Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

KELTICKNIGHTT

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, like McGuinness he is an Independent.

See upthread for newspaper reports from last December of several FF cumainn in Louth nominating "staunch" FFer Gallagher for the general election, and him turning it down "on this occasion".

Sean expressed sincere gratitude to all those who had put his name forward and to the many people who had contacted him over the period since his name was mentioned as a possible candidate.

He did not say "You need your heads examined, I am not even a member of Fianna Fail, I left last March, or possibly September, or maybe in 2009."

IS Sean Gallagher currently a member of FF ?

KELTICKNIGHTT

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FF damaged to Ireland internationally to the point where they weren't believed abroad or at home.

Yes, McG's crimes are bigger, but the damage to lives and mental health that FF have imposed on our citizens has a far wider spread than IRA ever managed.

SG is part of that toxic spread, and like McG is trying to distance himself from it, albeit temporarily.

Are you a member of any political party yourself ?

no thank god Im not a member of political party as the choices there in party's are poor and some almost the same .don't agree that SG is part of a toxic spread,he was connected to a toxic party that ruined the country,he bet on wrong horse ,in other words,he made a poor choice with FF,, But left,be nice to see a new party come from somewhere as none of the party's there now appeal to me,there is times i wonder why i came back to this country with the way it was handled but im here and have a family,so have to do what i have to do like everyone else.

raymon

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

IS Sean Gallagher currently a member of FF ?

Please show proof that he is not

In any case membership isn't important imo

Gallagher lied about involvement and activity.
He was clearly involved and active up until a few months ago where he went walking with m Martin on the campaign trail according to the Irish. Times( in addition to various others in FF)

swampgas

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

so you don't have PROOF,only your personnel option is a ff candidate ,is this correct
don't think any smart person would want being a ff candidate,hence Sean Gallagher is not.also i think you see alot of people like sean gallagher moving away from ff because how they handle things.

If he's so smart, and FF so toxic, why doesn't he just resign from FF and stop his FF-related activities? I don't think he has "moved away" from FF at all.

Given his track record in FF, I would say the burden of proof is on him to prove that he really is the independent candidate he claims to be.

Seems to me he wants to have his cake and eat it - stay cosy with FF insiders but portray himself to the masses as the opposite.

Zubeneschamali

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

IS Sean Gallagher currently a member of FF ?

I don't know. When asked over on Facebook, he gave a rather slippery answer:

I was a member for a period of Ravensdale FF Cumann outside Dundalk but resigned from the Cumann on March 1st, 2010. Best wishes, Seán

It's strange, however, that Louth FF cumainn would nominate him as a candidate in the GE 8 months after that date, and in summer the Louth CDC did not know that he had left the party, and that he wrote a letter resigning from the Executive Council in january this year saying that he just didn't have time for meetings, without mentioning that he had left the party months before.

KELTICKNIGHTT

raymon wrote: »

Please show proof that he is not

In any case membership isn't important imo

Gallagher lied about involvement and activity.
He was clearly involved and active up until a few months ago where he went walking with m Martin on the campaign trail according to the Irish. Times( in addition to various others in FF)

Gallagher is a former member of the Fianna Fáil National Executive from may 2011 and now show proof otherwise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Gallagher#cite_note-10

KELTICKNIGHTT

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't know. When asked over on Facebook, he gave a rather slippery answer:

I was a member for a period of Ravensdale FF Cumann outside Dundalk but resigned from the Cumann on March 1st, 2010. Best wishes, Seán

It's strange, however, that Louth FF cumainn would nominate him as a candidate in the GE 8 months after that date, and in summer the Louth CDC did not know that he had left the party, and that he wrote a letter resigning from the Executive Council in january this year saying that he just didn't have time for meetings, without mentioning that he had left the party months before.

sean gallagher is running as independent, the dispute is over when he left FF
Gallagher is a former member of the Fianna Fáil National Executive sense may 2011.
to say otherwise is a lie unless theres proof to show otherwise

KELTICKNIGHTT

swampgas wrote: »

If he's so smart, and FF so toxic, why doesn't he just resign from FF and stop his FF-related activities? I don't think he has "moved away" from FF at all.

Given his track record in FF, I would say the burden of proof is on him to prove that he really is the independent candidate he claims to be.

Seems to me he wants to have his cake and eat it - stay cosy with FF insiders but portray himself to the masses as the opposite.

Gallagher is a former member of the Fianna Fáil National Executive from may 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Gallagher#cite_note-10

swampgas

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

sean gallagher is running as independent, the dispute is over when he left FF
to say otherwise is a lie

Actually, the real issue is whether SG can convince voters that he is an acceptable candidate. Part of this comes down to whether voters feel they can trust him. I.e. does he have the integrity required for a president?

This is not a court case where anything has to be proved - it's simply a matter of SG being convincing to voters. Right now it looks like he was stretching the truth a little too far when he suggested that he had more or less parted way with FF in 2009.

If he wants my vote, he'll have to be a bit more convincing about his independence, because FF are toxic for a very good reason.

KELTICKNIGHTT

raymon wrote: »

Please show proof that he is not

In any case membership isn't important imo

Gallagher lied about involvement and activity.
He was clearly involved and active up until a few months ago where he went walking with m Martin on the campaign trail according to the Irish. Times( in addition to various others in FF)

marty mc guinness a whole lot more about alot of things,who alot more toxic candidate,who will people be more concerned about more,MMG would be.
be that being said
the choice of candidate in this election is poor,alot of people aren't interested,they more interested in the up coming budget how how much it will hit there pockets

KELTICKNIGHTT

swampgas wrote: »

Actually, the real issue is whether SG can convince voters that he is an acceptable candidate. Part of this comes down to whether voters feel they can trust him. I.e. does he have the integrity required for a president?

This is not a court case where anything has to be proved - it's simply a matter of SG being convincing to voters. Right now it looks like he was stretching the truth a little too far when he suggested that he had more or less parted way with FF in 2009.

If he wants my vote, he'll have to be a bit more convincing about his independence, because FF are toxic for a very good reason.

the choices of candidates in this election if you want to call it that is very poor.
Michael d looks like he will win.think they should shorten the term from 7 to 5 years.

swampgas

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

the choices of candidates in this election if you want to call it that is very poor.

I think the candidates look worse than they might because of the level of scrutiny a presidential race brings is more severe than in a regular general election. So more dirt comes out and more mud gets thrown.

Personally I'm looking for a candidate who can do the job without screwing it up and who won't use the position as a vehicle for some other agenda.

Some semblance of integrity would be an added bonus.

KELTICKNIGHTT

swampgas wrote: »

I think the candidates look worse than they might because of the level of scrutiny a presidential race brings is more severe than in a regular general election. So more dirt comes out and more mud gets thrown.

Personally I'm looking for a candidate who can do the job without screwing it up and who won't use the position as a vehicle for some other agenda.

Some semblance of integrity would be an added bonus.

does that integrity exist with all these candidates

raymon

From a Bruce Arnold piece in todays independent


In the case of Sean Gallagher, he has totally misrepresented his position, accepting covert and organised support from the Fianna Fail Party while at the same time concealing this behind a pretence of independence. He has gone further, in misleading statements about his position and what he has said on the public record. And he has claimed as 'a non-issue' the recent revelations of the true picture concerning his support for, and membership of, Fianna Fail, a position that has to be questioned.
As has been reported, Fianna Fail canvassers from the last election have been canvassing for Gallagher in Cork.
Anyone who has misrepresented the truth and then describes this as 'a non-issue' has something to hide. They must be regarded with scepticism.

charlemont

An out and out 'Yes Man'. I can picture him listening to all the same advisor's and crony's of FF.

CDfm

swampgas wrote: »

because FF are toxic for a very good reason.

Did someone mention court and the objective bystander test

06/01/2011 - 14:15:29
Former Taoiseach John Bruton claimed today that Ireland is run by civil servants who use TDs and Senators to administer their rule.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/bruton-in-scathing-attack-on-political-system-488245.html#ixzz1aa0KBhwt

So it may be your issue is with the system of government and JB did not want the Presidents job.

There is a difference between government which is about ruling and politics which is about winning elections.

So where SG fitted into the Corporate State Model would be something that would hugely interest me.

John Bruton never mentioned him and jonniebgood and myself who are not even SG supporters can't see it.

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

Did someone mention court and the objective bystander test


So it may be your issue is with the system of government and JB did not want the Presidents job.

There is a difference between government which is about ruling and politics which is about winning elections.

So where SG fitted into the Corporate State Model would be something that would hugely interest me.

John Bruton never mentioned him and jonniebgood and myself who are not even SG supporters can't see it.

What has this got to do with Sean Gallagher and lies ??

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

What has this got to do with Sean Gallagher and lies ??

I was replying to a specific point another poster made with a not too alternative point of view and making a distinction between politics and government as I would like to see the posters reply within that context.

I can't see where Sean Gallagher has done anything much ,though, I can see you repeatedly repeating your "lies and anti-FF " mantra's.

Other posters are essentially saying to you that it is apparent to them that Sean Gallagher is a decent man. They are not even SG supporters.

The thread seems to have moved on a bit from being about Sean Gallagher. or FF at this stage.

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

I was replying to a specific point another poster made with a not too alternative point of view and making a distinction between politics and government as I would like to see the posters reply within that context.

I can't see where Sean Gallagher has done anything much ,though, I can see you repeatedly repeating your "lies and anti-FF " mantra's.

Other posters are essentially saying to you that it is apparent to them that Sean Gallagher is a decent man. They are not even SG supporters.

The thread seems to have moved on a bit from being about Sean Gallagher. or FF at this stage.

The thread is about whether or not Sean Gallagher lied. It has not moved on

You have tried to change the discussion away from Sean Gallagher many times .

Please stop the whataboutery

KELTICKNIGHTT

raymon wrote: »

From a Bruce Arnold piece in todays independent


In the case of Sean Gallagher, he has totally misrepresented his position, accepting covert and organised support from the Fianna Fail Party while at the same time concealing this behind a pretence of independence. He has gone further, in misleading statements about his position and what he has said on the public record. And he has claimed as 'a non-issue' the recent revelations of the true picture concerning his support for, and membership of, Fianna Fail, a position that has to be questioned.
As has been reported, Fianna Fail canvassers from the last election have been canvassing for Gallagher in Cork.
Anyone who has misrepresented the truth and then describes this as 'a non-issue' has something to hide. They must be regarded with scepticism.

clutching at straws again

KELTICKNIGHTT

raymon wrote: »

The thread is about whether or not Sean Gallagher lied. It has not moved on

You have tried to change the discussion away from Sean Gallagher many times .

Please stop the whataboutery

is mcguinness lying ??

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

The thread is about whether or not Sean Gallagher lied. It has not moved on

You have tried to change the discussion away from Sean Gallagher many times .

Please stop the whataboutery

No harm but continually repeating this type of criticism of discussion does nothing for the argument. Rather it corners you as being narrow minded. I don't think anyone posting here is particularly a fan of Gallagher but it is interesting to consider the subject in a wider narrative other than a series of posts that say the same thing as the previous.

So which of the candidates would you put above SG other than Higgins (the point being SG is second in the polls so which of the candidates below him would you rate as better or more suitable)? There is no perfect candidate and you assert that SG is dishonest, where is the perfect candidate with perfect integrity?

raymon

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

is mcguinness lying ??

He is , yes

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

No harm but continually repeating this type of criticism of discussion does nothing for the argument. Rather it corners you as being narrow minded. I don't think anyone posting here is particularly a fan of Gallagher but it is interesting to consider the subject in a wider narrative other than a series of posts that say the same thing as the previous.

So which of the candidates would you put above SG other than Higgins (the point being SG is second in the polls so which of the candidates below him would you rate as better or more suitable)? There is no perfect candidate and you assert that SG is dishonest, where is the perfect candidate with perfect integrity?

I have a different way of looking at things .

Anyone who has helped or was associated with murder is off my list.
Anyone who has repeatedly lied is off my list.
That puts Gallagher and MMG completely off my list

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

I have a different way of looking at things .

Anyone who has helped or was associated with murder is off my list.

I think Alan Shatter supports that view

Crisis in the Middle East

July 27th, 2006
Response to Michael D. Higgins’s letter to Irish Times of 27 July 2006
Dear Madam,
It is interesting to note that Michael D. Higgins (Irish Times, July 27th) states that “parties of the left have consistently rejected terrorist actions not only because of their impact on civilians but also because of the response they call forth from the powerful.” It seems that in his world, such actions would be open to a lesser form of condemnation if those attacked did not respond and defend themselves. This is a distinctly odd view of the fundamental principles of International Law to which he proclaims himself to be committed. At the very centre of international law is the right of a State to defend itself and its citizens when attacked.
It is particularly depressing that some of those who proclaim themselves to be speaking on behalf of “the left” such as Michael D are attached to an analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and of the current conflict in Lebanon which largely coincides with that of the most extreme fundamentalist elements in the Middle East who have rejected every reasonable attempt to bring about a permanent and peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The “refusal” Michael D writes “of the US to agree to talks with Syria, or to an immediate ceasefire, is reprehensible.” No mention is made by him of Iran in his article. What is truly reprehensible has been Iran’s consistent opposition over the past fifteen years to every attempt at developing a viable peace process in the Middle East and its sponsoring of annual conferences of the Rejectionist Front attended by both Hezbollah and Hamas in which those present proclaim their mutual commitment to the total destruction of the Israeli State or to, in the words of the Iranian President “wiping Israel off the map”. The current tragic conflagration in Lebanon is essentially Syria and Iran’s proxy war against Israel.
The fundamentalist Hezbollah movement has been armed and financed by Iran and has with Syrian complicity established a State within a State in southern Lebanon. It is a sad reflection on Deputy Higgins’s lack of objectivity that he reserves his wrath for the European Union and the United States whilst having nothing to say about the responsibility of both Iran and Syria for current events.
He also seems blissfully unaware that many Arab leaders, commentators, and political analysists are convinced that the leaders of Tehran and Damascus are using Hizbollah to divert attention from Iran’s nuclear programme and from Syria’s involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. These two countries have grossly violated the sovereignty of Lebanon; used Hizbollah as a proxy army to prevent the Lebanese government and army assuming control over southern Lebanon and are responsible for the accumulation by Hizbollah of thousands of rockets, over 1,200 of which have in recent days hit Haifa and other Israeli towns and cities.
Hamas, like Hizbollah, is of course financed and sponsored by Iran. Whilst acknowledging Michael D. is right when stating that Hamas formed a government after free elections, he fails to explain how the regular firing of Kassim rockets by terrorists from Gaza into the Israeli towns of Sderot and Ashkelon in the weeks preceding Hamas’ kidnapping of an Israeli soldier contributed to the Israeli/Palestinian peace process.
The sad reality of the Middle East is whenever Israel disengages from territory and attempts to advance a peace process, such behaviour is not viewed as building block to peace but as a sign of weakness and confirmation that terror works. Whilst the leadership of Hizbollah and Hamas are happy to join their sponsors in Tehran for the annual Holocaust Denial Conference, it remains their objective to perpetuate a second Holocaust. It is time that Michael D. Higgins woke up to the type of world in which we live and the threat posed not only to the Israeli State but to all of us in Europe by Islamic fundamentalism.
ALAN SHATTER
4 Upper Ely Place
Dublin 2


http://www.alanshatter.ie/?p=279

Are you still crossing names off the list .

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

I think Alan Shatter supports that view


Are you still crossing names off the list .

What has this 2006 letter have to do with Gallagher lying ?
I don't see him mentioned at all .

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

I have a different way of looking at things .

Anyone who has helped or was associated with murder is off my list.
Anyone who has repeatedly lied is off my list.
That puts Gallagher and MMG completely off my list

It was a simple question but if they are off your list I will rephrase is and ask are all the other candidates apart from MMG on your list?

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

What has this 2006 letter have to do with Gallagher lying ?
I don't see him mentioned at all .

I addressed a specific point on the criteria you use to cross people off your list.

raymon

I haven't decided who else is on my list yet.

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

I haven't decided who else is on my list yet.

Is Dana on your list ?

swampgas

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

[...]

So which of the candidates would you put above SG other than Higgins (the point being SG is second in the polls so which of the candidates below him would you rate as better or more suitable)? There is no perfect candidate and you assert that SG is dishonest, where is the perfect candidate with perfect integrity?

This is the key point, as it is with most elections - few candidates are squeaky clean, and it can be difficult to weigh the apparent misdemeanors of one against another.

In this case, SG seems reasonably clean (IMO). I imagine there has been a strategic decision by his team to distance him from FF as far as possible, which is back-firing on him now. Whether that's enough to sway voters, its hard to say. Pretending not to be FF might seem like an acceptable electoral ploy to some (judging by some of the comments here anyway), and unforgiveable underhanded sneakiness by others (ditto).

Personally, I would rather someone with a strong track record in politics (by which I mean as a government minister or senior EU role) as I think that's a better fit for the job. Beggars can't be choosers though ...

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

I haven't decided who else is on my list yet.

That is fair enough. I have to say Gallagher would certainly not be in my first 2 to exclude based on some of the other charachters. As you have excluded only McGuinness and Gallagher it does'nt take Sherlock holmes to work out that you rate the other 5 higher than SG.
That means you would prefer Dana as President over him!!! Have you heard her interviews. She sounds like a mother in law that has been bit by a rattle snake. I feel her ideas and views would be a serious problem should she represent us abroad.
It also means you would prefer Mary '€150,000 from a charity' Davis as a president. She is a serial member of boards pocketing large amounts of money including taking massive sums from charitable organisations. SG may have tried to hide links with FF (wouldnt most) but at least he was democratic (unlike Mary) in his request to the councils to consider others once he got the required 4.
Gay Mitchell is also up on your list which I would have little to argue with although he is having problems. And I won't get into Norris either but we are all aware of peoples questioning of him on a very serious issue. Imagine this being highlighted as he visits the deep south of America for example.

The point I am making is that your opinion of SG is that he is dishonest. I may differ, but there are actually things that are more important at this stage like the ability to be a benefit to the country as opposed to some of the candidates who would not be.

Now a direct question: Do you feel that honesty is the single most important charachter trait that our next president should have?

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

That is fair enough. I have to say Gallagher would certainly not be in my first 2 to exclude based on some of the other charachters. As you have excluded only McGuinness and Gallagher it does'nt take Sherlock holmes to work out that you rate the other 5 higher than SG.
That means you would prefer Dana as President over him!!! Have you heard her interviews. She sounds like a mother in law that has been bit by a rattle snake. I feel her ideas and views would be a serious problem should she represent us abroad.
It also means you would prefer Mary '€150,000 from a charity' Davis as a president. She is a serial member of boards pocketing large amounts of money including taking massive sums from charitable organisations. SG may have tried to hide links with FF (wouldnt most) but at least he was democratic (unlike Mary) in his request to the councils to consider others once he got the required 4.
Gay Mitchell is also up on your list which I would have little to argue with although he is having problems. And I won't get into Norris either but we are all aware of peoples questioning of him on a very serious issue. Imagine this being highlighted as he visits the deep south of America for example.

The point I am making is that your opinion of SG is that he is dishonest. I may differ, but there are actually things that are more important at this stage like the ability to be a benefit to the country as opposed to some of the candidates who would not be.

Now a direct question: Do you feel that honesty is the single most important charachter trait that our next president should have?

Not being a murderer would be my top priority.

Then honesty .

I think that the pool of candidates is very poor. Dana , Mitchell , Davis, even Norris now don't inspire me. None of them are high up on my list

Although I like Michael d , I don't think he is a great statesman.
He will probably get my #1 nonetheless.

CDfm

The idea that this thread has been about the rehabilitation of Sean Gallagher has crossed my mind a few times.

It has proved the man is not as bad as the proposition.

BlackrockBeach

1. As a former "CEO" of Louth CEB he would be initimate in what a repayable grant / equity is to a company - he implies he didnt understand he had to repay and is dragged to the steps of Courts and then pays!!
2. He set up Smart Homes immediately with shared Directors - change the name and dont pay your obligations - a great value system for someone seeking the highest office
3. Issuing legal threats to avoid futher probing of this issue - what is there to hide if all above board ?
4. FF to the core - discard that coat when it gets tarnished and be reborn as an independent "entrepreneur"
5. Drives a 2011 merc and indicates on his public income at a tiny fraction of his takehome which is over €1000 day in speaking fees..real honest guy in touch with the people
6. Dont even start on the issue of Divorce

= just the values we need in the highes office in the land

Ernest

Not to be personal about it but do we want a President who grooms himself like a Polish security worker.....

KELTICKNIGHTT

Ernest wrote: »

Not to be personal about it but do we want a President who grooms himself like a Polish security worker.....

not a nice comment i must say,but to each there own

K-9

BlackrockBeach wrote: »

1. As a former "CEO" of Louth CEB he would be initimate in what a repayable grant / equity is to a company - he implies he didnt understand he had to repay and is dragged to the steps of Courts and then pays!!
2. He set up Smart Homes immediately with shared Directors - change the name and dont pay your obligations - a great value system for someone seeking the highest office
3. Issuing legal threats to avoid futher probing of this issue - what is there to hide if all above board ?
4. FF to the core - discard that coat when it gets tarnished and be reborn as an independent "entrepreneur"
5. Drives a 2011 merc and indicates on his public income at a tiny fraction of his takehome which is over €1000 day in speaking fees..real honest guy in touch with the people
6. Dont even start on the issue of Divorce

= just the values we need in the highes office in the land

Fair enough, but why the comment about Divorce?

KELTICKNIGHTT

BlackrockBeach wrote: »

1. As a former "CEO" of Louth CEB he would be initimate in what a repayable grant / equity is to a company - he implies he didnt understand he had to repay and is dragged to the steps of Courts and then pays!!
2. He set up Smart Homes immediately with shared Directors - change the name and dont pay your obligations - a great value system for someone seeking the highest office
3. Issuing legal threats to avoid futher probing of this issue - what is there to hide if all above board ?
4. FF to the core - discard that coat when it gets tarnished and be reborn as an independent "entrepreneur"
5. Drives a 2011 merc and indicates on his public income at a tiny fraction of his takehome which is over €1000 day in speaking fees..real honest guy in touch with the people
6. Dont even start on the issue of Divorce

= just the values we need in the highes office in the land

don't you think what ever you taking about on no6 is a personal matter and nothing to do with election ?

raymon

The fact that he lies in interviews is a major concern , specifically the lie about his activity in FF.

His whole campaign is about jobs and enterprise ...... for himself

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

The fact that he lies in interviews is a major concern , specifically the lie about his activity in FF.

His whole campaign is about jobs and enterprise ...... for himself

And the SG website says

Gallagher ‘abhors’ many of the decisions of Fianna Fáil Governments

Independent Presidential candidate Seán Gallagher today said that he ‘abhorred’ the decisions made by the last Fianna Fáil Governments.
Speaking during an interview on the Neil Prenderville Show on Cork 96fm during a visit to the county, Mr. Gallagher said,
“I have never made any secret of the fact that I was in Fianna Fáil and I have always encouraged people to get involved in youth and community and indeed political parties.”
“I have huge respect for the grass roots of any organisations, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and those who are out there trying to improve our communities.”
“But what is important to point out is that I have never been a politician, I have never stood for elected office, I have been a voluntary member of an organisation. But sadly many people in grass roots are being demonised for being a voluntary member of a political party.”
“I was asked last night on the Prime Time programme if I would condemn Fianna Fáil.”
“I couldn’t condemn the ordinary grass roots members of the party throughout the country, ordinary decent people, who were not in Government who were not in cabinet, who did not make decisions.”
“I did try to get the opportunity, but didn’t get back in to say that of course I abhor many of the decisions of the last Government and the mismanagement of our economy that has taken us to where we are and the last Government were responsible.”
“I have never used the word condemnation in my life. It is not in my vocabulary.”
“The last Government badly mismanaged the economy. It overheated. We are now left with the issues of businesses struggling and unemployment. I think that there were appalling decisions made.”
“Of course there was mismanagement at senior level and Michéal Martin has accepted that.”
“I was not at the cabinet table. I was a grassroots member working on a voluntary capacity. I do not feel like I need to be answerable, neither do any of the grassroots members need to be answerable for what was happening at cabinet.”
“We can’t change the past. I’m not responsible for what happened in Government. But I can be responsible for what I contribute to the country now. I want to move the debate on.”
“I don’t believe in negative campaigning.”
“I have never believed that I will grow an inch taller by knocking anyone down.”

Wolfe Tone

Damage control.

10green bottles

Gallagher will not even mention FF in his denials about the failure of the last goverment.
What was the last successful biz that he was involved with that made him a euro ?? and a biz guru ??
SG is broke and i hope that he wont make the 12.5% .

raymon

This statement tells me nothing .

He needs a job badly and will say anything at this stage .

I believe nothing this man says .

jonniebgood1

Now that he has clearly given his opinion on the decision makers in the previous government I think SG will continue to push forward. I think this thread shows very clearly that in comparison with the other candidates SG has very little to be queried on. Probably second to Higgins and Mitchell only in this regard.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Now that he has clearly given his opinion on the decision makers in the previous government I think SG will continue to push forward. I think this thread shows very clearly that in comparison with the other candidates SG has very little to be queried on. Probably second to Higgins and Mitchell only in this regard.

This statement is in typical FF double speak style .

It says nothing , while it contains many words, spin spin spin.

Please see this

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/presidential-election/gallagher-refuses-to-name-and-blame-ff-for-woes-2906347.html

In any case , his repeated lies to the media have been hard to stomach

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

This statement is in typical FF double speak style .

It says nothing , while it contains many words, spin spin spin.

Please see this

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/presidential-election/gallagher-refuses-to-name-and-blame-ff-for-woes-2906347.html

In any case , his repeated lies to the media have been hard to stomach

He should be praised for calling it as he sees it in the same way as his hesitation to criticise FF should be questioned.

The article that YOU linked said

yesterday morning, Mr Gallagher was finally criticising governments led by Fianna Fail as he said the previous government "badly mismanaged" the economy.

"It overheated. We are now left with the issues of businesses struggling and unemployment. I think that there were appalling decisions made."

If you think he is lying you should prove this. If you cannot do this then your argument has no weight or justification. To be able to put his hands up and say that he got it wrong in the debate as SG did yesterday shows a quality that I have never seen in the main FF protagonists.

Zubeneschamali

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To be able to put his hands up and say that he got it wrong in the debate as SG did yesterday shows a quality that I have never seen in the main FF protagonists.

You mean the other FF protagonists.

Gallagher is the main FF protagonist right now, as Martin and the whole Parliamentary Party are sitting this election out, on the sidelines.

jonniebgood1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You mean the other FF protagonists.

Gallagher is the main FF protagonist right now, as Martin and the whole Parliamentary Party are sitting this election out, on the sidelines.

FF are sitting out this election (wisely). If they had got Gay Byrne on board as Martin wanted the view of Gallagher would be different. We should not forget that they were going to run a candidate which indicates SG's independence.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

He should be praised for calling it as he sees it in the same way as his hesitation to criticise FF should be questioned.

The article that YOU linked said
If you think he is lying you should prove this. If you cannot do this then your argument has no weight or justification. To be able to put his hands up and say that he got it wrong in the debate as SG did yesterday shows a quality that I have never seen in the main FF protagonists.

He should be praised ??? He praised Michael Martin ! What the hell ?

Let's all praise bertie and Biffo and Callely too. Willie o Dea could also be praised

It has been proved that his " no involvement in FF since 2009" is a lie.

Praise be to FF !