Most Annoying Galway Politican

greengreen

Healy-Eames gets my vote (or not as the case may be). Is gifted at getting into Galway ad. on issues about nothing. I have also listened to her at meetings -unbearable

McDougal

greengreen wrote: »

Healy-Eames gets my vote (or not as the case may be). Is gifted at getting into Galway ad. on issues about nothing. I have also listened to her at meetings -unbearable

At least Healy-Eames isn't crooked, she's just completely talentless. She'll fit in nicely with the rest of the eejit backbenchers if she gets elected to the Dáil.

thelongfellow

Frank 'the tank' Fahy. One of a dying breed who still view playing golf out in Ballyconneally a few times a week as 'networking'.

dolphin city

<snip>

dolphin city

Das Kitty wrote: »

Oh I see, when Padraig Coneeley has his mug taking up one side of a flyer it's grand but when she does it it's narcissistic...:rolleyes:

The only thing I thought was funny from the flyer was that she doesn't use her surname in the title, now she's known as merely Hildegarde.

this wasn't a flyer tho - it was a "portrait" on hard cardboard just calling out to be framed and put beside the sacred heart of jesus wiht the little red light underneath.

disgusting

the-island-man

<snip>

PopeBuckfastXVI

the-island-man wrote: »

it's defamation of character. Don't think the fact that you are posting it on the internet gives you immunity from prosecution either. The Gardai can request boards to hand over any information they have on you and also request that your isp give information on you.

Actually it's libel.

Given the lack of independent evidence, I've no choice but to go back and delete references to the original accusation. Hope everyone understands that it's to protect posters here, as well as boards.

/moderation.

Robbo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually it's libel.

Libel and slander are now merged into "defamation" since 2009.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Robbo wrote: »

Libel and slander are now merged into "defamation" since 2009.

Super! Thanks resident legal eagle

Das Kitty

dolphin city wrote: »

this wasn't a flyer tho - it was a "portrait" on hard cardboard just calling out to be framed and put beside the sacred heart of jesus wiht the little red light underneath.

disgusting

Yes, won't somebody please think of the children!

yeehaw

So according to this thread we should not elect anyone with an entrepreneurial bent or property interests.

Interesting.

McDougal

yeehaw wrote: »

So according to this thread we should not elect anyone with an entrepreneurial bent or property interests.

Interesting.

What is entrepreneurial about buying a few fields and getting your mates on the council to rezone them and then selling them off to developers at 20 times the cost price?

yeehaw

McDougal wrote: »

What is entrepreneurial about buying a few fields and getting your mates on the council to rezone them and then selling them off to developers at 20 times the cost price?

An entrepreneur is one who assumes risk with the ultimate goal of making a profit. The situation you have described- while fictitious and unethical- is most definitely an example of entrepreneurship.

McDougal

yeehaw wrote: »

An entrepreneur is one who assumes risk with the ultimate goal of making a profit. The situation you have described- while fictitious and unethical- is most definitely an example of entrepreneurship.

There is nothing fictitious about it, you obviously have no idea of how our property bubble came about. And like most Irish people you are confusing speculation with making an actual contribution to society.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Property speculators were leeches on future wealth. I'm personally delighted for any speculator who got skinned during the crash.

yeehaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Property speculators were leeches on future wealth. I'm personally delighted for any speculator who got skinned during the crash.

I was not specifically referring to property speculation but would you care to elaborate on your statement there?

As for the other guy, if your statement was not a fictitious example, can you please explain to me where and when this occurred?

Do you deny the need for entrepreneurship in the current(or any) economic climate? Would you like to see more enterprising types, with experience of running businesses, running the country?

Snubbleste-

Would you hold your suspicions about anyone who had accumulated personal wealth and held/entered public office? Do you recognise that people may accumulate property/business due to being astute and intelligent individuals, rather than simply being 'dodgy' or 'crooked' as the great brains bouncing around here all day allege.

For the record, I am not defending any specific individual. I would simply like to see more astute people in public office. It is generally not an attractive position for anyone who has accumulated personal wealth. People should not be vilified because they own property and have speculated to generate more income for themselves and their families.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I admire entrepreneurs that create products and services which people want or need, and provide those products and services at a price that people can afford.

Property speculators (mostly) leveraged existing capital and assets to hoard new assets i.e. accommodation, a basic need in society, in order to drive up the price of these assets, extracting money down the road from people who needed those assets to live (i.e. a home), forcing those people to take on a lifetime of debt to serve the greed of the speculator. The speculator didn't produce anything of value, they merely hoarded an asset to restrict supply.

Our country most certainly does not need people like that, ever.

yeehaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Property speculators were leeches on future wealth. I'm personally delighted for any speculator who got skinned during the crash.

I'm sorry but this type of thing really bugs me. Why the delight over people losing money?

A high profile Galway developer featured in the Sunday newspapers at the weekend. The extent of his debt to certain financial institutions was revealed. I have no view of this man on a personal level, nor have I ever met him. However, I am aware that at the height of the boom in this country he employed hundreds, and quite possibly thousands of people. His willingness to speculate put a lot of food on a lot of tables. He now owes a lot of small contractors around the city and county money. Given the scale of his debt to this financial institution, they are unlikely to ever see a penny.

Utimately, his business model was flawed. It is a pity that everything came crashing down, but sadly, it did.

It is important to recognise the a successful economy needs people who speculate and invest.

We need financial institutions that are open and lending- the banks here have effectively been closed in a commercial sense for well over 2 years.

yeehaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I admire entrepreneurs that create products and services which people want or need, and provide those products and services at a price that people can afford.

Property speculators (mostly) leveraged existing capital and assets to hoard new assets i.e. accommodation, a basic need in society, in order to drive up the price of these assets, extracting money down the road from people who needed those assets to live (i.e. a home), forcing those people to take on a lifetime of debt to serve the greed of the speculator. The speculator didn't produce anything of value, they merely hoarded an asset to restrict supply.

Our country most certainly does not need people like that, ever.

No one was forced to take on anything. Houses were sold for their market value at the time. People were willing to pay the prices asked. Supply and demand.

What would you do? Ban anyone from owning more than one property? Social housing for all?

PopeBuckfastXVI

His business model put people into debt for 35 years to own a basic home.

F*ck him, and his business model.

The whole thing was a bubble and had to burst, it's just a pity these greedy pigs didn't speculate on tulip bulbs or something similar that didn't negatively affect a generation of Irish people by putting them in hock up to their eyeballs for the rest of their working lives just to get a shoddily built roof over their heads.

PopeBuckfastXVI

yeehaw wrote: »

No one was forced to take on anything. Houses were sold for their market value at the time. People were willing to pay the prices asked. Supply and demand.

What would you do? Ban anyone from owning more than one property? Social housing for all?

No, but I won't shed a tear for those that got burned playing the game either.

yeehaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

His business model put people into debt for 35 years to own a basic home.

F*ck him, and his business model.

The whole thing was a bubble and had to burst, it's just a pity these greedy pigs didn't speculate on tulip bulbs or something similar that didn't negatively affect a generation of Irish people by putting them in hock up to their eyeballs for the rest of their working lives just to get a shoddily built roof over their heads.

A well reasoned and articulate response. I don't know why I bothered posting.

Good luck to you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

yeehaw wrote: »

A well reasoned and articulate response. I don't know why I bothered posting.

Good luck to you.

And to you...

yeehaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

His business model put people into debt for 35 years to own a basic home.

F*ck him, and his business model.

The whole thing was a bubble and had to burst, it's just a pity these greedy pigs didn't speculate on tulip bulbs or something similar that didn't negatively affect a generation of Irish people by putting them in hock up to their eyeballs for the rest of their working lives just to get a shoddily built roof over their heads.

Out of interest, can I ask what you were doing during the 'Celtic Tiger' era to forewarn people of the bursting of this bubble?

PopeBuckfastXVI

yeehaw wrote: »

Out of interest, can I ask what you were doing during the 'Celtic Tiger' era to forewarn people of the bursting of this bubble?

I was posting on the internet, and encouraging family and friends not to buy houses from c2006 onward.

I should add that in most cases I was told I was an idiot, bitter and just resentful that I hadn't 'got on the ladder'.

dolphin city

yeehaw wrote: »

I was not specifically referring to property speculation but would you care to elaborate on your statement there?

As for the other guy, if your statement was not a fictitious example, can you please explain to me where and when this occurred?

Do you deny the need for entrepreneurship in the current(or any) economic climate? Would you like to see more enterprising types, with experience of running businesses, running the country?

Snubbleste-

Would you hold your suspicions about anyone who had accumulated personal wealth and held/entered public office? Do you recognise that people may accumulate property/business due to being astute and intelligent individuals, rather than simply being 'dodgy' or 'crooked' as the great brains bouncing around here all day allege.

For the record, I am not defending any specific individual. I would simply like to see more astute people in public office. It is generally not an attractive position for anyone who has accumulated personal wealth. People should not be vilified because they own property and have speculated to generate more income for themselves and their families.

hilarious post- thanks for the laugh

do you go by the philosophy of "it didn't happen to me, so therefore it didn't happen".

yeehaw

dolphin city wrote: »

hilarious post- thanks for the laugh

do you go by the philosophy of "it didn't happen to me, so therefore it didn't happen".

No. I don't see what is funny. Can you please elaborate? Can you also explain your 'it didn't happen to me...' quote?

I must be a little slower than you folk. Please bear with me.

?Cee?view

dolphin city wrote: »

hilarious post- thanks for the laugh

do you go by the philosophy of "it didn't happen to me, so therefore it didn't happen".

How does your comment bear any relationship to the post you've quoted. You clearly don't agree with what's been said, so why don't you address the issues?

dolphin city

A high profile Galway developer featured in the Sunday newspapers at the weekend. The extent of his debt to certain financial institutions was revealed. I have no view of this man on a personal level, nor have I ever met him. However, I am aware that at the height of the boom in this country he employed hundreds, and quite possibly thousands of people. His willingness to speculate put a lot of food on a lot of tables. He now owes a lot of small contractors around the city and county money. Given the scale of his debt to this financial institution, they are unlikely to ever see a penny.


tell that to the poor eejits that bought his house at a ridiculous price who are now turfed out on the street - you need to see things for what they are in reality

also as regards to social/affordable housing- our so called government made property developers hand over 5 percent of each estate built to the social/affordable schemes - no matter what type of estate it was - this would have helped not create "all social housing estates" and there would be a mixture of all people. However at the same time, they also created a new clause, - if the developers gave bertie and his bandwagon the money instead then they wouldn't have to hand over the 5 % of the estate. Funny thing was, bertie and his bandwagon never bothered putting their gains towards the housing at all.

what do you call that

dolphin city

yeehaw wrote: »

A well reasoned and articulate response. I don't know why I bothered posting.

Good luck to you.

i don't know either, because you don't seem to understand what is going on at all.

Good luck to you too