Just how deluded is Bertie ?

ktc1

Berties real legacy:

1) Major contibutor to the Good Friday Agreement. (can't take that away from him, but he was one of many)

2) NAMA and bank recapitalization (the housing ponzi scheme he facilitated) and however much that will ultimately cost us.

3) The ever growing National debt (the excessive spending/bribery based on unsustainable tax revenue streams) and however much that will ultimately cost us, our children, our grandchildren .... ad finitum.

4) The ever growing number of people who are unemployed mainly as a result of 2).

5) The enormous amount of real damage and pain being inflicted on adults and childrens lives as a result of 2), 3) and 4).

6) The years of stagnation that are to come.

I wish people would stop talking about the boom years when they're talking to this scumbag, and refer to them as what they were, the bubble years.

termcg

Also spreading the corruption and back room deals policy introduced by CJ.

The throw money at any problem approach to situations. Dont worry about improvments just tell everyone how much money you are shoveling into the hole.

GatePost

Bertie is deluded?????????

And what about the thousands of people who queue up to get a signed book.

mike65

Pat Kenny has the bold Bertie on his radio prog tomorrow, he has invited questions

todaypk@rte.ie

Liam Byrne

mike65 wrote: »

Pat Kenny has the bold Bertie on his radio prog tomorrow, he has invited questions

todaypk@rte.ie

Just heard that he blew off Ray D'Arcy's invite.....and I haven't seen him on Vincent Browne's show, either.

The fact that RTE's licence fee is under Government supervision must be a deciding factor.

hallelujajordan

jmayo wrote: »

You wouldn't be a builder any any chance ?

No I'm not, I'm a scientist . . one who had to leave Ireland in 1996 because the only job I could get as a Science graduate was flipping burgers in McDonalds. One who then returned in 2000 and has grown a nice career here based on the superb growth in our high-tech sector.

Not sure why what I do for a living has any relevance ? What do you do ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No I'm not, I'm a scientist . . one who had to leave Ireland in 1996 because the only job I could get as a Science graduate was flipping burgers in McDonalds. One who then returned in 2000 and has grown a nice career here based on the superb growth in our high-tech sector.

"....based on the superb growth...." :rolleyes:

Do real people talk like that ? Or are you determined to use every word that you utter in a spin to make it seem like FF are brilliant ?

How about "....based on the superb unsustainable growth...." ?

And can I ask three things ?

1. When did you join FF - after coming back ?
2. Whatever about your wages, how did you find prices here compared with those abroad ?
3. Can I assume that the multinational that you work for hasn't considered uprooting to a less uncompetitive economy, and that your job isn't at risk
4. Did your base abroad allow you to hear all the minutae of the dodgy goings-on between 1996 and 2000 ? Some people have commented that the UK, for example, doesn't seem to refer to Ahern's dodgy finances and other political corruption here in Ireland

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"....based on the superb growth...." :rolleyes:

Do real people talk like that ? Or are you determined to use every word that you utter in a spin to make it seem like FF are brilliant ?

Yes, we do . . the scientific sector in Ireland has experienced superb and sustained growth over the last 10 years.

And can I ask three things ?

It is 4, and this is all irrelevant , but here goes . .

1. When did you join FF - after coming back ?

I joined FF in 2007, when I was in university I was a member of Young FG but between then and 2007 I had no real involvement in politics

2. Whatever about your wages, how did you find prices here compared with those abroad ?

I lived in England, prices were lower but salaries more significantly so, I am better off in Ireland.

3. Can I assume that the multinational that you work for hasn't considered uprooting to a less uncompetitive economy, and that your job isn't at risk

The company I work for is an Irish owned multinational ? We have offices all over the world and I still recruit science graduates in Ireland because this is where we can get some of the best people.

4. Did your base abroad allow you to hear all the minutae of the dodgy goings-on between 1996 and 2000 ? Some people have commented that the UK, for example, doesn't seem to refer to Ahern's dodgy finances and other political corruption here in Ireland

Yes it did . . I read extensively, thank you and kept up with the Irish news when living abroad.

Seth Brundle

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I joined FF in 2007, when I was in university I was a member of Young FG but between then and 2007 I had no real involvement in politics

So you have a "real involvement in politics" now? Doing what may I ask.
In defence of the others, you do come across like someone canvassing for FF who will not hear a bad word said against them!

termcg

Halleujajordan, I am not feeling the love here. Are you not going to answer even one of my questtions? Lets start with an easy one.

As a member of "the republician party" do you agree with the decision to grant immunity to criminal peadophiles from our states courts?

Personally I believe any body involved in making this decision should be exciled. That applies to any country and not just here.

Vyse

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, we do . . the scientific sector in Ireland has experienced superb and sustained growth over the last 10 years.

I think the growth in the scientific sector came to an abrupt end when Amgen decided to pull out of the country. There haven't been any real big projects since then. I'm working on the Pfizer Small Scale which was eventually meant to lead to a full scale facility. That too has been shelved. The bio boom is over (for now at least).

hallelujajordan

kbannon wrote: »

So you have a "real involvement in politics" now? Doing what may I ask.
In defence of the others, you do come across like someone canvassing for FF who will not hear a bad word said against them!

My involvement is limited to membership of a party (FF) . .

If I come across that way then you are not reading my posts. I have been critical of FF and Bertie Ahern on several occasions both within this thread and on others. .

hallelujajordan

Vyse wrote: »

I think the growth in the scientific sector came to an abrupt end when Amgen decided to pull out of the country. There haven't been any real big projects since then. I'm working on the Pfizer Small Scale which was eventually meant to lead to a full scale facility. That too has been shelved. The bio boom is over (for now at least).

The manufacturing boom is over. . The research boom comes next; provided we can continue to churn out high quality science graduates.

hallelujajordan

termcg wrote: »

Halleujajordan, I am not feeling the love here. Are you not going to answer even one of my questtions? Lets start with an easy one.

As a member of "the republician party" do you agree with the decision to grant immunity to criminal peadophiles from our states courts?

Personally I believe any body involved in making this decision should be exciled. That applies to any country and not just here.

I have already explained why I am not going to answer your litany of questions and I certainly am not going to get dragged into an off-topic legal debate about paedophilia. . mainly because I know very little about the legalities of the issue.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I have already explained why I am not going to answer your litany of questions and I certainly am not going to get dragged into an off-topic legal debate about paedophilia. . mainly because I know very little about the legalities of the issue.

You don't need to know the legalities of an issue to know that it's wrong, and letting the sickos involved off the hook is wrong!!!!

Mind you - it's an approach that has worked so well for FF : paedophiles, clerical abuse, bankers, FAS heads, financial regulators, TDs who waste money.......

Question : when does a couple of fair and relevant questions become a "litany" ? Or is that yet another choice of emotive phrase to try to imply some sort of harrassment or abuse ?

Or are you taking your cue from your beloved "Bertie", who on last week's Late Late suggested that a single question that had to be asked 5 times (they'd have only asked once, if he'd answered it), as "dissection" ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You don't need to know the legalities of an issue to know that it's wrong, and letting the sickos involved off the hook is wrong!!!!

Mind you - it's an approach that has worked so well for FF : paedophiles, clerical abuse, bankers, FAS heads, financial regulators, TDs who waste money.......

Question : when does a couple of fair and relevant questions become a "litany" ? Or is that yet another choice of emotive phrase to try to imply some sort of harrassment or abuse ?

Or are you taking your cue from your beloved "Bertie", who on last week's Late Late suggested that a single question that had to be asked 5 times (they'd have only asked once, if he'd answered it), as "dissection" ?

Actually, I would need to understand the legal situation to comment on the paedophile question. . I dont, so I won't . . . not because I agree or disagree, I'm just not qualified to answer. .

If you guys want to have a debate or discussion about paedophilia, go ahead. . I will respectfully opt out.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm just not qualified to answer. .

You're "not qualified to answer" whether paedophiles should get off scot-free ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're "not qualified to answer" whether paedophiles should get off scot-free ?

I presume such decisions were made with the appropriate legal advice. . I don't have the details and I've not seen the advice so No, I'm not qualified. .

termcg

I dont think it is very off topic as Bertie was in a governemtn that granted immunity to known criminals. I will drop the paedophile bit to make it less contraversial for you.

The number of times i ask hard F supporter very straight and simple questions and get told "we are not getting into that" such as:

Q. Can you suggest any improvements to NAMA
A. No

Q. Do you think sensitivity analysis such as publishing a central, good and bad case would be an improvement.
A. I am not getting into that

or my personal favourite was to this very question:
"I dont like your attitude".

FF supporters talk and talk and talk but refuse to engage in anything real or substantive as they know their party has truely ****ed up at every single level in government. Leaving the north and Lisbon aside what was the last great achievement from those in government? I am thinking back and honestly all i can come up with is the luas and that was under spec'ed and doesnt join together.

I think talking about scientific reseach is off topic in a thread called how deluded is bertie but lets follow that train of thought and see if I can get a straight answer.

The last 10 years of the Irish economny has been build on construction, employment in the PS (based on money borrowed for stamp duty) and a sprinkling of FDI.

Would you agree that tax incentives for the construction industry should have been removed years ago?
Would you agree that the knowledge/smart economy should have been a priority just the boom years and no just now?
Would you agree that the Irish "recovery plan" is entirely based around removing bad debts from the banks and there has been no substantive initatives or plans for job creation which is the true way for the economy to recover?

Before anyone goes down the "employment will follow once the banks are liquid again" route:
1. Banks lend less in a recession anyway.
2. Dont base your opinions on the last 5 years of super cheap credit.
3. The day after NAMA goes through the banks will fire 5k staff and start hiking all their fees.
4. The last 10 years of dependence on construction, the PS and other peoples money has drained a large amount of the entrepreneurship from these coasts

Eutow

imme wrote: »

Very true, the guy was the king of obfuscation. The merry dance he led the tribunal was disgusting. Some people think he's the cleverest Taoiseach ever.:mad:

No, just "the most cunning, the most devious of them all", as quoted by his buddy Charlie Haughey.

Eutow

kbannon wrote: »

I have to say that I think he was clever. He was very shrewd at keeping his enemies close and happy.
However, the blinkered views of him that people have for me is sickening - an article in yesterdays Oirish Times about Bertie's book signing says this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1012/1224256436481.html

Makes me want to vomit. :mad:

hallelujajordan

termcg wrote: »

I think talking about scientific reseach is off topic in a thread called how deluded is bertie but lets follow that train of thought and see if I can get a straight answer.

I was asked what I did for a living I answered and I don't see how it is any more off-topic than dragging in the paedophile issue . .

Let me try to answer some of your questions . . As i have said already I am not an apologist for FF and I am not one of your party hacks who agrees with everything the party says and does . . .!!

Would you agree that tax incentives for the construction industry should have been removed years ago?

Yes, I would agree. . I would also have removed the tax breaks to the equine industry and to artists and musicians. I would certainly not have reduced the tax break allowed to private citizens paying for healthcare every year. . .

Would you agree that the knowledge/smart economy should have been a priority just the boom years and no just now?

I don't agree that it wasn't a priority during the boom years. Most of our FDI was based around a combination of low corporate tax rate and high standard of graduates. I think it is doubly important now with the decline of the construction industry.

Would you agree that the Irish "recovery plan" is entirely based around removing bad debts from the banks and there has been no substantive initatives or plans for job creation which is the true way for the economy to recover?

I believe there is a need to sort out what is an acute problem in the banks in order to improve liquidity. I believe this will help SME's and that will reduce the rate at which jobs are being lost (we are already seeing this effect) I do agree that it doesn't end there and yes, we do need more job creation initiatives. I believe the government recognise this and we will see such initiatives going forward but the priority now must be to restore the health of the banks.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I presume such decisions were made with the appropriate legal advice

You mean like Mary Coughlan's golden handshake to Rody Molloy ? :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I believe this will help SME's and that will reduce the rate at which jobs are being lost

It will only help SME's if the banks use the money to lend again. NAMA contains no such obligation in return for our bail-out, and banks are already INCREASING rates.

Would you add a clause in NAMA to ensure that what you "believe" will happen is more likely to happen ?

Would you force the banks to keep their current rates, and stand up to them if they refused, telling them "**** off and close and lose everything, so" ?

Would you tell them to piss off with their begging-bowl demands for even more money, as outlined in another thread on boards ?

Would you ensure that pay was capped, and bonuses and payoffs were outlawed ? After all, whatever about any employment contract, the existing bosses (a) lost billions and (b) would get nothing if we didn't bail them out.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You mean like Mary Coughlan's golden handshake to Rody Molloy ? :rolleyes:

No I don't; I think Mary Coughlan was wrong to allow Molloy a golden handshake and I think she ought to be removed from the position of Tanaiste. I believe there are many in FF who would share this view.

aero2k

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Most people who are awful at their job don't keep it very long.

On the contrary, in this country, if you've a high paying job, not alone do you get to keep it, if you do mess up you get paid extra for going quietly - Patrick Neary, Roddy Molly... I think you could make a long list.
Bertie Ahern is a man who needed guidelines to tell him what was and was not ethical, which in my opinion renders him unfit for any public office.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It will only help SME's if the banks use the money to lend again. NAMA contains no such obligation in return for our bail-out, and banks are already INCREASING rates.

Bank rates will increase in line with the ECB. We have little control over that.

Would you add a clause in NAMA to ensure that what you "believe" will happen is more likely to happen ?

I'm not sure its necessary and I can accept NAMA without it but yes, I probably would

Would you force the banks to keep their current rates, and stand up to them if they refused, telling them "**** off and close and lose everything, so" ?

No I wouldn't nor do I think we should

Would you tell them to piss off with their begging-bowl demands for even more money, as outlined in another thread on boards ?

You'll have to link to the other thread because I don't know what you are talking about !

Would you ensure that pay was capped, and bonuses and payoffs were outlawed ? After all, whatever about any employment contract, the existing bosses (a) lost billions and (b) would get nothing if we didn't bail them out.

I wouldn't outlaw bonuses but I would make sure that salaries were fair and equitable (this is already happening btw !)

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Bank rates will increase in line with the ECB. We have little control over that.

I'm not talking about ECB rates, and I'm VERY surprised that you aren't aware that some banks are increasing their own rates!!!!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0923/banks.html

So your statement "in line with ECB rates" is INCORRECT.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No I wouldn't nor do I think we should

Why not ? Why should a failed business that already has taken and lost our money get to squeeze even more out of us ?

If we've kept them in business, then surely the least they can do is not shaft us any more ?

I mean, by bailing them out, we've already subverted the "capitalist" model, so there should be SOMETHING guaranteed to us in return for allowing them to keep going.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You'll have to link to the other thread because I don't know what you are talking about !

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055705881

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I wouldn't outlaw bonuses but I would make sure that salaries were fair and equitable (this is already happening btw !)

What's "fair and equitable" in a business that was bankrupt ? The comparison to what they "would be getting only for us" - i.e. €ZERO ??

I know people who have dropped from €20 an hour to €10 an hour because of the recession; will bankers take a 50% reduction ?

jmayo

First off I wonder do people realise what the word equitable means, if we take it's definition as that used in a legally binding doucment such as a last will and testament ?

It does not mean equal, it means what someone considers fair.
So equitable to me might mean 50/50 wheras to someone else it might mean 75/35.
Sorry for going off topic.

By halleluman**** I asked what you did because a lot of builders were memebrs of ff for very obvious reasons.
They continued in the private sector but they did very well out of their party connections.

Oh and I am in IT and it was the basis for the real celtic tiger, the one that died back in 2001.
IT sector has had not being doing great since.
IT was bouyed up to a degree by knock on effects of growth in retial and construction but that was not sustainable as is now very evident.

So not all technology related industry grew in the years post 2001 as can be seen by the numebr of jobs in technology companies and jobs lost even before 2008.

As for other posters asking for answers from ff :rolleyes:
ff don't answer the hard questions, why should they ?

Don't people realise we are in the presence of our betters ?
You know the ones that need chauffeured cars to transport them across international airports, the ones that need corporate jets, helicopter transport,
very fancy hotel, etc.

I have to admit I believe that anyone that joined ff in the last few years is at worst corrupt or at best has no misgivings about turning a blind eye to corruption and very unethical behaviour.

Why else would someone join a party where the leader is refusing to answer questions regarding his acceptance of wads of cash, where the leader has promoted corrupt members to high ranking ministerial roles, where party members make excuses for practices that in most other forms of life would be investigated by revenue if not the gardai.

Fair enough if you were a member for years, but to join a morally corrupt and unethical organisation just leads me to question people attitudes to right and wrong.

Liam Byrne

jmayo wrote: »

First off I wonder do people realise what the word equitable means, if we take it's definition as that used in a legally binding doucment such as a last will and testament ?

It does not mean equal, it means what someone considers fair.
So equitable to me might mean 50/50 wheras to someone else
it might mean 75/35.

Sorry for going off topic.

It's a fair (and equitable) point!

Mind you, if we're talking what's "considered fair", then the fact that the head bankers caused it while the workers didn't, we'd be looking at paying the bankers nothing, reclaiming their bonuses, and shipping them off to the nearest jail.

Also, someone on €10 an hour NEEDS all of that, because it costs at least €1,800 a month to live in this country; that's why it's the "minimum wage". Therefore, it could be argued that there should be NO reduction in that, while anyone with the extra €100,000 disposable income should get walloped altogether.

So losing the same percentage of their wages is being relatively generous to them, in all fairness.