a difference between "strictly on topic" and "heading off on a wild tangent".

As I said - if you want to make a comment alongside your on-topic answer then do so, once.
If you wish to persue that topic (or obviously respond to someone else's) then do so somewhere else.

I'm not saying you can't discuss these things. I'm saying you can't discuss them in this thread.

(Aside : I'm obviously not going to ban someone for putting a post in here saying "As requested, I'm taking <point X> to another thread" with a link to the new thread.)

And lest there be any confusion...this also includes whether you think I'm being unfair, whether Adam was right or wrong in the posting of the topic, etc. etc. etc.

So if someone has a problem with me imposing moderatorship on this thread, take it somewhere else. I haven't just put my foot down so we can go off on another tangent as to whether or not I was right.

You want to do that...start another thread.

Clear?

jc

SkepticOne

OK, I'll let you off.

dahamsta

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I'm not saying you were trying to make a political statement, just that implicit in the thread topic is a statement since the only responses that are 'on-topic' are the ones giving examples of Ahern lying.

Again for the record, posts refuting examples would have been / are perfectly welcome too, as long as they also are presented as fact, with evidence. Hence the use of the word "irrefutable" in my original post. The respondents in this thread chose to view it that way, I can't and won't take the blame for their insecurity.

adam

SkepticOne

If said all that needs to be said on that topic. If you wish to continue the discussion, create a new topic and link to this one.