Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anyone else like me?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    You didn't provide the context of the suicide comment, I did !

    No, I gave my context. Read back over the thread. You said that I was harping on about it 5 years later, and I corrected you by saying it's because he still reckons that advice wasn't given.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    It's more than semantics to be fair . . it has a whole different meaning; and your completely ignoring the fact that he apologised for the remark and explained his meaning almost immediately

    This doesn't take from the fact that he sarcastically ignored them, thinking they were being negative for the sake of it. You said this yourself earlier.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    My bad, what I really meant was 'those people who didn't agree with him'

    Then say so. Using words like "detractors" indicates a bias. And "those people who didn't agree with him" were the ones who were correct.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    I think he probably listened to everyone and made his own mind up which is what leaders in all walks of life are paid to do.

    Dimissing people with a sarcastic comment does not indicate that he was prepared to listen to them. I'll repeat again what you said yourself; that he - deludedly and incorrectly - "thought they were being negative for the sake of it".

    And the fact that he dismissed the most important piece of advice that he was given
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    And I don't think its fair to say that he never admitted to receiving warnings. In his interview with Tubridy he made a comment about how he received all sorts of advice from all sorts of economists who changed their mind from one day to the next.

    He did indeed. And nice try, but no - unfortunately for your argument I hadn't switched off, because I remember him making a laugh of this and I was waiting for Tubridy to comment that "well, if they did that, it's no wonder they should have committed suicide".....but he didn't.

    Tell me, if these economists were indeed "changing their minds from one day to the next", why would he have viewed them as so "negative" as to wonder why they didn't commit suicide ? Surely that might only apply to someone who's negative all the time ?

    And if they were so crap and indecisive, why even listen to them as "advisers" at all ?

    Neither angle holds up to scrutiny.

    Ahern made that "one day to the next" comment alright, and he laughed it off as one big joke; in the same way as he made a stupid joke about not liking Haughey's shirts when asked why he facilitated corruption and fraud by signing blank cheques. Serious and fair question, cue big smirk and joke from the sleazeball.

    Even if we run with your side of the argument, that he was well meaning, etc, etc, this shows that he was a crap leader and Taoiseach, because he took the wrong advice.

    Fact is, though, that he didn't just "not take" it, he completely dismissed it and ignored it as "negative", when in fact it was "realistic" and spot-on.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    He also made a comment along the lines of . . . "Yes, I take responsibility, I was Taoiseach" . . You probably missed that bit given that you turned off early !

    He did use that phrase. But I'd have to read a transcript of the interview to see if it was in relation to that question, and whether you're referencing this phrase in the right context.


  • Options
    #63
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    a large percentage of those in the Dail are NOT there on performance or merit.
    The only merit required id the confidence of the electorate. While this may not be an ideal situation, it is what we have and it is not any politician's fault that they are elected. People EXPECT them to fill in medical card forms, grant applications and get pot holes fixed, again, this is the SYSTEM, it was not created by any TD that currently sits (apart from maybe PJ Sheehan or JHR)
    in Dáil Éireann. To suggest that the ELECTORATE would even know or care what TDs do when they're not getting on to someone about fixing pot holes is disingenuous, you even display a complete ignorance of this yourself in your assertation that they don't work for 260 days of a year, which if you know any TD or Senator you will know is not true. Committees sit year round, legislation is drafted year round, and the Oireachtas does not shut down purely because the Houses are not in session. To be honest, I know very little about what they do in their committees and offices, but sitting listening to people moaning about pot holes and the economy would probably figure even though there are only FIFTEEN people employed to run this country. The rest are just legislators, they do not run the country. If people understood the electoral system this argument probably wouldn't even be happening and we probably wouldn't have a massive deficit striking us, however, we will neve know.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    OK, Grand. . . I'm fed up arguing with you tbh. .

    Hmm...familiar feeling.

    And before you go lambasting me as a Fianna Fáil hack Liam, I freely admit that I'm a member who has every intention of stating my side of the story, NOT the party's, and I have no intention of taking any crap here due to my membership. If you would like to respond, please respond to the substance of the above or don't bother.


  • Options
    #64
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    ninty9er wrote: »
    And before you go lambasting me as a Fianna Fáil hack Liam, I freely admit that I'm a member who has every intention of stating my side of the story, NOT the party's, and I have no intention of taking any crap here due to my membership. If you would like to respond, please respond to the substance of the above or don't bother.

    Well, I'll gladly return the favour if you avoid posting sarky comments like
    ninty9er wrote: »
    Hmm...familiar feeling.

    The earlier "argument" on this thread was absolutely NOT of my doing, given that I was incorrectly accused of ignoring the "rights" of people; so by referencing it you've already shown a bias.

    So the "no intention of taking any crap here" goes both ways. And for the record, the "crap", includes pathetic comments like "Hmm...familiar feeling", implying that the things I say, and my opinions and concerns, are way off the mark.

    That aside, you are correct in saying that - unfortunately - many people are more interested in getting local issues fixed (which should be the job of local councillors).

    In addition, there is no denying that people vote for a party or a dynasty or a son or daughter of a former TD, regardless of what they, or their party, do - good or bad. This can be applied to many FF people (Haughey, Ahern, O'Donoghue, Flynn, etc) or indeed FG (Lowry), so there's absolutely no bias in saying that, or that parties seem to condone and reward it as long as they keep "their" seat; there is no political will to eject the scum, despite the signal that would give to the electorate that there was a concerted effort to clean up politics.

    THAT is what I meant by saying that TDs are not judged by their true "performance", and although some people do view the local "fixer" jobs as part of that "performance" (incorrectly, but that's a personal view) the second part also applies, which is why I said that TDs "should" be judged on performance (achievements and ****-ups), but - unfortunately - aren't.

    So I agree, and aside from any ill-feeling, I have to thank you for agreeing - even though you only included the local fixer jobs - that this is "not...an ideal situation", which (although appearing more accepting of the issue than I would be) was my point exactly.

    The reason I have more of an issue with FF than other parties engaging in the same antics is that they come out with phrases like "honourable", etc, when referring those involved who should have been ejected to prove that such antics were not acceptable.

    Having said that, if Enda Kenny ever described Lowry as "honourable", and discovered a few other con-men in their midst without sorting it out before became a critical percentage that reflected badly on the entire party, I would treat like with like.

    Laws of averages dictate that every group will have one or two bad eggs, but leave them there and the entire batch smells bad.


  • Options
    #65
    hallelujajordan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,080 ✭✭✭hallelujajordan


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    No, I gave my context. Read back over the thread. You said that I was harping on about it 5 years later, and I corrected you by saying it's because he still reckons that advice wasn't given.

    This is where you introduced the ex-Taoiseach's suicide comment . . entirely out of context given what he actually said and later apologised for way back in 2004
    Liam Byrne wrote:
    Wow! Special treatment for me, even though the Disclaimer was there to point out the fact that yes, loads of people saw this coming, including those who ruined the Ahern ego and feelgood gravy train by pointing it out; so much so that he told them they should commit suicide!.
    This doesn't take from the fact that he sarcastically ignored them, thinking they were being negative for the sake of it. You said this yourself earlier.
    No I didn't . . I said that he felt that there were people in economic circles who were being negative for the sake of it. I don't believe he ignored them. I believe he disagreed with them and made his own leadership decisions.
    Dimissing people with a sarcastic comment does not indicate that he was prepared to listen to them. I'll repeat again what you said yourself; that he - deludedly and incorrectly - "thought they were being negative for the sake of it".

    And the fact that he dismissed the most important piece of advice that he was given
    I don't believe he did dismiss their advice. I believe he was also aware of the dangers of the property bubble and I have given several examples of govt policy at the time that highlight that awareness. In hindsight I can say he didn't go far enough but then thats easy for me. Leaders make decisions based on what they believe is right at the time. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't.
    Even if we run with your side of the argument, that he was well meaning, etc, etc, this shows that he was a crap leader and Taoiseach, because he took the wrong advice.
    Fine, and you are entitled to hold that view. Personally I do not agree. . I think the government of the day made huge steps towards improving the quality of life for all of us. I think Bertie Ahern led a strong government and deserves huge respect for his role in the history of Northern Ireland .. an achievement that will be remembered long after we recover from the current economic slump

    He did use that phrase. But I'd have to read a transcript of the interview to see if it was in relation to that question, and whether you're referencing this phrase in the right context.
    I thought you switched off half way through . . Was that comment just for dramatic effect ;)
    So the "no intention of taking any crap here" goes both ways. And for the record, the "crap", includes pathetic comments like "Hmm...familiar feeling", implying that the things I say, and my opinions and concerns, are way off the mark.
    Or, he just feels as exasperated as I do at the way you drag every thread into a ludicrous he-said she-said argument while cleverly throwing in facts that are not facts and ignoring the substantive issues .. You still haven't addressed all of the factual inaccuracies I pointed out to you btw ?


  • Options
    #66
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    This is where you introduced the ex-Taoiseach's suicide comment . . entirely out of context given what he actually said and later apologised for way back in 2004

    You know what, I'll agree - I phrased it badly there and should have just said "that suicide comment", because whatever about the phrasing and the meaning of it, it showed that he ignored them and dismissed them. My phrasing the original like that has given you enough ammo to ignore the actual fact - that telling someone that would obviously imply that you thought their advice wasn't worth a ****.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    No I didn't . . I said that he felt that there were people in economic circles who were being negative for the sake of it. I don't believe he ignored them.

    Come off it! Are you seriously saying that - even if we paraphrase the original comment to say "**** off, you're being negative for the sake of it" - that it shows ANY intention of taking that person's comments seriously ?
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    Leaders make decisions based on what they believe is right at the time. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't.

    True. I've already said this. The ones who get it right are good leaders; the ones who get it wrong are poor ones; the ones who get it spectacularly wrong and cripple a generation are crap leaders.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    an achievement that will be remembered long after we recover from the current economic slump

    A "slump" ? :rolleyes: A slump is something a drunk guy does, and recovers in no time; we're talking major heart surgery here!
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    I thought you switched off half way through . . Was that comment just for dramatic effect ;)

    That's downright pathetic! :rolleyes: I switched off when I could take no more, and I didn't actually record the exact time. I've checked the RTE player now, and I've seen the questions re Enda Kenny as Taoiseach and the questions about him running for President for the first time.

    Of course, responding in that way lets you avoid what I was talking about.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    Or, he just feels as exasperated as I do at the way you drag every thread into a ludicrous he-said she-said argument while cleverly throwing in facts that are not facts and ignoring the substantive issues .. You still haven't addressed all of the factual inaccuracies I pointed out to you btw ?

    "Throwing in facts that aren't facts" ? Kettle, pot. What about your penchant for dismissing facts as "out of context", even when they're not ?

    Case in point (and you can check these on the RTE player if you like) : http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1057324

    Time Marker 0:41:00
    Tubridy : Do you miss [Haughey]
    Ahern : ....He was a good guy; he never asked me to do anything that was wrong

    = 100% out and out barefaced lie!

    Time Marker 0:43:43
    Tubridy : It must have been a terrible moment of weakness....
    Ahern : I accept that. If I was doing it again, if I was thinking about it, and if I was going to believe that I was going to end up in the Mahon Tribunal being "dissected" by "those guys" ...... I would have done it all differently

    Those are just TWO EXACT QUOTES from the interview, straight from the horse's mouth. Mind you, and Mahon concur, we've heard stuff from the same mouth that he's changed and retracted 3 or 4 times later, so maybe I shouldn't believe any of the above either, or use it as a basis for my arguments.

    But ANYONE who comes on TV and - even leaving everything else aside - says that Haughey never asked him to do anything wrong - does not deserve respect (that has to be earned, and then not pissed away) - and does not deserve ANY benefit of the doubt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    hallelujajordan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,080 ✭✭✭hallelujajordan


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Come off it! Are you seriously saying that - even if we paraphrase the original comment to say "**** off, you're being negative for the sake of it" - that it shows ANY intention of taking that person's comments seriously ?

    The facts show that he took the comments of those who were concerned about the property bubble seriously. He may have underestimated the extent of the problem but he didn't ignore them


    Case in point (and you can check these on the RTE player if you like) : http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1057324

    Time Marker 0:41:00
    Tubridy : Do you miss [Haughey]
    Ahern : ....He was a good guy; he never asked me to do anything that was wrong

    Great, now how about you provide the full context. How he pretty much accepted that Haughey had done wrong; that he regretted signing cheques for him and that he didn't know what the cheques were for. He did not hail Haughey as a 'Good Guy' in the way your quote implies
    Time Marker 0:43:43
    Tubridy : It must have been a terrible moment of weakness....
    Ahern : I accept that. If I was doing it again, if I was thinking about it, and if I was going to believe that I was going to end up in the Mahon Tribunal being "dissected" by "those guys" ...... I would have done it all differently

    Again, context is everything. You make it sound if he wouldn't have done "all those bad things" if he had known the tribunal was coming up. What he was referring to specifically was that he had no bank accounts at the time.

    But ANYONE who comes on TV and - even leaving everything else aside - says that Haughey never asked him to do anything wrong - does not deserve respect (that has to be earned, and then not pissed away) - and does not deserve ANY benefit of the doubt.

    Do you have some evidence that Haughey specifically asked Ahern to do something that Ahern knew at the time was wrong or corrupt ?


  • Options
    #68
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    The facts show that he took the comments of those who were concerned about the property bubble seriously. He may have underestimated the extent of the problem but he didn't ignore them

    We're going to have to agree to differ. I know for a fact that if I was taking someone seriously and take their opinion into account, I would not describe them as "negative" or suggest that I was surprised they didn't commit suicide.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    Great, now how about you provide the full context. How he pretty much accepted that Haughey had done wrong; that he regretted signing cheques for him and that he didn't know what the cheques were for. He did not hail Haughey as a 'Good Guy' in the way your quote implies

    Did he, or did he not, say unprompted that Haughey never asked him to do anything wrong ? Whatever he said either side of that is IRRELEVANT; particularly as it's based on the fact that this is the one thing that Tubridy pulled him up on.

    Sorry, you are not going to be able to hide the fact that he said the above, and only said the rest when Tubridy pulled him up on the lie.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    You make it sound if he wouldn't have done "all those bad things" if he had known the tribunal was coming up. What he was referring to specifically was that he had no bank accounts at the time.

    Absolute rubbish. He said the exact quote above. And again, there was no need for him to say it. "I shouldn't have done it" would have sufficed.

    Adding in that hung him; accidental ? Maybe, but as I've said before there are too many things to overlook or give him the benefit of the doubt on......a neutral cannot overlook that many things.
    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    Do you have some evidence that Haughey specifically asked Ahern to do something that Ahern knew at the time was wrong or corrupt ?

    No. But I've covered this before; remember that Ahern was Minister for Finance - in charge of looking after the money and where it was going there are 2 options : either he knew and didn't care, or didn't do his job properly; a job that he was being paid a small fortune to do.

    So I'll ditch my suspicions for a second and ask you - which was it ?


  • Options
    #69
    lmimmfn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


    lmao@the original point of this thread, aww poor politicans


Advertisement