cookiemonster wrote:

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

I don’t know much about Ganley one way or the other, but I will say he is not the only politician to suffer a level of abuse on web sites.

The problem as I see it is posters complete inability to be objective in their view of a political opponent. The longer it goes on the wilder it will get with the naturally more extreme becoming ludicrous in the amount of baseless tripe they will both swallow and or spew out. It’s a head of steam that builds and cannot be stopped, all you can do is ask them to question themselves.

As a successful outcome here will depend at a minimum on the presence of both a single question brain cell & a similar of the answer variety, if my experience on P.ie is anything to go by, I’d advise against holding your breath.

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

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

I don’t know much about Ganley one way or the other, but I will say he is not the only politician to suffer a level of abuse on web sites.

The problem as I see it is posters complete inability to be objective in their view of a political opponent. The longer it goes on the wilder it will get with the naturally more extreme becoming ludicrous in the amount of baseless tripe they will both swallow and or spew out. It’s a head of steam that builds and cannot be stopped, all you can do is ask them to question themselves.

As a successful outcome here will depend at a minimum on the presence of both a single question brain cell & a similar of the answer variety, if my experience on P.ie is anything to go by, I’d advise against holding your breath.

The main basis I see on websites for subjective and baseless posting about politicians is party political allegiance. Sometimes this is out of loyalty, or maybe a bigger vision of the politics involved than just the form of the individual politician. Sometimes it is just the rough and tumble of political battle. There is nothing surprising about it.

In the case of Declan Ganley, he came on the scene as a forty year old with very little party political history, and with a stated aim of setting up a Pan European pro-EU, pro-deregulation Political Party. He introduced himself as a highly successful entrepreneur, who brought a savvy business eye to the No campaign. His initial political statements were catch-all and bland and appealing to some extent to most people with suspicions or dislike with the way the EU is run.

It is emerging piece by piece that he has a far right wing political agenda, both from his own statements and writing and from the alliances he is forming. His successful business past remains obscure to an extent that is very unusual in an entrepreneur who has "made it".

It ought to be possible to discuss this new development on the political scene without relentless personalised attacks and abuse beyond the norms of discussion and without legal threats. The fact that it isn't adds to the picture of Mr. Ganley and his followers.

cactus flower wrote:

The main basis I see on websites for subjective and baseless posting about politicians is party political allegiance. Sometimes this is out of loyalty, or maybe a bigger vision of the politics involved than just the form of the individual politician. Sometimes it is just the rough and tumble of political battle. There is nothing surprising about it.

I disagree absolutely.
It is entirely possible to be “loyal” or supportive of one political party and at the same time to be reasonably objective on the other parties.
I would also say that there is no excuse ever for posting baseless negative speculation or innuendo about your political opponents, take the p... by all means, I'd have to hold my hand up there, but that's as far as it should go.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

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

I don’t know much about Ganley one way or the other, but I will say he is not the only politician to suffer a level of abuse on web sites.

The problem as I see it is posters complete inability to be objective in their view of a political opponent. The longer it goes on the wilder it will get with the naturally more extreme becoming ludicrous in the amount of baseless tripe they will both swallow and or spew out. It’s a head of steam that builds and cannot be stopped, all you can do is ask them to question themselves.

As a successful outcome here will depend at a minimum on the presence of both a single question brain cell & a similar of the answer variety, if my experience on P.ie is anything to go by, I’d advise against holding your breath.

The main basis I see on websites for subjective and baseless posting about politicians is party political allegiance. Sometimes this is out of loyalty, or maybe a bigger vision of the politics involved than just the form of the individual politician. Sometimes it is just the rough and tumble of political battle. There is nothing surprising about it.

In the case of Declan Ganley, he came on the scene as a forty year old with very little party political history, and with a stated aim of setting up a Pan European pro-EU, pro-deregulation Political Party. He introduced himself as a highly successful entrepreneur, who brought a savvy business eye to the No campaign. His initial political statements were catch-all and bland and appealing to some extent to most people with suspicions or dislike with the way the EU is run.

It is emerging piece by piece that he has a far right wing political agenda, both from his own statements and writing and from the alliances he is forming. His successful business past remains obscure to an extent that is very unusual in an entrepreneur who has "made it".

It ought to be possible to discuss this new development on the political scene without relentless personalised attacks and abuse beyond the norms of discussion and without legal threats. The fact that it isn't adds to the picture of Mr. Ganley and his followers.

On the other hand, this is all really about Lisbon. Had he been in the 'yes' camp, there would have been no Prime Time the other night, no exposes in the Irish Times, and a lot less spam posters over on P.ie. The immediate issue is the referendum and its re-run, and I have no problem making common cause on that issue with Libertas (though by no means a member or supporter). If and when he puts forward a manifesto in which he proposes the arrest of trade union leaders and the return of child labour, then I'll take them on, until then it's not an issue. There are legitimate questions that can be asked of Ganley about some past associations, but I'm under no illusions about where this campaign is really coming from. It's the referendum, stupid...

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

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

I don’t know much about Ganley one way or the other, but I will say he is not the only politician to suffer a level of abuse on web sites.
The problem as I see it is posters complete inability to be objective in their view of a political opponent. The longer it goes on the wilder it will get with the naturally more extreme becoming ludicrous in the amount of baseless tripe they will both swallow and or spew out. It’s a head of steam that builds and cannot be stopped, all you can do is ask them to question themselves.
As a successful outcome here will depend at a minimum on the presence of both a single question brain cell & a similar of the answer variety, if my experience on P.ie is anything to go by, I’d advise against holding your breath.

I have to agree with tonys on this one. You have to understand that everybody is biased to some extent. You can attack such bias by questioning its basis or exposing flaws in logic, but you there is still only a 1% chance that you will change the other person's mind - psychology 1.01.

I appreciate that you like Declan Ganley and that while you do not know him well and are not "a Libertas insider" per se, you find it hard to read people attacking him in what you see as a biased fashion. However, you are not adding anything to the threads by way of facts or calm dabate. Conor, a moderator elsewhere said he did not know which was worse, the attack-Ganley spammers or the people whining about the attacks. I have to agree, and I have to say that I reckon that kind of school yard bickering is more suited to other sites.

Other than that it's great to see you posting again .

toxic avenger wrote:

On the other hand, this is all really about Lisbon. Had he been in the 'yes' camp, there would have been no Prime Time the other night, no exposes in the Irish Times, and a lot less spam posters over on P.ie. The immediate issue is the referendum and its re-run, and I have no problem making common cause on that issue with Libertas (though by no means a member or supporter). If and when he puts forward a manifesto in which he proposes the arrest of trade union leaders and the return of child labour, then I'll take them on, until then it's not an issue. There are legitimate questions that can be asked of Ganley about some past associations, but I'm under no illusions about where this campaign is really coming from. It's the referendum, stupid...

I don't think it is about Lisbon by the way. May pro-Lisbon and anti-Lisbon posters are united on this. I think the Libertas issue clouds Lisbon in an unfortunate way and some people on the Yes side will exploit this. However, for most people this is about who funds, influences and practises politics in Ireland.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

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

I don’t know much about Ganley one way or the other, but I will say he is not the only politician to suffer a level of abuse on web sites.

The problem as I see it is posters complete inability to be objective in their view of a political opponent. The longer it goes on the wilder it will get with the naturally more extreme becoming ludicrous in the amount of baseless tripe they will both swallow and or spew out. It’s a head of steam that builds and cannot be stopped, all you can do is ask them to question themselves.

As a successful outcome here will depend at a minimum on the presence of both a single question brain cell & a similar of the answer variety, if my experience on P.ie is anything to go by, I’d advise against holding your breath.

The main basis I see on websites for subjective and baseless posting about politicians is party political allegiance. Sometimes this is out of loyalty, or maybe a bigger vision of the politics involved than just the form of the individual politician. Sometimes it is just the rough and tumble of political battle. There is nothing surprising about it.

In the case of Declan Ganley, he came on the scene as a forty year old with very little party political history, and with a stated aim of setting up a Pan European pro-EU, pro-deregulation Political Party. He introduced himself as a highly successful entrepreneur, who brought a savvy business eye to the No campaign. His initial political statements were catch-all and bland and appealing to some extent to most people with suspicions or dislike with the way the EU is run.

It is emerging piece by piece that he has a far right wing political agenda, both from his own statements and writing and from the alliances he is forming. His successful business past remains obscure to an extent that is very unusual in an entrepreneur who has "made it".

It ought to be possible to discuss this new development on the political scene without relentless personalised attacks and abuse beyond the norms of discussion and without legal threats. The fact that it isn't adds to the picture of Mr. Ganley and his followers.

On the other hand, this is all really about Lisbon. Had he been in the 'yes' camp, there would have been no Prime Time the other night, no exposes in the Irish Times, and a lot less spam posters over on P.ie. The immediate issue is the referendum and its re-run, and I have no problem making common cause on that issue with Libertas (though by no means a member or supporter). If and when he puts forward a manifesto in which he proposes the arrest of trade union leaders and the return of child labour, then I'll take them on, until then it's not an issue. There are legitimate questions that can be asked of Ganley about some past associations, but I'm under no illusions about where this campaign is really coming from. It's the referendum, stupid...

I've agreed with you before toxic avenger that there is an agenda-driven campaign against Ganley that if directed against most parties could be described as scurrilous, and that it is pro-Lisbon motivated. I would go further and say that Ganley is scented as a potential rival by the established parties and they are instinctively trying to drive him off. It is transparent, and it tends to collect more sympathy for Ganley and to make the attackers look foolish.

To jump from that, to suggesting that all discussion or criticism of what he is doing is centred on Lisbon and the referendum is wrong. The "Left Opposition" to Lisbon opposed Ganley.
And, leaving child-labour out of it, are you able to stomach the strike-breaking objective?

If opposition to the Lisbon Treaty was entirely dependent on Ganley, I have no doubt it would have been passed first time around.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

On the other hand, this is all really about Lisbon. Had he been in the 'yes' camp, there would have been no Prime Time the other night, no exposes in the Irish Times, and a lot less spam posters over on P.ie. The immediate issue is the referendum and its re-run, and I have no problem making common cause on that issue with Libertas (though by no means a member or supporter). If and when he puts forward a manifesto in which he proposes the arrest of trade union leaders and the return of child labour, then I'll take them on, until then it's not an issue. There are legitimate questions that can be asked of Ganley about some past associations, but I'm under no illusions about where this campaign is really coming from. It's the referendum, stupid...

I don't think it is about Lisbon by the way. May pro-Lisbon and anti-Lisbon posters are united on this. I think the Libertas issue clouds Lisbon in an unfortunate way and some people on the Yes side will exploit this. However, for most people this is about who funds, influences and practises politics in Ireland.

I agree with you about there being pro- and anti-Lisbon opponents of Ganley, that is more than evident from this site and the other. But it is clearly the case that the main thrust of the campaign against Ganley is motivated by hostility to his perceived role (over-stated) in swinging the referendum. I simply do not believe that the Irish Times or RTE would be conducting such trawls on his past or be so generally exercised about the issue had he come down behind a yes vote. I do agree that the controversty over Libertas and Ganley is smokescreening the real debate, and that is unfortunate.

toxic avenger wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

On the other hand, this is all really about Lisbon. Had he been in the 'yes' camp, there would have been no Prime Time the other night, no exposes in the Irish Times, and a lot less spam posters over on P.ie. The immediate issue is the referendum and its re-run, and I have no problem making common cause on that issue with Libertas (though by no means a member or supporter). If and when he puts forward a manifesto in which he proposes the arrest of trade union leaders and the return of child labour, then I'll take them on, until then it's not an issue. There are legitimate questions that can be asked of Ganley about some past associations, but I'm under no illusions about where this campaign is really coming from. It's the referendum, stupid...

I don't think it is about Lisbon by the way. May pro-Lisbon and anti-Lisbon posters are united on this. I think the Libertas issue clouds Lisbon in an unfortunate way and some people on the Yes side will exploit this. However, for most people this is about who funds, influences and practises politics in Ireland.

I agree with you about there being pro- and anti-Lisbon opponents of Ganley, that is more than evident from this site and the other. But it is clearly the case that the main thrust of the campaign against Ganley is motivated by hostility to his perceived role (over-stated) in swinging the referendum. I simply do not believe that the Irish Times or RTE would be conducting such trawls on his past or be so generally exercised about the issue had he come down behind a yes vote. I do agree that the controversty over Libertas and Ganley is smokescreening the real debate, and that is unfortunate.

It is nice to be able to agree with you, toxic imo there are two separate debates, and they are smokescreening each other.

toxic avenger wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

On the other hand, this is all really about Lisbon. Had he been in the 'yes' camp, there would have been no Prime Time the other night, no exposes in the Irish Times, and a lot less spam posters over on P.ie. The immediate issue is the referendum and its re-run, and I have no problem making common cause on that issue with Libertas (though by no means a member or supporter). If and when he puts forward a manifesto in which he proposes the arrest of trade union leaders and the return of child labour, then I'll take them on, until then it's not an issue. There are legitimate questions that can be asked of Ganley about some past associations, but I'm under no illusions about where this campaign is really coming from. It's the referendum, stupid...

I don't think it is about Lisbon by the way. May pro-Lisbon and anti-Lisbon posters are united on this. I think the Libertas issue clouds Lisbon in an unfortunate way and some people on the Yes side will exploit this. However, for most people this is about who funds, influences and practises politics in Ireland.

I agree with you about there being pro- and anti-Lisbon opponents of Ganley, that is more than evident from this site and the other. But it is clearly the case that the main thrust of the campaign against Ganley is motivated by hostility to his perceived role (over-stated) in swinging the referendum. I simply do not believe that the Irish Times or RTE would be conducting such trawls on his past or be so generally exercised about the issue had he come down behind a yes vote. I do agree that the controversty over Libertas and Ganley is smokescreening the real debate, and that is unfortunate.

I'd agree to a fair extent, but the thought-experiment I would do is to consider what would be happening in the absence of the Lisbon referendum - if Ganley had, let us say, announced Libertas' bid for EP seats in the aftermath of being prominently involved in the US elections supporting McCain. I think he would be under a similar level of scrutiny.

cactus flower wrote:

I've agreed with you before toxic avenger that there is an agenda-driven campaign against Ganley that if directed against most parties could be described as scurrilous, and that it is pro-Lisbon motivated. I would go further and say that Ganley is scented as a potential rival by the established parties and they are instinctively trying to drive him off. It is transparent, and it tends to collect more sympathy for Ganley and to make the attackers look foolish.

Agreed.

Quote :

To jump from that, to suggesting that all discussion or criticism of what he is doing is centred on Lisbon and the referendum is wrong. The "Left Opposition" to Lisbon opposed Ganley.
And, leaving child-labour out of it, are you able to stomach the strike-breaking objective?

No, I don't think that, I think that the main thrust of it is, not all of it. I don't stomach 'strike-breaking' or any other such right-wing twaddle. But I'll oppose it if and when it becomes manifesto policy and has a chance of being implemented. It's not the issue now, Lisbon is.

Quote :

If opposition to the Lisbon Treaty was entirely dependent on Ganley, I have no doubt it would have been passed first time around.

Perhaps so, but I'll give them credit where credit's due, their campaign was coherent and professional and brought along voters who would be hostile to the left. They didn't win the campaign, but they made a significant difference.

From where I'm sitting, the apparent obsession with what Ganley may or may not have done is smoke screening everything. Many of these debates on the treaty are just a big link slingning excercise, very tiresome really.

I am getting suspicious that the 3 main parties are using Ganley to cover up parts of the treaty that would not suit Ireland

If we ignore Lisbon there is still the issue of Ganley his past, present and potential future.

This thread is about his Primetime appearance where his business in Albania , Russia and Iraq were gone into a little. Toxic you are beginning to lose all creditability for me and appear to be a staking horse echoing Cookies words in a more polite way yet you seem prone to the same pattern of obtusification.

just note the below and the bolded part, quotes from the Irish Times quoting directly from the new Libertas Memoranda of Association. Strikebreaking is in explicit in their registered agenda.

Cookie has failed to address my post on the previous page or Cactus Flower's responsible questions and is not addressing the issues in any substantive way. SEE

Re The New Libertas party and foundation

Quote :

The memorandum documents for both of the new companies state that
they are entitled to raise funds, carry on business, purchase property,
accumulate capital, borrow and other activities, in pursuit of their
principal objectives. The companies are allowed pay interest at
a rate not exceeding 5 per cent on loans received from directors or
other members of the companies. They are also empowered to
"promote freedom of contact" and contribute funds to any body that
resists interference in businesses by "any strike movement or
organisation". Irish Times^]

The abrupt end of Primetime may well and I have been given to understand was due to (mod Audi. Please back up speculation with evidence - speculation without cannot be published )

creagh wrote:

I am getting suspicious that the 3 main parties are using Ganley to cover up parts of the treaty that would not suit Ireland

That wouldn't even work, since it gives Ganley the publicity to draw attention to any such bits. However, they might be doing it because they lack the intellectual firepower to debate the Treaty, they might be doing it because they believe that real discussion of the Treaty is not what the public is looking for.

However, just how many press releases have the main parties made in respect of Ganley/Libertas since the referendum? I can find a grand total of 3 from FF, which hardly suggests an obsessive interest.

Personally I suspect that Ganley is now simply a media phenomenon and celebrity in his own right, and that the mainstream parties would much prefer the media shut up and stop giving him free publicity.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

If we ignore Lisbon there is still the issue of Ganley his past, present and potential future.

This thread is about his Primetime appearance where his business in Albania , Russia and Iraq were gone into a little. Toxic you are beginning to lose all creditability for me and appear to be a staking horse echoing Cookies words in a more polite way yet you seem prone to the same pattern of obtusification.

just note the below and the bolded part, quotes from the Irish Times quoting directly from the new Libertas Memoranda of Association. Strikebreaking is in explicit in their registered agenda.

Cookie has failed to address my post on the previous page or Cookies responsible questions and is not addressing the issues in any substantive way.

Re The New Libertas party and foundation

Quote :

The memorandum documents for both of the new companies state that
they are entitled to raise funds, carry on business, purchase property,
accumulate capital, borrow and other activities, in pursuit of their
principal objectives. The companies are allowed pay interest at
a rate not exceeding 5 per cent on loans received from directors or
other members of the companies. They are also empowered to
"promote freedom of contact" and contribute funds to any body that
resists interference in businesses by "any strike movement or
organisation". Irish Times^]

The abrupt end of Primetime may well and I have been given to understand was due to material removed Perhaps they needed more time to corroborate, being a responsible broadcaster, or perhaps they received letters a la Joe Costello refrained from letting the hammer hit the chamber.

I am already well aware of that provision, I have stated my opposition to it as immoral on multiple occasions. I have made my position clearer than day on a number of occasions. I oppose Lisbon. I do so for very different reasons than those attested to by most others, including Libertas. I oppose the integrationist agenda, which I see as an absurd folly, you could call me a Realist on the issue. Secondary to that, I oppose the lack of democratic accountability in the EU as stands (though even if it were democratic to the core I'd still oppose it). The reaction to Lisbon has confirmed my view of our position in the EU (who called for France to reconsider their position in the EU if they persisted with their 'no' to the Constitution, for example?), which is one of toleration as long as we do as they say. I opposed Libertas' claim that we would 'lose a Commissioner' on P.ie before the referendum. I oppose their support of federalism. I suspect they are far to the right of any Irish political party. I, however, also oppose the motivation for the main thrust of attacks on Ganley, which are predicated on anger for his wrongly perceived role as being responsible for the 'no' vote. And I have no problem with agreeing with Libertas on the immediate issue at hand, which is the need to reject Lisbon. I also oppose the attempts to destroy the credibility of P.ie, via attacks on moderation, which I believe are totally without foundation.

What part of that makes me Cookie's 'sockpuppet'?

Quote :

I oppose the integrationist agenda, which I see as an absurd folly, you could call me a Realist on the issue

I'd have to call you a eurosceptic. You are hardly likely to view your position as anything less than 'realistic' (and fair enough), but I really don't think you can be described as anything less than sceptical of the whole EU project - and I regard my own position as more realistic than yours...we are all, according to ourselves, eurorealists.

On the other hand, you're certainly not a europhobe, since your opposition is rationally based.

no inference of being a sock puppet toxic, strikebreaking is close enough to locking up people for striking.

I understand your concerns re politics.ie and you can go back one page and see my reasoned response to David C and see my point of view on that.
However the mod you are defending is attacking this site and respected posters here like Cactus Flower. See above and links on my post above.

machinenation deserves to be treated with respect and politics.ie and the mod in question daily attack posters including ones who are moderate and reasonable. I suggest that you read what he writes with greater care, it is plain to see.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

I oppose the integrationist agenda, which I see as an absurd folly, you could call me a Realist on the issue

I'd have to call you a eurosceptic. You are hardly likely to view your position as anything less than 'realistic' (and fair enough), but I really don't think you can be described as anything less than sceptical of the whole EU project - and I regard my own position as more realistic than yours...we are all, according to ourselves, eurorealists.

On the other hand, you're certainly not a europhobe, since your opposition is rationally based.

Oh, certainly a Eurosceptic, but when I said Realist (with a capital 'R', I meant it in the International Relations theory sense, the 'Realist/Idealist' debate, not that the alternative view was irrational or unrealistic....

Frightened Albanian wrote:

no inference of being a sock puppet toxic, strikebreaking is close enough to locking up people for striking.

I understand your concerns re politics.ie and you can go back one page and see my reasoned response to David C and see my point of view on that.
However the mod you are defending is attacking this site and respected posters here like Cactus Flower. See above and links on my post above.

machinenation deserves to be treated with respect and politics.ie and the mod in question daily attack posters including ones who are moderate and reasonable. I suggest that you read what he writes with greater care, it is plain to see.

I disagree with what he said about this site becoming more absurd every day, I like this site, it's like a 'chill-out room' away from the name-calling and irrationality that sometimes becomes too prominent elsewhere...

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 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

I do hope that David C takes the time to respond to the above

I am of the opinion that the above is a load of nonsense we will not get the answers we want, after all Mr Ganley is not even elelected,
We had a thoiseach in front of a trbunal about where he got his money and we are as wise now as when it started, it did not effect his election chances one bit, the same may apply to mr Ganley

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I do hope that Dacid C takes the time to respond to the above

There is no reason to think that David C has any knowledge of the owners of Libertas or of their history. There is also no reason to think that he is conerned about his reputation being damaged by his being associated with Libertas. In the circumstances, there seems little point in addressing him on these points. However, if you do want to have a barney with him then why not address him and have the Barney on his website. We all know the general content of the stock reponses are at this stage ("you are biased - you are wanker - you can't handle Libertas being against Lisbon - it's all smoke and daggers - it's all smear tactics - it's all baseless - RTE have an agenda - the Irish Times are biased - Libertas stand for lots of good stuff - why can't you stick to the issues - Albania-shmalbania - nobody has accused Ganley of wrongdoing or provided any evidence of wrongdoing - what exactly is your allegation? - who cares who pays my wages? - it was a loan - SIPO have an agenda - the leak came from SIPO - the money was just resting in my account [ joke - Fr. Ted reference - please don't sue] - I was only doing Libertas stuff in my spare time etc etc"). There is hardly any point in cluttering up this thread with them.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I do hope that Dacid C takes the time to respond to the above

There is no reason to think that David C has any knowledge of the owners of Libertas or of their history. There is also no reason to think that he is conerned about his reputation being damaged by his being associated with Libertas. In the circumstances, there seems little point in addressing him on these points. However, if you do want to have a barney with him then why not address him and have the Barney on his website. We all know the general content of the stock reponses are at this stage ("you are biased - you are wanker - you can't handle Libertas being against Lisbon - it's all smoke and daggers - it's all smear tactics - it's all baseless - RTE have an agenda - the Irish Times are biased - Libertas stand for lots of good stuff - why can't you stick to the issues - Albania-shmalbania - nobody has accused Ganley of wrongdoing or provided any evidence of wrongdoing - what exactly is your allegation? - who cares who pays my wages? - it was a loan - SIPO have an agenda - the leak came from SIPO - the money was just resting in my account [ joke - Fr. Ted reference - please don't sue] - I was only doing Libertas stuff in my spare time etc etc"). There is hardly any point in cluttering up this thread with them.

One could fairly easily write a program to auto-generate Libertas threads at this stage. Not that there's any need to, unfortunately...

What ? An AI troll ?