His CV is what he has used to impress "outsiders" of his stature and bone fides. It is full of holes, (mod cf) and claims that are not borne out. Rather than leave Albania when the country descended into anarchy he flew in according to the Observer and was in a bar with "Albanian chancers" two months before the Guardian reported that he had amassed a fund worth c. £220,000,000 from 60,000 Albanians and 40, 000 foreigners (Ganley's words).

His explanation of Anglo Albanian just raises more questions. It should be easy to give back the vouchers and let the people deal with their government directly. Why has this not happened. His company still collected money after the collapse of the schemes. His company had a veneer of foreign respectability and government backing. It should not be too hard to for him to explain if all was above board. The sums involved deserve explaining.

Who flies into war zones?

Re the Yes and NO campaign. It is fair to say that the Libertas campaign given it's size, number of posters and TV appearances gave the NO side a credibility that helped all the campaign groups. Thus inflating the effect that the NO campaign might have had. As such it is obvious for Yes side to pick Ganley and Libertas to see what they are.

However I have no issue either way on Lisbon. I think that Ganley is a person who we really must look at regardless of Lisbon as he is attempting to enter pan European politics and no doubt national politics and better to see what's what now rather than later.

Albanian wire service on Lawlor an Ganley. They were TOGETHER in Albania and obviously Anglo-Adriatic and Irish member of Parliament gave credibility. Remember that in 1996 Ireland was a respectible nation and member of EU therefore the Lawlor appearence gave credibilty and (God help us ) a sense of probity. This is obvious the key to the Lawlor connection. This is at varience with Ganley's Mahon evidence.
http://www.hri.org/cgi-bin/brief?/news/balkans/ata/1996/96-09-11.ata.html#05

TIRANA, SEP 11 (ATA) - Albanian deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister
Tritan Shehu received Tuesday the representative of the Anglo-Adriatic
Investment Fund, Declan Ganley and the Irish parliamentarian Lyam Lawlor
regarding the establishment of Economic Joint Council between Ireland and
Albania, reported the Ministry's press and information office.
Lawlor said that the Irish government is interested in deepening the
economic cooperation with Albania. Albanian and Irish Foreign Ministers
will sign in November the Economic Cooperation Agreement between two
countries.
"A lot of big Irish companies are interested to invest in various
fields in Albania," said the representative of the Anglo-Adriatic
Investment Fund. The Irish side showed its readiness to help Albania in the
legislation field, in relation to the social policy.
Albanian minister Shehu talked about Albania's goal in signing the
association Agreement with European Union and stressed that the Irish
specialists assistance, regarding respective modalities on the agreement,
whose negotiations will start soon, would be very welcomed"

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Albanian wire service on Lawlor an Ganley. They were TOGETHER in Albania and obviously Anglo-Adriatic and Irish member of Parliament gave credibility. Remember that in 1996 Ireland was a respectible nation and member of EU therefore the Lawlor appearence gave credibilty and (God help us ) a sense of probity. This is obvious the key to the Lawlor connection. This is at varience with Ganley's Mahon evidence.
http://www.hri.org/cgi-bin/brief?/news/balkans/ata/1996/96-09-11.ata.html#05

TIRANA, SEP 11 (ATA) - Albanian deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister
Tritan Shehu received Tuesday the representative of the Anglo-Adriatic
Investment Fund, Declan Ganley and the Irish parliamentarian Lyam Lawlor
regarding the establishment of Economic Joint Council between Ireland and
Albania, reported the Ministry's press and information office.
Lawlor said that the Irish government is interested in deepening the
economic cooperation with Albania. Albanian and Irish Foreign Ministers
will sign in November the Economic Cooperation Agreement between two
countries.
"A lot of big Irish companies are interested to invest in various
fields in Albania," said the representative of the Anglo-Adriatic
Investment Fund. The Irish side showed its readiness to help Albania in the
legislation field, in relation to the social policy.
Albanian minister Shehu talked about Albania's goal in signing the
association Agreement with European Union and stressed that the Irish
specialists assistance, regarding respective modalities on the agreement,
whose negotiations will start soon, would be very welcomed"

Lawlor seems to have been adept at presenting himself as a representative of the Irish Government to foreign politicians and business interests. I can't help feeling there was some nod and wink blessing to him from FF governments from Haughey onwards, his business dealings in Baghdad being a good example. He wasn't appointed head of the Dail Ethics Committee by Ahern dor no reason. Of all the areas raised in relation to Ganley, this one always concerns me most. I'd really like to understand what the hell they were doing in Albania, what Lawlor's role was, and how much the Irish Government knew of it. I'm not claiming wrongdoing, I don't know what they were doing. But Lawlor's name always sets off alarm bells...

In this case Lawlor was used and paid for by Declan Ganley to bolster the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund. The fund is still problematic. Lawlor's activities in Albania went under the Irish radar. No press at all as far as I can see. See the Observer and Guardian quotes from 1997 above. Lawlor also in contact with Klaus's Czech government at the same time (1996 Dunlop and Lawlor there). I note that Libertas has an Engergy Fund that seeks a share of 200 boillion Euro carbon credit bonanza and that a Libertas member acknowledges that it is a for profit scheme see http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/37941-prime-time-special-declan-ganley-75.html#post1303458

This threads are unravelling me thinks.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

In this case Lawlor was used and paid for by Declan Ganley to bolster the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund. The fund is still problematic. Lawlor's activities in Albania went under the Irish radar. No press at all as far as I can see. See the Observer and Guardian quotes from 1997 above. Lawlor also in contact with Klaus's Czech government at the same time (1996 Dunlop and Lawlor there). I note that Libertas has an Engergy Fund that seeks a share of 200 boillion Euro carbon credit bonanza and that a Libertas member acknowledges that it is a for profit scheme see http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/37941-prime-time-special-declan-ganley-75.html#post1303458

This threads are unravelling me thinks.

I am not sure that I understand from that that it is acknowledged: would you mind quoting it? I thought cookiemonster said the contrary?

I have asked a question there - 2 in fact.

It seems from the ALCAN site that Lawlor was paid a very substantial amount by the Albanian Government. Is that correct?

Quote :

Cookie monser on P.ie You are talking absolute crap. It's for profit sure, but it's for
reinvestment in the funding of research into alternative forms of
enegry and, most importantly, it is to be run by the EU, not by
Libertas, Declan Ganley or any body related to the two. Read the
documents, that is VERY clear. You are grossly misrepresenting the
truth.

Not clear to me that it is for EU profit rather than Ganley Libertas. Like the EU application for funding Libertas seems to be a hover for funding!!! From the Albanians to public bodies a nice progression but similar style. Obviously Cookie knows a lot more than his posts so far indicated.

I have asked on P.ie if the A-A fund was or is being used for leverage or collateral in any way. As yet there is no reply, but it is after all a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

creagh wrote:

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

Yes - there is an establishment witch hunt against Ganley. They never go near his politics, perhaps because they find themselves attracted.

I am not a fan of his, in fact i did not pay much attention until recently, the people who want to put him under the looking glass should start nearer home, for example our own politicians as regards accountability with tax payers money as we have seen recently.

creagh wrote:

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

We can believe it because it is not RTE's story. It is Ganley's own.

cactus flower wrote:

creagh wrote:

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

Yes - there is an establishment witch hunt against Ganley. They never go near his politics, perhaps because they find themselves attracted.

And perhaps because he and his followers claimed until now that he was not a politicians which is still ambiguous. I think he is the most grave threat to democracy that we have seen since Eoin O\'Duffy. Better FF, FG, Labour et al and if we are to have revolution let it be led by th epople not a self appointed knight in shiney armour, he caklls for accountability. Therfeore he opened the door to all the questions asked here and elsewhere. The media is playing catch up. This site has had non party political posters posing the same questions for weeks and months.

Better the devils you know boring and obvious as they may be. Note that Mahon has opened the lid on past failures and activities which hopefully will sjow alll current and future politians that they had better keep their noses clean.

Fas and the UK equivalent have always been a scam, their courses private concerns designed to make cash for the owners and take people off the live register i.e . to keep the numbers on it lower

creagh wrote:

I am not a fan of his, in fact i did not pay much attention until recently, the people who want to put him under the looking glass should start nearer home, for example our own politicians as regards accountability with tax payers money as we have seen recently.

I agree that over-focus on Declan Ganley could be a distraction, if it lets everyone else off the hook. The thread on the FAS scandal here has stuff in it that should shock even the most cynical old hands. I think to some extent people are in denial as they still see Mary Harney as lily white in terms of what she has taken out of the public purse.

There are other people who are concerned that because we were too trusting of other politicians in the past, we should be stringent in checking out new politicians on the scene. That surely makes sense?

cactus flower wrote:

creagh wrote:

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

Yes - there is an establishment witch hunt against Ganley. They never go near his politics, perhaps because they find themselves attracted.

Sure - near as anyone can tell, he's economically right-wing and socially conservative. That's not exactly political space that people like FF and FG can challenge him on. By the way, his Hibernian interview is online. I won't comment, since I think it speaks for itself.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

creagh wrote:

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

Yes - there is an establishment witch hunt against Ganley. They never go near his politics, perhaps because they find themselves attracted.

Sure - near as anyone can tell, he's economically right-wing and socially conservative. That's not exactly political space that people like FF and FG can challenge him on. By the way, his Hibernian interview is online. I won't comment, since I think it speaks for itself.

Agreed,sure he will fit in perfectly

cactus flower wrote:

I have asked on P.ie if the A-A fund was or is being used for leverage or collateral in any way. As yet there is no reply, but it is after all a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

I doubt if sense of any kind can be found there now. They are a bit too interested in out breeding the Northern Protestants at one end of the board and being a bunch of me toos for Libertas at another.

cactus flower wrote:

I have asked on P.ie if the A-A fund was or is being used for leverage or collateral in any way. As yet there is no reply, but it is after all a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

You've called on two Libertas supporters to account for every minute details of Ganley's past, I think that's nonsense. People can be attracted to Libertas' raison d'etre and be against the treaty without a witchhunt against them to answer questions they don't know the answer to.

Ganley's affairs are his own, and sure call him to account, but labelling his past with that of Libertas supporters and calling on THEM to account for it, is a bit much.

Also cactusflower, if you've going to keep mass-spamming users by PM, would you please have the manners to answer PMs back?

cactus flower wrote:

creagh wrote:

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

Yes - there is an establishment witch hunt against Ganley. They never go near his politics, perhaps because they find themselves attracted.

You have read the Hibernian piece, haven't you? Just because someone is a Fianna Fail or Fine Gael member or supporter doesn't mean that they want to play footsie with ultra right wing politics. The Hibernian article horrified me on a number of levels.

Ronald Binge wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

creagh wrote:

It looks like the R.T,E job on Ganley was a failure, he is more popular today than last Sunday, if they were not able to get his parents christian names right after two hours in the house how can we believe who or what they did in Albania, maybe we should look to see how our licence money is been spent instead

Yes - there is an establishment witch hunt against Ganley. They never go near his politics, perhaps because they find themselves attracted.

You have read the Hibernian piece, haven't you? Just because someone is a Fianna Fail or Fine Gael member or supporter doesn't mean that they want to play footsie with ultra right wing politics. The Hibernian article horrified me on a number of levels.

I read it, I'm fairly left-wing, I didn't have much of a problem with it, seemed pretty lucid and reasonable to me...

DavidC wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I have asked on P.ie if the A-A fund was or is being used for leverage or collateral in any way. As yet there is no reply, but it is after all a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

You've called on two Libertas supporters to account for every minute details of Ganley's past, I think that's nonsense. People can be attracted to Libertas' raison d'etre and be against the treaty without a witchhunt against them to answer questions they don't know the answer to.

Ganley's affairs are his own, and sure call him to account, but labelling his past with that of Libertas supporters and calling on THEM to account for it, is a bit much.

Also cactusflower, if you've going to keep mass-spamming users by PM, would you please have the manners to answer PMs back?

I don't see any unanswered pms, David.

This is the post on your site you are talking about ? This post responded to a post from Cookiemonster in which he went into a lot of detail with regard to the Anglo-Adriatika Fund and its current status. "Don't know" would be a perfectly reasonable answer, if he doesn't know.

Quote :

Quote:

A year ago this for-profit start-up venture in the energy market was the main concern for Libertas. Naoise Nunn himself admitted on the Prime Time special that Lisbon was only an "opportunity to brand Libertas". Well, the energy fund is what is being branded. The fund is still advertised on the Libertas web site, along with the Lisbon info. Libertas.org - The Libertas Energy Initiative - European Energy Innovation Fund

cookiemonster said Quote:

Free advertising, I suppose. Libertas is NOT setting up any such fund. It proposed that the EU set it up and administer it. How difficult is that to understand. Nothing happened to the fund ( the Albanian Fund - cf ) that was Declan Ganley's fault, stop peddling lies.

Quote :

cactusflower said

So would you be in the position to confirm whether

1. Declan Ganley or any company he is has an interest in has no interests in energy markets and will not be entering into them for any purpose of private profit

2. The Anglo-Adriatika fund was not / is not being used as collateral/leverage for any purpose ?

No takers to answer these questions yet?

It appears to me that there is a concerted campaign by the political parties and media individuals who want Lisbon endorsed to rubbish Declan Ganley. Representing everyone who is critical of Ganley as part of that would be grossly inaccurate.

It is also the case that it is difficult to conduct a normal discussion on this site of Declan Ganley, in the way that is is possible to discuss Mary Harney, for example. There is a high level of modding and banning of posters on this issue historically. It is in particular very difficult to get any serious political discussion of what Ganley and Libertas represents both because of stone walling on the Libertas side and over -oncentration on his business past on the other.

It seems to me that Declan Ganley has a right to his reputation in the same way as everyone, but he is asking for our votes, or to influence our votes on profoundly important issues. He must expect to answer questions on issues relating to his past. He has used his past as a "successful businessman" to promote his credibility as a lobbyist for the No vote. He himself has brought the matter into the arena.

I voted No, btw.


So, my current questions for cookiemonster, or Bobert or whoever would like to answer them were:

Would you be in the position to confirm whether

1. Declan Ganley or any company he is has an interest in has no interests in energy markets and will not be entering into them for any purpose of private profit

2. The Anglo-Adriatika fund was not / is not being used as collateral/leverage for any purpose ? Last edited by cactusflower; Today at 04:21 PM.

I voted no and have not the slightest interest in Mr Ganley,

DavidC wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I
have asked on P.ie if the A-A fund was or is being used for leverage or
collateral in any way. As yet there is no reply, but it is after all a
beautiful Sunday afternoon.

You've called on two Libertas supporters to account for every minute details of
Ganley's past, I think that's nonsense. People can be attracted to Libertas'
raison d'etre and be against the treaty without a witchhunt against them to
answer questions they don't know the answer to.

Ganley's affairs are his own, and sure call him to account, but labelling his
past with that of Libertas supporters and calling on THEM to account for it, is
a bit much.

Also cactusflower, if you've going to keep mass-spamming users by PM, would you
please have the manners to answer PMs back?

David I have posted on this thread about my concerns that Libertas
employees/volunteers would have difficulty separating their own reputations
from that of Declan Ganley especially if they themselves were unaware of his
past. He and they have entered politics and his past is under scrutiny. In
normal circumstances that would not be a major issue, however it is Libertas
policy to "throw stones " and those who do should avoid "glass
houses".

As your members have engaged in attempts to answer for Mr Ganley with little
credibility and a great deal of name calling, Cactus Flower is being fair and reasonable
asking further clarification of them on politics.ie where they have made those
attempts to reply on Declan Ganley's behalf Here. Though it is not machinenation , policy to discuss your site ,
this discussion has veered that way,
and one of your mods a Libertas supporter has incessantly and with the
appearance of authority attempted to answer for Mr. Ganley. Here He stated that Anglo Adriatic staff were
"airlifted " from Tirana during the revolution in early 1997
In fact as the Observer quote above indicates Declan Ganley flew into Tirana and
continued to make arrangements for the fund (as reported in The Guardian Mar
21, 1997),
meeting with what John Sweeney of The Observer ( a respected reporter and
11 years before the Lisbon vote) described as "Albanian chancers".(The
Observer (1791- 2003). London (UK): Mar 16, 1997).
The cloud that hangs over the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund is a cloud that
hangs over Libertas too. Why? Because Mr. Ganley accuses European politicians and
institutions of corruption (see Hibernian interview linked above)and a lack of
transparency. These claims appear hypocritical in light of the current
questions (stiil) being asked about AAIF. If Libertas supporters attempt to
answer for Mr. Ganley on aspects of his past in anonymity as Cookiemonster does
then the issue is open for discussion.
Mr. Ganley's past is wide open to interrogation precisely because of his
continuous acidic claims about the democratically elected politicians of both
this island and Europe.

Furthermore, the alliances that your organization has fostered with amongst
others the far right and the views expressed in the Hibernian interview with
Mr. Ganley indicate a political policy that is to the right of most of our
elected representatives. Calling reasonable questions and interrogation of fact
a "witchhunt" borders on hysteria given the claims made by your
group's leader.

Libertas is not a grassroots organizational structure. It has a top down closed
hierarchy. It demands accountability and refuses to be held accountable. It
seeks public funding and evades reasonable questioning of the background of its
founder and ideologue Declan Ganley.


Perhaps your organization would benefit from a less
colourful leader . However it is clear that it is his organization.


In fact the minute details of Mr.Ganley’s past are required
in the public interest because they are germane to the questions he raises
about others. As we scratch the surface we find not answers to reasonable
questions but more questions and disturbing information.


It is sad that a potentially brilliant site like yours has
been in the vanguard of Libertas partisanship. Yet, I don’t know how you were
recruited to Libertas, I would assume from Mr. Ganley’s interviews with CNBC
that you were recruited precisely because you had such a site.


The question remaining unanswered of Mr. Declan Ganley remain
the focus of public attention as indeed does p.ie’s behaviour and banning of
articulate
opinionated and interrogating posters who oppose his views. Many of whom were
been banned after being goading and provoked by Libertas supporters and mods
there. The true dissidents are the ones asking those questions that have become
daily more discomfiting to Libertas.


Here on machinenation we are attempting to achieve clarity
without vindictive language. You can help.


Lastly I again advise young men and women like yourself to
find out the answers to those question for yourselves before risking the
erosion of your own good names and reputations.

Since first posting this I note the same mod attempting to both answer for Mr. Ganley and
stating he can't answer for Mr Ganley as he is not his accountant. Might I point out that The AAIF (Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund) as of May 23 1997 (The Guardian) boasted 60,00 Albanian and 40,000 non Albanian investors and a projected value of £220,000,000 by the end of the same month. As the non Albanian investors obviously were not investing Albanian privatisation vouchers the question must be asked what were they investing and if it was cash where is that. If the cash was given back why too were the Albanian investors privatisation vouchers not merely returned. Surely then the investors could, as your mod and Libertas supporter Cookiemonster, has suggested ask the Albanian government for their cash/vouchers which he has stated are in a bank in Tirana. Who controls the vouchers? What are they doing 11 years later in a Tirana bank account when the investors , as we saw on Primetime feel aggrieved? http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/37941-prime-time-special-declan-ganley-80.html#post1304326

Frightened Albanian wrote:

DavidC wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I
have asked on P.ie if the A-A fund was or is being used for leverage or
collateral in any way. As yet there is no reply, but it is after all a
beautiful Sunday afternoon.

You've called on two Libertas supporters to account for every minute details of
Ganley's past, I think that's nonsense. People can be attracted to Libertas'
raison d'etre and be against the treaty without a witchhunt against them to
answer questions they don't know the answer to.

Ganley's affairs are his own, and sure call him to account, but labelling his
past with that of Libertas supporters and calling on THEM to account for it, is
a bit much.

Also cactusflower, if you've going to keep mass-spamming users by PM, would you
please have the manners to answer PMs back?

David I have posted on this thread about my concerns that Libertas
employees/volunteers would have difficulty separating their own reputations
from that of Declan Ganley especially if they themselves were unaware of his
past. He and they have entered politics and his past is under scrutiny. In
normal circumstances that would not be a major issue, however it is Libertas
policy to "throw stones " and those who do should avoid "glass
houses".

As your members have engaged in attempts to answer for Mr Ganley with little
credibility and a great deal of name calling Cactus Flower is being fair and reasonable
asking further clarification of them on politics.ie where they have made those
attempts to reply on Declan Ganley's behalf Here. Though it is not machinenation , policy to discuss your site ,
this disscussion has verred that way,
and one of your mods a Libertas supporter has incessantly and with the
appearance of authority attempted to answer for Mr. Ganley. Here He stated that Anglo Adriatic staff were
"airlifted " from Tirana during the revolution in early 1997 (The
Observer (1791- 2003). London (UK): Mar 16, 1997).
In fact as the Observer quote above indicates Declan Ganley flew into Tirana and
continued to make arrangements for the fund (as reported in The Guardian Mar
21, 1997),
meeting with what John Sweeney of The Observer ( a respected reporter and
13 years before the Lisbon vote) described as "Albanian chancers".
The cloud that hangs over the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund is a cloud that
hangs over Libertas too. Why? Because Mr. Ganley accuses European politians and
institutions of corruption (see Hibernian interview linked above)and a lack of
transparency. These claims appear hypocritical in light of the current
questions (stiil) being asked about AAIF. If Libertas supporters attempt to
answer for Mr. Ganley on aspects of his past in anonymity as Cookiemonster does
then the issue is open for discussion.
Mr. Ganley's past is wide open to interrogation precisely because of his
continuous acidic claims about the democratically elected politicians of both
this island and Europe.

Furthermore, the alliances that your organization has fostered with amongst
others the far right and the views expressed in the Hibernian interview with
Mr. Ganley indicate a political policy that is to the right of most of our
elected representatives. Calling reasonable questions and interrogation of fact
a "witchhunt" borders on hysteria given the claims made by your
group's leader.

Libertas is not a grassroots organizational structure. It has a top down closed
hierarchy. It demands accountability and refuses to be held accountable. It
seeks public funding and evades reasonable questioning of the background of its
founder an ideologue Declan Ganley.


Perhaps your organization would benefit from a less
colourful leader . However it is clear that it is his organization.


In fact the minute details of Mr.Ganley’s past are required
in the public interest because they are germane to the questions his raises
about others. As we scratch the surface we find not answers to reasonable
questions but more questions and disturbing information.


It is sad that a potentially brilliant site like yours has
been a vanguard of Libertas partisanship. Yet, I don’t know how you were
recruited to Libertas, I would assume from Mr. Ganley’s interviews with CNBC
that you were recruited precisely because you had such a site.


The question remaining unanswered of Mr. Declan Ganley remain
the focus of public attention as indeed does p.ie’s behavior and banning of
articulate
opinionated and interrogating posters who oppose his views. Many of whom were
been banned after being goading and provoked by Libertas supporters and mods
there. The true dissidents are the ones asking those questions that have become
daily more discomfiting to Libertas.


Here on machinenation we are attempting to achieve clarity
without vindictive language. You can help.


Lastly I again advise young men and women like yourself to
find out the answers to those question for yourselves before risking the
erosion of your
own good names and reputations

A very good post FA.

I disagree with Ganley. But then I disagree with a lot of people. Many people I disagree with politically nevertheless are friends of mine and I have defended them even when I disagree with them. However I find Ganley an extremely sinister force in public life.

- his past speeches show that he views the EU as some sort of left-wing conspiracy and has explicitly said in the US he wants a United States of Europe instead of the EU, one modelled on the USA, pushing the same pro-business anti-worker agenda and working with the USA to promote "liberty", a buzzword heavily associated with the US neo-cons, liberty and being the USA definition of liberty and USA interests. Yet he strangely only explains these things in meetings in the USA. He dodges saying them in Ireland.

- though by his own admission in a 2004 speech a European federalist (a very extreme one) he makes common cause with people who are from the most extreme alternative end of the spectrum, people may of whom express opinions that are far to the right of European politics. (I don't mean fascism but extreme nationalists big into faith and fatherland, anti-science, anti-Europe, anti-gay, anti-minorities, etc. But the views of those he associates with (whether in the US or in parts of Europe) are kept very hush hush in Ireland, where most people, even conservatives, would feel physically sick if they knew Ganley had links to people with those views).

- while repeatedly launching extremely misleading and unfair attacks on Irish politicians who disagree with him, anyone who criticises him, even if elected to public office, face legal threats. Labour's Joe Costello is just one of many to receive a solicitor's letter from Ganley for asking questions.

There are a lot of specific statements I could make here, but I dare not because if I do I will find myself joining the long list of people he uses the law to silence, and if I wrote them here this site might well be forced to close down for allowing certain things to be published.

What was striking about the RTE show was that almost everything Ganley claimed about his past was explicitly contradicted by evidence and by statements by others who were not opponents of his on the EU but people he was in business with, journalists, etc.

I simply do not trust Ganley one bit. There are others on the No side I disagree with. But I respect them. I have no trust whatsoever in him. I have my suspicions as to his real agenda. Those who work for him should be careful. They may innocently be working on something the real motivation for which they do not realise.

You people are getting more and more off the wall and less and less attached with reality as the days go by.

Papal Knight wrote:

A very good post FA.

I disagree with Ganley. But then I disagree with a lot of people. Many people I disagree with politically nevertheless are friends of mine and I have defended them even when I disagree with them. However I find Ganley an extremely sinister force in public life.

Sinister, nice choice of words there, well done.

Quote :

- his past speeches show that he views the EU as some sort of left-wing conspiracy and has explicitly said in the US he wants a United States of Europe instead of the EU, one modelled on the USA, pushing the same pro-business anti-worker agenda and working with the USA to promote "liberty", a buzzword heavily associated with the US neo-cons, liberty and being the USA definition of liberty and USA interests. Yet he strangely only explains these things in meetings in the USA. He dodges saying them in Ireland.

I'll think you find "liberty" is far froma "buzzword" and associated with a lot more than just Americans and an awful lot more than neocons. But a nice attempt to make that stupid association. And anti-worker? C'mon why not just call him the bogeyman while you're at it. Utter nonsense.

Quote :

- though by his own admission in a 2004 speech a European federalist (a very extreme one) he makes common cause with people who are from the most extreme alternative end of the spectrum, people may of whom express opinions that are far to the right of European politics.

Not too long ago you guys were accusing him of playing up the part of an ultra nationalist, now he's some form of uber-federalist. and an EXTREME right-wing one at that. Now if you can show me any EXTREME right-wing politican in Europe or indeed anywhere in the whole world who wants their country you become nothing more than a state in a federation... no, you can't, because such political ideologies are completly contrary to eachother. But let's not let that stop us making wild claims and using "Extreme" and "ultra" a lot anyway.

Quote :

(I don't mean fascism but extreme nationalists big into faith and fatherland, anti-science, anti-Europe, anti-gay, anti-minorities, etc. But the views of those he associates with (whether in the US or in parts of Europe) are kept very hush hush in Ireland, where most people, even conservatives, would feel physically sick if they knew Ganley had links to people with those views).

Extreme nationalist, extreme federalist... DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Anti-science?! He runs a multi million dollar communications technology company, anti-science my ass.
Anti-minorities? He's given money to pay for Traveller housing in Tuam, doesn't sound very anti-minority to me? One member of his staff that I know of is gay, doesn't sound very anti-gay to me. You are, again, talking total crap.

Quote :

- while repeatedly launching extremely misleading and unfair attacks on Irish politicians who disagree with him, anyone who criticises him, even if elected to public office, face legal threats. Labour's Joe Costello is just one of many to receive a solicitor's letter from Ganley for asking questions.

He's launching defamation claims against Irish politicians who, he believes, have defamed him. If they can prove what they said is true then they have nothing to worry about. He, like every citizen of this country, has a right to his good name and reputation and a right to protect it.

Quote :

There are a lot of specific statements I could make here, but I dare not because if I do I will find myself joining the long list of people he uses the law to silence, and if I wrote them here this site might well be forced to close down for allowing certain things to be published.

If your "claims" are the truth, then you have nothing to worry about. But go play the frightened sheep, blow your victim horn all you want, you hare just another name to the long list of spoofers on a site that is becoming more and more a joke as the days roll on.

Quote :

What was striking about the RTE show was that almost everything Ganley claimed about his past was explicitly contradicted by evidence and by statements by others who were not opponents of his on the EU but people he was in business with, journalists, etc.

Indeed, who would have thought that a blatantly obvious hatchet-job with bias you could cut with a knife would creat contradiction with the truth.

Quote :

I simply do not trust Ganley one bit.

As is your right, but I don't believe anybody should trust you either.

[/quote]
There are others on the No side I disagree with. But I respect them. I have no trust whatsoever in him. I have my suspicions as to his real agenda. Those who work for him should be careful. They may innocently be working on something the real motivation for which they do not realise.[/quote]
Pointless innuendo and nonsense. If you have something to say then say it and stand by it, if not then don't.