cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Thanks Johnfás.

I wonder why now for Ganley on the Late Late - was he a random guest or is there some reason for publicity now, like Rachel Allen's book? Production teams like to have guests on who have a current relevance and Lisbon and Libertas would seem to be between relevances at the moment.

And I've just read your post, cf as I was about to send this. Was it an official launch? Was there a sell? How did that end of the interview work out?

Did you see it cookie? What did you think?

I did. It was a chat. Pat is useless and the interview was bouncing all over the place. Pat was just running through the talking points he was given.

Though why Pat didn't ask him about his failed dot.com venture which crapped out at the tail end of the dotcom boom is still bothering me though, I mean I knew Pat is bad but how did he miss that elephant in the room?!

So it was a bad interview in general? I imagine he'd have handled it differently on the radio. I'll be interested to see it when it is uploaded.

Bad for Pat, but it wasn't bad for Declan and I believe his mammy was delighted he was on The Late late Show.

Well we agree on one thing

Declan Ganley must have been delighted with the free ride offered by Pat Kenny: why wouldn't he?

Any chance of Pat standing for Libertas ?

More chance of you doing it.

I don't know what you people were expecting. Pat wrestling Declan into a neadlock and giving him a nuggie until he spilled all Libertas's deep dark secrets?

Kate P wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

- Ad hominem, yes, because Mr. Ganley presents himself as an individual citizen, not a politician, and therefore there is no other way of judging him.
- Shoot the messenger - no - because the message that Ganley gives is obscure in the extreme
- Sour grapes - if you are assuming that I'm an aggrieved Yes voter, that is not the case, I voted no and am opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

Ganley has been dissected, investigated and virtually strip-searched by most media organisations and political groupings in Ireland, Europe and even beyond. None have managed to land a glove on him. Maybe, just maybe, he is what he says. But, I suspect, nothing will ever satisfy some of us.
So far, Ganley's message has been simple - vote No against a bad treaty. Most voters are in agreement. Nothing obscure in that. To seek out a messianic or diabolical intention, beyond that is, as yet, wishful thinking and giving him credit for something he has not yet done.
Personally, while supporting his Lisbon campaign, I will reserve judgment on his future until I see the direction he takes.

Hello DHarry,

I have to disagree with your opening sentence because despite the efforts of countless media and political reps, Declan Ganley and Libertas haven't answered many, many questions that have been put to them. And when they do, the answers are inconsistent.

I voted no, but in no way would like to align myself with the King of the No side or the spurious messages that he put out there. Indeed I wonder in the wake of the No vote, if we haven't paid too high a price for that No vote.

I also have to disagree with your second point - that the message was simple; vote no to a bad treaty. The catchphrase might have been simple, but that was merely the tip of an as yet uncharted iceberg. For a man who claimed to have read the contents of the Famous Yellow Folder so many times, I wonder still how he could conclude that the treaty would have seen the introduction of abortion in Ireland because it wasn't there, nor was the suggestion or intimation or possibility of it there. That was one of a number of stunts pulled by an organisation that wanted a No vote at all costs and promised the renegotiation that we know is not going to happen.

As to seeking out a diabolical or messianic intention, an intention of any kind would suffice. There have been far too many inconsistencies and contradictions in all aspects of the campaign, the organisation and the man to simply accept a simple message at face value, even for those of us who are inclined to want to believe the message anyway.

Kate,
I defy you to point to any group in any referendum campaign which has not used exaggeration and yes, scaremongering, to some degree. In our world of sound bytes and short attention spans these things are, unfortunately, part of modern politics. Libertas used these devices, to some degree, to get attention. I mightn't agree with that but I'm mature enough to accept it as part of the cut'n thrust of a referendum.
As of yet, I have heard nothing from Ganley which strikes me as inordinately inconsistent or contradictory from a successful businessman, trying to protect his interests. As nation we have accepted far, far worse from our politicians, at the tribunals for example.
We continue to accept worse from those opposing Libertas and the will of the Irish people. Where, for example is the much-vaunted 'respect' we were told about after previous referenda, which went the way of the government? Why is the likes of Dick Roche, as he foments opposition to Ireland, not subjected to anything like the same scrutiny?
Ganley may be far from perfect but I dread the alternatives.

D.Harry wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

- Ad hominem, yes, because Mr. Ganley presents himself as an individual citizen, not a politician, and therefore there is no other way of judging him.
- Shoot the messenger - no - because the message that Ganley gives is obscure in the extreme
- Sour grapes - if you are assuming that I'm an aggrieved Yes voter, that is not the case, I voted no and am opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

Ganley has been dissected, investigated and virtually strip-searched by most media organisations and political groupings in Ireland, Europe and even beyond. None have managed to land a glove on him. Maybe, just maybe, he is what he says. But, I suspect, nothing will ever satisfy some of us.
So far, Ganley's message has been simple - vote No against a bad treaty. Most voters are in agreement. Nothing obscure in that. To seek out a messianic or diabolical intention, beyond that is, as yet, wishful thinking and giving him credit for something he has not yet done.
Personally, while supporting his Lisbon campaign, I will reserve judgment on his future until I see the direction he takes.

I can't be sure from your posts D.Harry, but how much you know about Declan Ganley's business life? There are plenty of people who would admire him for his career and plenty who would despise him for it - it all depends on which side of the political fence you are on. I don't see much room for neutrality.

My views about Declan Ganley are completely detached from my views of the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon split people mainly along income lines with the lower income group mainly voting No. I don't think it likely that he made much impact on the result one way or the other - for everyone who voted No because of him, he quite likely put someone else off.

Auditor #9 wrote:

We have to coin some phrase in case the likes of Pat and Ben Dunne and who else? Sean Dunne? What if a raft of these suited lads rose up en masse to smite the powers currently installed and severed all their heads Well, what if a whole rake of them got together with the intention of reforming the European system to their liking? It could be a revolution of sorts ... like a velvet revolution but that's taken for Czechoslovakia ...

Shush you. It's me who runs the country. Pat, Ben and Seán are all my eunuchs.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

We have to coin some phrase in case the likes of Pat and Ben Dunne and who else? Sean Dunne? What if a raft of these suited lads rose up en masse to smite the powers currently installed and severed all their heads Well, what if a whole rake of them got together with the intention of reforming the European system to their liking? It could be a revolution of sorts ... like a velvet revolution but that's taken for Czechoslovakia ...

Shush you. It's me who runs the country. Pat, Ben and Seán are all my eunuchs.

If you've a good stash of mattress cash Ard Taoiseach you may be able to snap it and them up at a nifty price in the near future.

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

- Ad hominem, yes, because Mr. Ganley presents himself as an individual citizen, not a politician, and therefore there is no other way of judging him.
- Shoot the messenger - no - because the message that Ganley gives is obscure in the extreme
- Sour grapes - if you are assuming that I'm an aggrieved Yes voter, that is not the case, I voted no and am opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

Ganley has been dissected, investigated and virtually strip-searched by most media organisations and political groupings in Ireland, Europe and even beyond. None have managed to land a glove on him. Maybe, just maybe, he is what he says. But, I suspect, nothing will ever satisfy some of us.
So far, Ganley's message has been simple - vote No against a bad treaty. Most voters are in agreement. Nothing obscure in that. To seek out a messianic or diabolical intention, beyond that is, as yet, wishful thinking and giving him credit for something he has not yet done.
Personally, while supporting his Lisbon campaign, I will reserve judgment on his future until I see the direction he takes.

I can't be sure from your posts D.Harry, but how much you know about Declan Ganley's business life? There are plenty of people who would admire him for his career and plenty who would despise him for it - it all depends on which side of the political fence you are on. I don't see much room for neutrality.

My views about Declan Ganley are completely detached from my views of the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon split people mainly along income lines with the lower income group mainly voting No. I don't think it likely that he made much impact on the result one way or the other - for everyone who voted No because of him, he quite likely put someone else off.

Tbh CF, before Lisbon I knew sweet all about Ganley or his business interests. While I don't credit Libertas with affecting my vote it was the group which inspired me to pay close attention to the Treaty. My final No had more to do with a growing distrust of the EU politicians than it had to do with the actual Treaty. The way I figure it, well-intentioned people will make any treaty work for the good of people. The aftermath of Lisbon has confirmed my suspicions that we are not dealing with well-intentioned people. We are not being led by democrats but by people who believe that democracy must be sacrificed for the greater good - 'it is better to have one man die for the people'.
I am not neutral about Ganley's business interests but people should do a trawl of their own pension funds and the ultimate use of their own business before casting stones.

Quote :

Kate,
I defy you to point to any group in any referendum campaign which has not used exaggeration and yes, scaremongering, to some degree. In our world of sound bytes and short attention spans these things are, unfortunately, part of modern politics. Libertas used these devices, to some degree, to get attention. I mightn't agree with that but I'm mature enough to accept it as part of the cut'n thrust of a referendum.
As of yet, I have heard nothing from Ganley which strikes me as inordinately inconsistent or contradictory from a successful businessman, trying to protect his interests. As nation we have accepted far, far worse from our politicians, at the tribunals for example.
We continue to accept worse from those opposing Libertas and the will of the Irish people. Where, for example is the much-vaunted 'respect' we were told about after previous referenda, which went the way of the government? Why is the likes of Dick Roche, as he foments opposition to Ireland, not subjected to anything like the same scrutiny?
Ganley may be far from perfect but I dread the alternatives.

I take your point that no side in any referendum is above blame and there were many aspects of the Yes side's campaign that horrified and sickened me. On the other hand, I don't think that someone who enters the market politically, yet pretending not to be a politician can acceptably be considered to be above reproach because he is, on some arbitrary scale, less worse than the rest of them. It is precisely because Declan Ganley set himself up as an opposition to all that FF and FG and etc stood for, that he asked us to consider him differently. Furthermore, casting Libertas as a think-tank only reinforces that.

Declan Ganley is on record as saying that Libertas would have the best funded No campaign thusfar. Yet Libertas predicted in its registration submission to SIPO that it estimated donations to amount to merely €150,000. How does Libertas account for this and for the fact that almost ten times that much was eventually spent on the campaign - surely a successful businessman has a better head for estimation than that? And to mislead people by saying that it was funded by countless 100 Euro donations when he was giving a loan (loans?) to the company is at best misleading and at worst, downright deceitful. But I imagine you've heard all of this before...

D.Harry wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

- Ad hominem, yes, because Mr. Ganley presents himself as an individual citizen, not a politician, and therefore there is no other way of judging him.
- Shoot the messenger - no - because the message that Ganley gives is obscure in the extreme
- Sour grapes - if you are assuming that I'm an aggrieved Yes voter, that is not the case, I voted no and am opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

Ganley has been dissected, investigated and virtually strip-searched by most media organisations and political groupings in Ireland, Europe and even beyond. None have managed to land a glove on him. Maybe, just maybe, he is what he says. But, I suspect, nothing will ever satisfy some of us.
So far, Ganley's message has been simple - vote No against a bad treaty. Most voters are in agreement. Nothing obscure in that. To seek out a messianic or diabolical intention, beyond that is, as yet, wishful thinking and giving him credit for something he has not yet done.
Personally, while supporting his Lisbon campaign, I will reserve judgment on his future until I see the direction he takes.

I can't be sure from your posts D.Harry, but how much you know about Declan Ganley's business life? There are plenty of people who would admire him for his career and plenty who would despise him for it - it all depends on which side of the political fence you are on. I don't see much room for neutrality.

My views about Declan Ganley are completely detached from my views of the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon split people mainly along income lines with the lower income group mainly voting No. I don't think it likely that he made much impact on the result one way or the other - for everyone who voted No because of him, he quite likely put someone else off.

Tbh CF, before Lisbon I knew sweet all about Ganley or his business interests. While I don't credit Libertas with affecting my vote it was the group which inspired me to pay close attention to the Treaty. My final No had more to do with a growing distrust of the EU politicians than it had to do with the actual Treaty. The way I figure it, well-intentioned people will make any treaty work for the good of people. The aftermath of Lisbon has confirmed my suspicions that we are not dealing with well-intentioned people. We are not being led by democrats but by people who believe that democracy must be sacrificed for the greater good - 'it is better to have one man die for the people'.
I am not neutral about Ganley's business interests but people should do a trawl of their own pension funds and the ultimate use of their own business before casting stones.

The EU bloc imo is a strange entity with a strong bureaucratic core of ghastly smugness and mediocrity, with the Heads of State bringing in their own agenda often behind the backs of their own electorate, but with the whole thing easily hijacked by the lobbyists and tame experts acting in the interests of big business. It has a built in tendency to want to deepen as well as widen, but the tensions that result from deepening appear tp be at snapping point. The tensions between large and small states will also imo become more and more problematic. I would like to see a much different kind of European alliance, but it wouldn't be achievable top down.




Your last point is a good one. Its not very big, but I'll check it out.

Cookie and Ard-T, I've moved last night's discussion on Taoisigh, spandex and other stuff to its rightful home in the Síbín to keep this one on topic.

Kate P wrote:

Cookie and Ard-T, I've moved last night's discussion on Taoisigh, spandex and other stuff to its rightful home in the Síbín to keep this one on topic.

Fascist!

Kate P wrote:

Cookie and Ard-T, I've moved last night's discussion on Taoisigh, spandex and other stuff to its rightful home in the Síbín to keep this one on topic.

Good call - there's one of those exchanges on virtually every Libertas/Ganley thread here and p.ie.

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Cookie and Ard-T, I've moved last night's discussion on Taoisigh, spandex and other stuff to its rightful home in the Síbín to keep this one on topic.

Good call - there's one of those exchanges on virtually every Libertas/Ganley thread here and p.ie.

On spandex ?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Cookie and Ard-T, I've moved last night's discussion on Taoisigh, spandex and other stuff to its rightful home in the Síbín to keep this one on topic.

Good call - there's one of those exchanges on virtually every Libertas/Ganley thread here and p.ie.

On spandex ?

Exact content varies, but some kind of mildly homerotic exchange of one-liners that takes up a page or so.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Cookie and Ard-T, I've moved last night's discussion on Taoisigh, spandex and other stuff to its rightful home in the Síbín to keep this one on topic.

Good call - there's one of those exchanges on virtually every Libertas/Ganley thread here and p.ie.

On spandex ?

Exact content varies, but some kind of mildly homerotic exchange of one-liners that takes up a page or so.

You mean spamdex?

And so the kind becomes the jester...

Auditor #9 wrote:

We have to coin some phrase in case the likes of Pat and Ben Dunne and who else? Sean Dunne? What if a raft of these suited lads rose up en masse to smite the powers currently installed and severed all their heads Well, what if a whole rake of them got together with the intention of reforming the European system to their liking? It could be a revolution of sorts ... like a velvet revolution but that's taken for Czechoslovakia ...

Honestly, have none of you read Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte? He had a term which seems appropriate: the Bourgeois Republicans.

905 wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

We have to coin some phrase in case the likes of Pat and Ben Dunne and who else? Sean Dunne? What if a raft of these suited lads rose up en masse to smite the powers currently installed and severed all their heads Well, what if a whole rake of them got together with the intention of reforming the European system to their liking? It could be a revolution of sorts ... like a velvet revolution but that's taken for Czechoslovakia ...

Honestly, have none of you read Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte? He had a term which seems appropriate: the Bourgeois Republicans.

Where would we be without you 905. Does this mean we can move on to Marx once Adam Smith has been digested?

Thread merged with pour le mouvement francaise - Audi