Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

What has Gallaghers age got to do with it .

He lied about his recent involvement in FF and did so repeatedly

I was avoiding mentioning other candidates but Michael D is 70 and that is elderly and whether or not he will survive the 7 year term etc should be a concern for voters.

SG is a sprightly 49.

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

What has Gallaghers age got to do with it .

He lied about his recent involvement in FF and did so repeatedly

If this is clear how come you have not been able to link to anything showing this? LINK OR SOURCE PLEASE???

CDfm

Callan57 wrote: »

I'm just saying that in tough times it might be a good idea to elect the person who in the long run will cost us the least ... and as Michael D is the oldest it's reasonable to expect that he would be collecting a pension for the shortest period of time.

You should want the most capable not the most economical.

Will Michael D be collecting all his other pensions if elected ????

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If this is clear how come you have not been able to link to anything showing this? LINK OR SOURCE PLEASE???

I will repeat my earlier message

The lie is that he said that he has not been involved with FF since 2009.....


Do you dispute that he said this??????


Or do you dispute the fact that he has been heavily involved in FF until just a few month ago.


Please be specific in your objection.


The man is a compulsive liar


I would prefer an honest person to be our president

jonniebgood1

irishdude11 wrote: »

Gallagher has been found lying through his teeth about his FF involvement. He says he was no longer involved with them after 2009 yet we have a video of him at an ogra conference creaming his pants over the 'future leaders of the party, and indeed, the country', we have evidence of him campaigning for 3 FF TDs back in Feb 2011, we have 'regrettably' resigning from the FF National Executive in 2011 as opposed to 2009 when he said he did. Nevermind that it seems he never actually left the party at all, he just resigned from the NE because he said was too busy.

He said he left the national executive in 2009 after becoming disillusioned. If you have a source of him saying he had no involvement in any way with anyone from FF after 2009 you should state the source. If you have'nt got such a source then you should pipe down and stop talking about 'creaming his pants' or other such nonsense as it is lowering the tone. We already have unsubstantiated complaints of lies without that.

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

I will repeat my earlier message

The lie is that he said that he has not been involved with FF since 2009.....

As I previously said I am not particularly a fan of his but I have'nt yet seen you provide the apparent 'lie' which you are on about.

So Yes- please show me source of where he said "he has not been involved with FF since 2009". That would help us move this along.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We already have unsubstantiated complaints of lies without that.

Please be specific.

kippy

Ok,
I believe, like many, Michael D has this wrapped up despite the concerns about his age.


I have major issues with candidates running who have been appointed to various boards over the years by political parties, whether or not they got reimbursed for the "work" or not.
I would like to see what these people did as members of these boards or wheter they were just there to make up the numbers.
Boards of state companies really annoy me, I really dont see why there should be so many, some organisations have more than one. They are just a "thanks for supporting us" kinda thing. Over the years unions have also gotten places on boards and sat idly by as things came to a head is so many sectors of this society.
I'd love to see the presidents who were ex board members outline what they actually did or did not do on the boards they were on. I don't care if Gallagher was put on this board because he had experience in a certain sector, I want to know what he did on that board and what he changed/did not change.
Boards themselves are not the candidates fault, however what they did on them is.

Gallagher is 100% FF and I dont think he has ever denied this -he has said all along he is an FF supporter but may have left the party a few years ago - which is acceptable in my book (acceptable in that he isn't lying)

Anyway boards out!!

For the record:
http://www.seangallagher.com/2011/10/gallagher-outlines-details-of-board-memberships-and-remuneration-received-and-expenses/

Edit - just spotted his election tag (for an independent president) - that potentially on the border of truth.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As I previously said I am not particularly a fan of his but I have'nt yet seen you provide the apparent 'lie' which you are on about.

So Yes- please show me source of where he said "he has not been involved with FF since 2009". That would help us move this along.

You must be joking ?

Anyway here is a link to one of the many articles and interviews

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1003/breaking38.html

Liam Byrne

raymon wrote: »

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As I previously said I am not particularly a fan of his but I have'nt yet seen you provide the apparent 'lie' which you are on about.

So Yes- please show me source of where he said "he has not been involved with FF since 2009". That would help us move this along.

You must be joking ?

Anyway here is a link to one of the many articles and interviews

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1003/breaking38.html

Game, set & match to those pointing out his lying, methinks!

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

You must be joking ?

Anyway here is a link to one of the many articles and interviews

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1003/breaking38.html

I think it is you that is joking if that is the basis for your thread. I think he will be questioned more on this but you are again basing your 'lie' claim on your interpretation of his being 'active' as termed in the article. SG will point to his lack of attending in his previous role in the national executive. You will point to attending at his friends election losses this February, etc. Neither is definitive. The media will continue the search as they have not caught him out yet. Neither have you but you should keep trying.

irishdude11

CDfm wrote: »

Come off it.

Since when is it fair to just diss a candidate on a thread and not allow a counter argument or comparison to other figures in public life.

Why are you bringing other figures from Irish politics into it like Begg and Gilmore etc..? We all know there are plenty of dodgy goings and dodgy dealers in Irish politics. What exactly is the point of your comparison between SG and other figures from Irish politics? That SG might be a liar but there are others just as bad? Thats obvious, it doesn't need to be pointed out.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think it is you that is joking if that is the basis for your thread. I think he will be questioned more on this but you are again basing your 'lie' claim on your interpretation of his being 'active' as termed in the article. SG will point to his lack of attending in his previous role in the national executive. You will point to attending at his friends election losses this February, etc. Neither is definitive. The media will continue the search as they have not caught him out yet. Neither have you but you should keep trying.

Straightforward lies and deception ..........

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think it is you that is joking if that is the basis for your thread. I think he will be questioned more on this but you are again basing your 'lie' claim on your interpretation of his being 'active' as termed in the article. SG will point to his lack of attending in his previous role in the national executive. You will point to attending at his friends election losses this February, etc. Neither is definitive. The media will continue the search as they have not caught him out yet. Neither have you but you should keep trying.

By the way I have reported your post accusing me of spamming and trolling

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

Straightforward lies and deception ..........

Deception- thats different than a straightforward proven lie. Perhaps we could agree on deception. THere is alot of deception in this election from all candidates.

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

By the way I have reported your post accusing me of spamming and trolling

irishdude11

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think it is you that is joking if that is the basis for your thread. I think he will be questioned more on this but you are again basing your 'lie' claim on your interpretation of his being 'active' as termed in the article. SG will point to his lack of attending in his previous role in the national executive. You will point to attending at his friends election losses this February, etc. Neither is definitive. The media will continue the search as they have not caught him out yet. Neither have you but you should keep trying.

Hang on a second you were asking for proof of him saying he had no involvment in FF since 2009 -

jonniebgood1 wrote:

If you have a source of him saying he had no involvement in any way with anyone from FF after 2009 you should state the source. If you have'nt got such a source then you should pipe down

jonniebgood1 wrote:

So Yes- please show me source of where he said "he has not been involved with FF since 2009". That would help us move this along.

You have now been provided with that source of proof - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1003/breaking38.html

And here is exactly what Gallagher says - I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.

And he was not attending his 'friends election losses'. He was officially launching the campaigns of several FF candidates in Feb 2011.

You asked for the proof and you got it. That is as blatant a lie as they come. Dont even bother trying to argue it. That is a fact. This FF ****e of saying black is white will not wash anymore.

jonniebgood1

You did link to that but it is then an argument about interpreting what his actions since 2009 are and whether he was active or not, etc. I dont really wish to go into arguing over different interpretations as that would just go on and on.

irishdude11

It is not an argument about interpretation, that Bertie/Cowen/Lenihan style crap about semantics doesn't work any more. He said he was no longer active since 2009. He was VERY active up til Feb 2011, so active that he actually officially launched the election campaigns of several FF candidates. So he was lying, that is a fact.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It must be the first time you have been attacked for being a Fianna Fail Supporter

CDfm

irishdude11 wrote: »

It is not an argument about interpretation, that Bertie/Cowen/Lenihan style crap about semantics doesn't work any more. He said he was no longer involved since 2009. He was VERY involved up til Feb 2011, so involved that actually officially launched the election campaigns of several FF candidates.

Gilmoresque , I would say, but thats just semantics and shoundn't be a stickying point

jonniebgood1

irishdude11 wrote: »

It is not an argument about interpretation, that Bertie/Cowen/Lenihan style crap about semantics doesn't work any more. He said he was no longer involved since 2009. He was VERY involved up til Feb 2011, so involved that actually officially launched the election campaigns of several FF candidates.

I am sorry but "VERY involved" including the capitols to emphasise 'very' is indeed your interpretation and is exactly the type of argument that I do not feel is worth pursuing as it is opinion based rather than factual.

irishdude11

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am sorry but "VERY involved" including the capitols to emphasise 'very' is indeed your interpretation and is exactly the type of argument that I do not feel is worth pursuing as it is opinion based rather than factual.

You were originally looking for proof that he said he wasn't involved since 2009, you were given that proof and now you are trying to downplay it.

Its not an interpretation. Launching election campaigns is very active. 'Active', 'very active', whatever, Im going to get involved in a Cowen style argument over semantics. Fact is, he said hasn't been active with FF since 2009. That is a blatant lie as officially launching election campaigns for FF candidates means he was active.

irishdude11

He threw his weight behind the candidates because he wanted to get them elected because they are FF members like him.

Explain how these two facts stack up -

1. Gallagher saying - I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.
2. Gallagher officially launching the election campaigns of several FF TDs in 2011.

jonniebgood1

irishdude11 wrote: »

Its not an interpretation. Launching election campaigns is very active. 'Active', 'very active', whatever, Im going to get involved in a Cowen style argument over semantics. Fact is, he said hasn't been active with FF since 2009. That is a blatant lie as officially launching election campaigns for FF candidates means he was active.

OK then- how is this not your interpretation.

I think a debate on interpretations is unnessesary. The thread is regarding lies and none have been clearly shown as of yet.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

OK then- how is this not your interpretation.

I think a debate on interpretations is unnessesary. The thread is regarding lies and none have been clearly shown as of yet.

"active" and "involved" are simple words , let's not get out the dictionaries.

"Lie" is another simple word no need to explain here .

Your argument that he did not lie has no basis . Please provide some explanation.

Gallagher is a liar .

Proof has been provided of his statement
Proof has been provided that the facts don't support his statement .

irishdude11

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

OK then- how is this not your interpretation.

I think a debate on interpretations is unnessesary. The thread is regarding lies and none have been clearly shown as of yet.

Here is a lie for you -

1. Gallagher saying - I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.
2. Gallagher officially launching the election campaigns of several FF TDs in 2011.

CDfm

A possible explanation is that he was hired to do so.

http://www.carolandassociates.com/radio_tv.htm

Wolfe Tone

irishdude11 wrote: »

Here is a lie for you -

1. Gallagher saying - I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.
2. Gallagher officially launching the election campaigns of several FF TDs in 2011.

And only resigning in January...

irishdude11

Spin it all you want CDfm, he said he wasnt active or involved with FF since 2009, he blatently lied.

raymon

What do Fianna Fail, call lying these days ?????

Back in Brian Lenihan sr's day it was called mature recollection.

I'm sure the Gallagher crew will have some similar term

CDfm

irishdude11 wrote: »

Spin it all you want CDfm, he said he wasnt active or involved with FF since 2009, he blatently lied.

I am not spinning it,to read some posters he ran the country and FF. .

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

I am not spinning it,to read some posters he ran the country and FF. .

Which poster said that ?? I don't remember that one.
Are you making things up ??

MadsL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOAsJtq8a0o

Bannasidhe

So what do people make of Gallagher's appointment to the board of FAS in 2010?

The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Ms. Mary Coughlan, T.D., today (Thursday, 21 January 2010) announced that she has signed the Commencement Order bringing into force the Labour Services (Amendment) Act 2009 and has appointed a new board to FÁS, the State’s Employment and Training Agency:

Mr. Seán Gallagher
Managing Director, Smarthomes Limited;
Board Member, InterTradeIreland

http://www.djei.ie/press/2010/20100121.htm

It appears more and more to me that while Gallagher 'left' FF in 2009 - he did not distance himself in any meaningful way. Launching campaigns, canvassing for FF candidates, accepting FF appointments to Quangos...

To re-employ CDfm's Leaving a football team metaphor - he may not have paid his dues - but he was still wearing the scarf and cheering them on from the sidelines....

Bannasidhe

MadsL wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOAsJtq8a0o

These are very very funny - the Mickey D one nearly cost me a laptop following a coffee down the nose snort.

expectationlost

CDfm wrote: »

A possible explanation is that he was hired to do so.

http://www.carolandassociates.com/radio_tv.htm

what a crock imagine paying somebody who's was just on the national executive to speech at a campaign launch, your not helping here with these suggestions.


laucnhes are supposed fundraising opportunities not paying money out.

if he was hired a speaker will he him launch campaign for other political party candidates, and even if he did it wouldn't mean the same as launching for the party you been involved in for 30years.


i have it 5/6 ff campaigns he helped since 2009

CDfm

expectationlost wrote: »

what a crock imagine paying somebody who's was just on the national executive to speech at a campaign launch, your not helping here with these suggestions.


if he was hired a speaker will he him launch campaign for other political party candidates, and even if he did it wouldn't mean the same as launching for the party you been involved in for 30years.


i have it 5/6 ff campaigns he helped since 2009

I do not know the answer but I imagine his involvement was "celebrity" related.

I have never watched Dragons Den and didn't give him a thought as a candidate before this thread as I did not know who he was.

Hasn't George Hook with his Labour Party affiliations done FG gigs.

laucnhes are supposed fundraising opportunities not paying money out.

I think election funding is now from the exchequer.

Zubeneschamali

Next question for Gallagher: when did you last pay membership dues to Fianna Fail? Feel free to check your bank records, I'm sure you paid by direct debit or cheque, right?

Or are you going to go the full Bertie and claim you used to pay in cash at the races?

The resignation letter upthread says Gallagher was a constituency representative on the Ard Comhairle in January. I'd bet real money that he is still a paid-up member of the party.

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

I do not know the answer but I imagine his involvement was "celebrity" related.

I have never watched Dragons Den and didn't give him a thought as a candidate before this thread as I did not know who he was.

Hasn't George Hook with his Labour Party affiliations done FG gigs.

I think election funding is now from the exchequer.

Why are you trying to justify his lies by imagining far fetched hypothetical scenarios

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

Why are you trying to justify his lies by imagining far fetched hypothetical scenarios

You still say lies as if it is definitive rather than your opinion. You should deal with the points raised as opposed to calling them far fetched. Furthermore you should lay your cards on the table here, who is your candidate?

Zubeneschamali

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You still say lies as if it is definitive rather than your opinion.

Upthread is a letter from Gallagher which says he was a constituency representative for Louth on the Fianna Fáil ard-comhairle in January 2011. His campaign are aware of the letter, and have agreed that Gallagher wrote it.

So this statement by Gallagher is a lie:

I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.

That is not an opinion, it's a fact.

jonniebgood1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Upthread is a letter from Gallagher which says he was a constituency representative for Louth on the Fianna Fáil ard-comhairle in January 2011. His campaign are aware of the letter, and have agreed that Gallagher wrote it.

So this statement by Gallagher is a lie:

I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.

That is not an opinion, it's a fact.

You are incorrect.
It is semantics over the word 'active'.
On one side is the opinion that attending the campaign launch of friends of his is being 'active'.
On the other side 'active' is taking an active role in the executive (his former role) and trying to effect national policy.
Thus it is clearly not definitive. You clearly are fixed on the first side which is fair but to try and ignore the other viewpoint is unfair on SG.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You still say lies as if it is definitive rather than your opinion. You should deal with the points raised as opposed to calling them far fetched. Furthermore you should lay your cards on the table here, who is your candidate?

Yes complete and utter lies, totally untrustworthy. If you disagree please put forward a compelling argument

So .....

I never vote for liars or ex IRA people. That's Gallagher the liar and Martin (p o Neil) Mcguinness out.

I am no fan of FG and Gay Mitchell has no real campaign so that rules him out.

None of the independents are worth voting for

So by process of elimination I may have to vote Michael D

I was hoping to have a good independent to vote for bit that hasnt happened.

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

Yes complete and utter lies, totally untrustworthy. If you disagree please put forward a compelling argument

So .....

I never vote for liars or ex IRA people. That's Gallagher the liar and Martin (p o Neil) Mcguinness out.

I am no fan of FG and Gay Mitchell has no real campaign so that rules him out.

None of the independents are worth voting for

So by process of elimination I may have to vote Michael D

I was hoping to have a good independent to vote for bit that hasnt happened.

We have the same conclusion out of the candidates then at this stage but I am not conviced against Gallagher as of yet. I have given both sides of the semantic argument over the supposed 'lie'. You need to consider both sides, IMO it is not as clear as you propose. I think I will need to wait on more grilling of SG before I decide on him, which will follow now due to his success in the opinion polls.

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

Why are you trying to justify his lies by imagining far fetched hypothetical scenarios

For the same reason jonnie is, I want to tease out the facts as opposed to your opinion and make an informed decision on the candidates.

I never vote for liars or ex IRA people. That's Gallagher the liar and Martin (p o Neil) Mcguinness out.

I am no fan of FG and Gay Mitchell has no real campaign so that rules him out.

None of the independents are worth voting for [/QUOTE]

Not policies ?

So by process of elimination I may have to vote Michael D

And to think I had you down as a Mary Davis supporter.

Zubeneschamali

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You are incorrect.
It is semantics over the word 'active'.

I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party

That is a clear statement that Gallagher has not been a member since 2009.

In fact, he was on the Ard Comhairle in January 2011. He lied.

Liam Byrne

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party

That is a clear statement that Gallagher has not been a member since 2009.

In fact, he was on the Ard Comhairle in January 2011. He lied.

Actually, when you factor in typical FF double-speak, it's not that clear.

The words are unnecessarily long-winded to avoid actually saying that he left FF.

So to a normal person they might seem to mean that, but to an FFer the get-out clause is included.

It's still lies and deception in my book, though. Lies are the "intent to deceive".

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

Jonniebgood are you really a moderator,I find this hard to believe from the quality of your posts

Thats a bit nasty.

Jonnie and I often post with opposing views and the quality of the sources as opposed to opinions need to be taken into account.

I think jonnie was within his rights for questioning you on your sources and if you had been clearer on them (the sources) it would not have lead posters like me to suspect you had an agenda or bias.

swampgas

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You did link to that but it is then an argument about interpreting what his actions since 2009 are and whether he was active or not, etc. I dont really wish to go into arguing over different interpretations as that would just go on and on.

Sounds a bit like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" to me.

The interpretation that most people would make of him "no longer being active" in FF is that he was not involved in FF related activities, and this has been shown to be clearly not the case.