The Privatisation of Irish Politics

Anticoalition wrote:

Happy Holidays to you all

Many happy returns. See ye all later.

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

To finish with regulation. Fraud is fraud and would be prosecuted but government interference between business dealing is out. Start with the SEC because 50 billion has just been robbed. They are there to help their friends not Joe Smo.

Why the ado about Ganley. He is forming a party so who else should be leader. Until proven otherwise this hysterical backlash is just panic from old party members being left in the dust. Otherwise it is left wing idealists panicing that a right wing popular strongman might steal away their garden of Eden.

Lets say Ganley is wildly successfull. Why not make him president of the EU instead of picking useless toadies like Bertie or Tony Blair

I can identify with what Antioalition says at times about left/right and maybe he could make a stand in the local elections. If ever there was a time where the electorate is open to new ideas it is now.

I'm inclined, minus the panic, to agree with that characterisation. I oppose of Declan Ganley politically from the left. He and is organisation have been less than clear in presenting their politics: I bit of digging shows that they are a far right grouping. His business history and his politics have been mututally informative about his motivation. Now he has declared, and launched a party. At this stage, unless something new of real interest emerged, surely it is high time to focus on the politics?

A bit of digging shows no such thing, perhaps it appears "far right" from your point of view, but standing on that particular pedistal Fidel Castro is right wing. On a normal political scale Ganley would be Centre-Right and Libertas has stated that it intends to involve people from all moderate areas of the political spectrum. Infact of the people that I know to be involved none of them would be considered far-right by anybody with an ounce or rational perspective on the matter.

Quote :

The right in FG want to stick him with some cloaks and daggers "non-irish" label, in the hopes that he will go away. With the PDs gone, Ganley is politically closest to Fine Gael and they are right to think he might take votes from them.

I think its time that everyone who opposes Ganley puts their political cards on the table, or else any complaints from them about lack of transparency will not look good.

Left and right are chalk and cheese. In Ireland we have political parties mainly representing the business class and pretending that they are for all men.

Anticoalition wrote:

There's fraud and then there's pork barrel, which isn't strictly illegal. The 'pork business' in Ireland is alive and well, and I estimate has counted for about half of Government spending over the last ten years alone.

I don't agree with that assertion. There has of course been some but I wouldn't say anything near half, there also have been wasteful spending. They're not the samething.

Quote :

To be honest, it is impossible to talk about Libertas, without talking about Ganley, because it is a one man show. Even the new Libertas.eu web site is nearly all about him.

You seem entirely unable to talk about either Libertas or Ganley without making something up or getting some snide dig in. The website is new, it coincided with the launch which was headed by Ganley, of course he is going to feature and seeing as people like youself took it upon youself to spread unfounded nonsense about it there has to be some reaction to that crap.

Quote :

I am glad we have some common ground dan, and look forward to exploring these issues further, although I have to retire for a week or two here, and get some work done. As for elections, not this time around anyway, as I have too many ongoing commitments.

Happy Holidays to you all

The break from here may do you (and the rest of is) some good. Happy Chirstmas.

Cookiemonster said

Quote :

bit of digging shows no such thing, perhaps it appears "far right" from your point of view, but standing on that particular pedistal Fidel Castro is right wing. On a normal political scale Ganley would be Centre-Right and Libertas has stated that it intends to involve people from all moderate areas of the political spectrum. Infact of the people that I know to be involved none of them would be considered far-right by anybody with an ounce or rational perspective on the matter.

Your not agreeing with this chart then Cookiemonster? http://ibis.100webspace.net/index.php

Plus there are the matters of

-Ganley's chosen UKIP, Mouvement pour la France, Czech and other right wing associates in Libertas - they are much, much bigger operations than Libertas and imo will eat him up if and when it suits them.
-Ganley's founding a "Libertas" company which has strike breaking as one of its main stated objectives
- Ganley's political support for unregulated capitalism, and personal engagement in "disaster capitalism" in Iraq, Russia and Albania.
- Ganleys promotion of a conservative social agenda - anti-abortion, religious, father of family - "Traditional Catholic Values".
- Ganley's anti-arab xenophobia, documented in his own speeches and writing, and his view that "not enough Christian births" is one of Europe's biggest problems.

Saying "We're centrist" doesn't mean a thing. The right, whether in the small parties of Europe, or on the Stormfront website, reserve full judgement on where he is going, but recognise Ganley as one of their own.

Happy Christmas, Anti-coalition - See you in the New Year. And the same to anyone else taking their leave for the season

cactus flower wrote:

Your not agreeing with this chart then Cookiemonster? http://ibis.100webspace.net/index.php

What is there to agree with? I'm the only one I know to be a Libertas supporter on that chart, it's hardky representative.

Quote :

Plus there are the matters of

-Ganley's chosen UKIP, Mouvement pour la France, Czech and other right wing associates in Libertas - they are much, much bigger operations than Libertas and imo will eat him up if and when it suits them.

As far as I am aware, Declan Ganely has no UKIP "associates". As for MPF and the Czech connection, they are right wing for sure both both are described by almost everybody, including international journalists as "righrt of centre".

Quote :

-Ganley's founding a "Libertas" company which has strike breaking as one of its main stated objectives

Your asserting that strike breaking is anything near a "main objective" is incorrect.

Quote :

- Ganley's political support for unregulated capitalism, and personal engagement in "disaster capitalism" in Iraq, Russia and Albania.

Doesn't have any connotations of "far-right" other then your own biased opinion of what far-right is. He wouldn't even be consider him to be a right-libertatian either.

Quote :

- Ganleys promotion of a conservative social agenda - anti-abortion, religious, father of family - "Traditional Catholic Values".

Social conservatism isn't the sole product of the right, let alone the far right.

Quote :

- Ganley's anti-arab xenophobia, documented in his own speeches and writing, and his view that "not enough Christian births" is one of Europe's biggest problems.

I have heard and read many of his speeches, nowhere have I seen "anti-arab xenophobia". He has rightly criticised islamic fundamentalism on a number of occasions but this would not and should not be classes as anti-arab xenophobia.

Quote :

Saying "We're centrist" doesn't mean a thing. The right, whether in the small parties of Europe, or on the Stormfront website, reserve full judgement on where he is going, but recognise Ganley as one of their own.

Saying "he's far-right" doesn't mean a thing either, because it's not true. There are, as I have said, people involved in Libertas who are anything but right wing but of course one must refuse to accept that because one has already pigeon holed Libertas as "far-right" and that's that.

He has all the signs of being pals with more people from the far and hard right. His philosophy involves the invasion of Iran, closer connection between the civil and military authorities.

He is secretive and right wing.
FYI Xenophobic Islam hater Phillipe de Villier's Movement for France has Libertas banners on their website.

European project of the MPF

* Restore the rule of national law over European law. It is a guiding principle: the re-establishment of democracy by subjecting the technocratic body to the elected one.
* Cease negotiations of accession of Turkey to the European Union, and begin a process of privileged partnerships with Turkey and other Mediterranean countries.
* Allow the countries of Europe to form their own, independent foreign policies.
* Follow a policy of respect of national borders and control of immigration.
* Build a Europe of free and selected co-operations.
* Put the national Parliaments in the middle of European construction in their giving a right of veto on the vital interests of the people which they represent.
* Found a right of call in front of the people for the judgments of the Court of Justice, true right of popular opposition.
* Put the European Union and the euro at the service of the growth and employment.
* Found a European preference for industry and the services, as for agriculture.
* Forbiding wearing hijab in public places and at street.
* Establishing a moratorium on constructing mosques in France.

Note point 1, the guiding principle. The built-in assumption there is that democracy is necessarily national in scope. The technocratic institution of the EU (the Commission) is already subject to control by a democratic body, the EU Parliament.

Further, making national law superior to EU law - or in other words, making the laws of each individual nation superior to those they have jointly agreed, is ludicrous. What is the point of non-binding joint agreement?

Of course dispensing with the idea of supremacy of European Law makes no practical sense. It would become unenforceable for the citizen and thus render it entirely defunct. It is necessary to achieve uniformity.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Your not agreeing with this chart then Cookiemonster? http://ibis.100webspace.net/index.php

What is there to agree with? I'm the only one I know to be a Libertas supporter on that chart, it's hardky representative.

Quote :

Plus there are the matters of

-Ganley's chosen UKIP, Mouvement pour la France, Czech and other right wing associates in Libertas - they are much, much bigger operations than Libertas and imo will eat him up if and when it suits them.

As far as I am aware, Declan Ganely has no UKIP "associates". As for MPF and the Czech connection, they are right wing for sure both both are described by almost everybody, including international journalists as "righrt of centre".

Quote :

-Ganley's founding a "Libertas" company which has strike breaking as one of its main stated objectives

Your asserting that strike breaking is anything near a "main objective" is incorrect.

Quote :

- Ganley's political support for unregulated capitalism, and personal engagement in "disaster capitalism" in Iraq, Russia and Albania.

Doesn't have any connotations of "far-right" other then your own biased opinion of what far-right is. He wouldn't even be consider him to be a right-libertatian either.

Quote :

- Ganleys promotion of a conservative social agenda - anti-abortion, religious, father of family - "Traditional Catholic Values".

Social conservatism isn't the sole product of the right, let alone the far right.

Quote :

- Ganley's anti-arab xenophobia, documented in his own speeches and writing, and his view that "not enough Christian births" is one of Europe's biggest problems.

I have heard and read many of his speeches, nowhere have I seen "anti-arab xenophobia". He has rightly criticised islamic fundamentalism on a number of occasions but this would not and should not be classes as anti-arab xenophobia.

Quote :

Saying "We're centrist" doesn't mean a thing. The right, whether in the small parties of Europe, or on the Stormfront website, reserve full judgement on where he is going, but recognise Ganley as one of their own.

Saying "he's far-right" doesn't mean a thing either, because it's not true. There are, as I have said, people involved in Libertas who are anything but right wing but of course one must refuse to accept that because one has already pigeon holed Libertas as "far-right" and that's that.

I would be interested to know what your definition of "far-right" is, cookiemonster.

cactus flower wrote:

Cookiemonster said

Quote :

bit of digging shows no such thing, perhaps it appears "far right" from your point of view, but standing on that particular pedistal Fidel Castro is right wing. On a normal political scale Ganley would be Centre-Right and Libertas has stated that it intends to involve people from all moderate areas of the political spectrum. Infact of the people that I know to be involved none of them would be considered far-right by anybody with an ounce or rational perspective on the matter.

Your not agreeing with this chart then Cookiemonster? http://ibis.100webspace.net/index.php

Plus there are the matters of

-Ganley's chosen UKIP, Mouvement pour la France, Czech and other right wing associates in Libertas - they are much, much bigger operations than Libertas and imo will eat him up if and when it suits them.
-Ganley's founding a "Libertas" company which has strike breaking as one of its main stated objectives
- Ganley's political support for unregulated capitalism, and personal engagement in "disaster capitalism" in Iraq, Russia and Albania.
- Ganleys promotion of a conservative social agenda - anti-abortion, religious, father of family - "Traditional Catholic Values".
- Ganley's anti-arab xenophobia, documented in his own speeches and writing, and his view that "not enough Christian births" is one of Europe's biggest problems.

Saying "We're centrist" doesn't mean a thing. The right, whether in the small parties of Europe, or on the Stormfront website, reserve full judgement on where he is going, but recognise Ganley as one of their own.

Happy Christmas Cactus! See you in the New Year

Spot on post by the way. You left one thing out of the list, which is Declan Ganley's associations with corrupt elites, of all people. His business model is what scares me the most - What do all of his businesses have in common? They all involve pork barrel projects, ie public money, resources, contracts or licenses, in most cases received without a tender process. He is directly associated with two of the top 20 Most Corrupt Politicians in the US, Senator 'Military' Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who just lost his seat, largely because of corruption charges.

Remember how you recently surmised that he would gain something in return for his valiant work during Katriona? Read this article from 2008 about how Rivada secured a fat contract from the Louisiana Guard in The Officer magazine, (for "citizen warriors").

Until next year...

What difference if Stormfront supports him. The only question is does he support Stormfront. An old trick this but I guess it still works.

If he gets the votes then let him kick the Arabs back to Arabland. I thought ye wanted the EU to be democratic but now everyone is scared because their democracy does not include Ganley

youngdan wrote:

What difference if Stormfront supports him. The only question is does he support Stormfront. An old trick this but I guess it still works.

If he gets the votes then let him kick the Arabs back to Arabland. I thought ye wanted the EU to be democratic but now everyone is scared because their democracy does not include Ganley

Oh we want him in it alright, but we have a right to disagree as to what his role is.

We also want Arabs in it.

What we don't want are EU right-wing bigots, [mod] snipped, you know the rules [mod], writing our laws, spending our money and making our decisions for us; particularly military decisions.

But if he has no support what is the problem. What will ye do if 51% of the voters turn out to be right wing bigots

His role is the leader of the party he is putting together and seek the 51%. If he fails then he fails.

Anticoalition wrote:

youngdan wrote:

What difference if Stormfront supports him. The only question is does he support Stormfront. An old trick this but I guess it still works.

If he gets the votes then let him kick the Arabs back to Arabland. I thought ye wanted the EU to be democratic but now everyone is scared because their democracy does not include Ganley

Oh we want him in it alright, but we have a right to disagree as to what his role is.

We also want Arabs in it.

What we don't want are EU right-wing bigots, [mod] snipped, you know the rules [mod], writing our laws, spending our money and making our decisions for us; particularly military decisions.

Have you managed to give even one post about Ganley or Libertas without littering it with either lies, smear, innuendo or all three?

Nigel Farage said the other day that UKIP and Libertas have very little in common, so I don't see how the UKIP-Libertas thing works at all. I have a lot of time for Farage, incidentally, he's a coherent and persuasive politician on many issues. What's intended as some kind of smear on Libertas really is no such thing at all.

This intense anti-Ganley obsessiveness is tiresome. Fine for a thread or two, among other issues, but not for scores of threads by posters who don't seem to have any opinion on anything else at all. The sheer repetition of the same stuff over and over again is now spam.

Isn't the idea of democracy that if you don't like someone, don't vote for them? Isn't that enough for some posters here?

toxic avenger wrote:

Nigel Farage said the other day that UKIP and Libertas have very little in common, so I don't see how the UKIP-Libertas thing works at all. I have a lot of time for Farage, incidentally, he's a coherent and persuasive politician on many issues. What's intended as some kind of smear on Libertas really is no such thing at all.

Not for you. For quite a few people I suspect it is.

toxic avenger wrote:

This intense anti-Ganley obsessiveness is tiresome. Fine for a thread or two, among other issues, but not for scores of threads by posters who don't seem to have any opinion on anything else at all. The sheer repetition of the same stuff over and over again is now spam.

Agreed!

toxic avenger wrote:

Isn't the idea of democracy that if you don't like someone, don't vote for them? Isn't that enough for some posters here?

Trying to put people off a party (or referendum choice!) that you oppose is quite normal.

ibis wrote:

Not for you. For quite a few people I suspect it is.

No accounting for taste, I suppose...

Quote :

Trying to put people off a party (or referendum choice!) that you oppose is quite normal.

To a point. But not when it is a new thread on the same subject every day, with the same obsessive repetition of dubious 'facts'

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

Not for you. For quite a few people I suspect it is.

No accounting for taste, I suppose...

Indeed.

toxic avenger wrote:

Quote :

Trying to put people off a party (or referendum choice!) that you oppose is quite normal.

To a point. But not when it is a new thread on the same subject every day, with the same obsessive repetition of dubious 'facts'

That's true, of course. Do you think it actually has any effect?

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Quote :

Trying to put people off a party (or referendum choice!) that you oppose is quite normal.

To a point. But not when it is a new thread on the same subject every day, with the same obsessive repetition of dubious 'facts'

That's true, of course. Do you think it actually has any effect?

Not much, all depends on the status and influence (and state of mind) of people reading this stuff who might disseminate it further, but repetition can be effective. I have certainly seen posts on the other site replicated in national newspapers. It's fine to a point, but not when it becomes spam clogging up the site, particularly if it is based on dubious 'facts' repeated ad nauseam.

Let's be very clear on this.

1. I can only speak for myself but this is nothing to do with the effin Lisbon Treaty. I was on 'the other site' for two months, minding my own business, which had nothing to do with Libertas or Lisbon, until I ran into a certain moderator, waving a Libertas flag and behaving in an appalling manner, on a very repetitive basis.

2. The main point I made above, was related to Katriona and Ganley, and quotes an article in The Officer, that has not been discussed anywhere yet. It may have a familiar intro, but it makes a point about a major public contract, that has not been discussed here before. Further, while the origin of the contract may appear dubious, there is no doubting that the Louisiana contract is a definite fact.

3. There has never been one post on this or the other site that posited a common theme between all of Ganley's seemingly very diverse business interests. The FACT that the Iraqi and European mobile phone businesses, the Russsian military base purchase and State forestry business, the Albanian Government investment fund privatisation business, and others all have one major thing in common, ie transfer of State resources into private hands, has not been made before, anywhere that I am aware of. It was made because the very point of this entire thread is a new theme - the privatisation of politics in Ireland. These are all examples of privatisation in politics, with regards to one group.

4. A factual question was asked of our Libertas friend here last night, concerning the transfer of EU public money to a private lobby group called Libertas, for the No campaign. Instead of simply saying - 'I don't know, but I will find out' or making any good faith effort to answer the questions, I was instead accused of bad faith. If I made any factual error or omission, then there is a perfect opportunity for any Libertas promoter to set the record straight right here, and say No. That has not happened.

As for repetition, how many times have you heard the same stupid jingles being repeated over and over again by Ganley, concerning the 'corrupt elites' or the need for 'openness and transparency'? He's still at it, and I am still being bombarded by it. I have right to reply to it and show it for the absolute biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life. It is in the public and national interest to do so - because public money and power is at stake, and we all have active duties as Irish and EU citizens, to protect our nation and confederacy. This is no joke. I am firmly convinced that Libertas represent the biggest threat to Irish and European democracy in modern times, and while people are entitled to vote for who they like, they are also entitled to do so in an informed manner - rather than being rail-roaded and hoodwinked, through inappropriate use of THEIR OWN TAXPAPERS MONEY, and possible inappropriate use of private, foreign money.

Anticoalition wrote:

Let's be very clear on this.

1. I can only speak for myself but this is nothing to do with the effin Lisbon Treaty. I was on 'the other site' for two months, minding my own business, which had nothing to do with Libertas or Lisbon, until I ran into a certain moderator, waving a Libertas flag and behaving in an appalling manner, on a very repetitive basis.

2. The main point I made above, was related to Katriona and Ganley, and quotes an article in The Officer, that has not been discussed anywhere yet. It may have a familiar intro, but it makes a point about a major public contract, that has not been discussed here before. Further, while the origin of the contract may appear dubious, there is no doubting that the Louisiana contract is a definite fact.

3. There has never been one post on this or the other site that posited a common theme between all of Ganley's seemingly very diverse business interests. The FACT that the Iraqi and European mobile phone businesses, the Russsian military base purchase and State forestry business, the Albanian Government investment fund privatisation business, and others all have one major thing in common, ie transfer of State resources into private hands, has not been made before, anywhere that I am aware of. It was made because the very point of this entire thread is a new theme - the privatisation of politics in Ireland. These are all examples of privatisation in politics, with regards to one group.

4. A factual question was asked of our Libertas friend here last night, concerning the transfer of EU public money to a private lobby group called Libertas, for the No campaign. Instead of simply saying - 'I don't know, but I will find out' or making any good faith effort to answer the questions, I was instead accused of bad faith. If I made any factual error or omission, then there is a perfect opportunity for any Libertas promoter to set the record straight right here, and say No. That has not happened.

As for repetition, how many times have you heard the same stupid jingles being repeated over and over again by Ganley, concerning the 'corrupt elites' or the need for 'openness and transparency'? He's still at it, and I am still being bombarded by it. I have right to reply to it and show it for the absolute biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life. It is in the public and national interest to do so - because public money and power is at stake, and we all have active duties as Irish and EU citizens, to protect our nation and confederacy. This is no joke. I am firmly convinced that Libertas represent the biggest threat to Irish and European democracy in modern times, and while people are entitled to vote for who they like, they are also entitled to do so in an informed manner - rather than being rail-roaded and hoodwinked, through inappropriate use of THEIR OWN TAXPAPERS MONEY, and possible inappropriate use of private, foreign money.

My problem is that I agree with all that, and yet - to be blunt, usually what I see is that you are essentially engaged in hounding Cookiemonster. I appreciate that CM is the only identifiable "representative" of Libertas posting on either p.ie or here, but the attack style is very off-putting - CM is not Libertas. He's someone who has chosen to support Libertas, but he is not a spokesperson for Libertas, and online forums are neither press conferences nor courtrooms.

The post above is coherent, factual, and cogent, and I have no problem agreeing with it. Unfortunately, that makes a nice change.

ibis wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

Let's be very clear on this.

1. I can only speak for myself but this is nothing to do with the effin Lisbon Treaty. I was on 'the other site' for two months, minding my own business, which had nothing to do with Libertas or Lisbon, until I ran into a certain moderator, waving a Libertas flag and behaving in an appalling manner, on a very repetitive basis.

2. The main point I made above, was related to Katriona and Ganley, and quotes an article in The Officer, that has not been discussed anywhere yet. It may have a familiar intro, but it makes a point about a major public contract, that has not been discussed here before. Further, while the origin of the contract may appear dubious, there is no doubting that the Louisiana contract is a definite fact.

3. There has never been one post on this or the other site that posited a common theme between all of Ganley's seemingly very diverse business interests. The FACT that the Iraqi and European mobile phone businesses, the Russsian military base purchase and State forestry business, the Albanian Government investment fund privatisation business, and others all have one major thing in common, ie transfer of State resources into private hands, has not been made before, anywhere that I am aware of. It was made because the very point of this entire thread is a new theme - the privatisation of politics in Ireland. These are all examples of privatisation in politics, with regards to one group.

4. A factual question was asked of our Libertas friend here last night, concerning the transfer of EU public money to a private lobby group called Libertas, for the No campaign. Instead of simply saying - 'I don't know, but I will find out' or making any good faith effort to answer the questions, I was instead accused of bad faith. If I made any factual error or omission, then there is a perfect opportunity for any Libertas promoter to set the record straight right here, and say No. That has not happened.

As for repetition, how many times have you heard the same stupid jingles being repeated over and over again by Ganley, concerning the 'corrupt elites' or the need for 'openness and transparency'? He's still at it, and I am still being bombarded by it. I have right to reply to it and show it for the absolute biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life. It is in the public and national interest to do so - because public money and power is at stake, and we all have active duties as Irish and EU citizens, to protect our nation and confederacy. This is no joke. I am firmly convinced that Libertas represent the biggest threat to Irish and European democracy in modern times, and while people are entitled to vote for who they like, they are also entitled to do so in an informed manner - rather than being rail-roaded and hoodwinked, through inappropriate use of THEIR OWN TAXPAPERS MONEY, and possible inappropriate use of private, foreign money.

My problem is that I agree with all that, and yet - to be blunt, usually what I see is that you are essentially engaged in hounding Cookiemonster. I appreciate that CM is the only identifiable "representative" of Libertas posting on either p.ie or here, but the attack style is very off-putting - CM is not Libertas. He's someone who has chosen to support Libertas, but he is not a spokesperson for Libertas, and online forums are neither press conferences nor courtrooms.

The post above is coherent, factual, and cogent, and I have no problem agreeing with it. Unfortunately, that makes a nice change.

You have hit the nail on the head, but from the opposite direction. The reason I left p.ie was mainly because of CM. I found myself hounded to death, and every time I started a thread, or tried to engage in any intelligent discussion, those threads were literally shredded and I was subjected to unprecedented personal abuse. It got so bad that I actually tried to completely ignore the guy and refused to engage him in discussion, but he still harassed me. You will also note above, in my last direct reply to CM, that I am going back to ignoring him, because I do not want this site to turn into the trollfest we regularly see on p.ie. Even if you look at the discussion with him above, you will see that I asked a straight question, and then got multiple questions, and more personal abuse, in response. He is the creator of his own destiny, but I am keeping him as far away from mine as possible, and will not be engaging directly with him in any way whatsoever, on this or any other site. Naturally, he will come along and try and drive any rational discussion of Libertas into confusion, or the gutter, but I will not get sucked in again. Please be vigilant here, because as far as I am concerned he is an absolute menace.

Anticoalition wrote:

Let's be very clear on this.

1. I can only speak for myself but this is nothing to do with the effin Lisbon Treaty. I was on 'the other site' for two months, minding my own business, which had nothing to do with Libertas or Lisbon, until I ran into a certain moderator, waving a Libertas flag and behaving in an appalling manner, on a very repetitive basis.

2. The main point I made above, was related to Katriona and Ganley, and quotes an article in The Officer, that has not been discussed anywhere yet. It may have a familiar intro, but it makes a point about a major public contract, that has not been discussed here before. Further, while the origin of the contract may appear dubious, there is no doubting that the Louisiana contract is a definite fact.

3. There has never been one post on this or the other site that posited a common theme between all of Ganley's seemingly very diverse business interests. The FACT that the Iraqi and European mobile phone businesses, the Russsian military base purchase and State forestry business, the Albanian Government investment fund privatisation business, and others all have one major thing in common, ie transfer of State resources into private hands, has not been made before, anywhere that I am aware of. It was made because the very point of this entire thread is a new theme - the privatisation of politics in Ireland. These are all examples of privatisation in politics, with regards to one group.

4. A factual question was asked of our Libertas friend here last night, concerning the transfer of EU public money to a private lobby group called Libertas, for the No campaign. Instead of simply saying - 'I don't know, but I will find out' or making any good faith effort to answer the questions, I was instead accused of bad faith. If I made any factual error or omission, then there is a perfect opportunity for any Libertas promoter to set the record straight right here, and say No. That has not happened.

As for repetition, how many times have you heard the same stupid jingles being repeated over and over again by Ganley, concerning the 'corrupt elites' or the need for 'openness and transparency'? He's still at it, and I am still being bombarded by it. I have right to reply to it and show it for the absolute biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life. It is in the public and national interest to do so - because public money and power is at stake, and we all have active duties as Irish and EU citizens, to protect our nation and confederacy. This is no joke. I am firmly convinced that Libertas represent the biggest threat to Irish and European democracy in modern times, and while people are entitled to vote for who they like, they are also entitled to do so in an informed manner - rather than being rail-roaded and hoodwinked, through inappropriate use of THEIR OWN TAXPAPERS MONEY, and possible inappropriate use of private, foreign money.

Wonderful stuff, I could not have said it better myself. Thank god their is someone else out there that thinks that our small democracy is facing and failing a big test. The media is meant to be the third arm of democracy and unfortunately Ireland seems to be too small to have a fully functioning one. One threat to sue from Ganley and they lay low. God bless Charlie Bird but if hes the best we have were goners. The English media based here including The Metro are all firmly anti-EU. Thank god for Machine Nation, a voice of reason in the dark. The funny thing is Ganleys not even that good, he has no charm and little intelligence, just money and yet he has convinced a lot of people. If we cant stand up to Ganley can you imagine the problems we would have with a Hitler type.

Anticoalition wrote:

Let's be very clear on this.

1. I can only speak for myself but this is nothing to do with the effin Lisbon Treaty. I was on 'the other site' for two months, minding my own business, which had nothing to do with Libertas or Lisbon, until I ran into a certain moderator, waving a Libertas flag and behaving in an appalling manner, on a very repetitive basis.

2. The main point I made above, was related to Katriona and Ganley, and quotes an article in The Officer, that has not been discussed anywhere yet. It may have a familiar intro, but it makes a point about a major public contract, that has not been discussed here before. Further, while the origin of the contract may appear dubious, there is no doubting that the Louisiana contract is a definite fact.

3. There has never been one post on this or the other site that posited a common theme between all of Ganley's seemingly very diverse business interests. The FACT that the Iraqi and European mobile phone businesses, the Russsian military base purchase and State forestry business, the Albanian Government investment fund privatisation business, and others all have one major thing in common, ie transfer of State resources into private hands, has not been made before, anywhere that I am aware of. It was made because the very point of this entire thread is a new theme - the privatisation of politics in Ireland. These are all examples of privatisation in politics, with regards to one group.

4. A factual question was asked of our Libertas friend here last night, concerning the transfer of EU public money to a private lobby group called Libertas, for the No campaign. Instead of simply saying - 'I don't know, but I will find out' or making any good faith effort to answer the questions, I was instead accused of bad faith. If I made any factual error or omission, then there is a perfect opportunity for any Libertas promoter to set the record straight right here, and say No. That has not happened.

As for repetition, how many times have you heard the same stupid jingles being repeated over and over again by Ganley, concerning the 'corrupt elites' or the need for 'openness and transparency'? He's still at it, and I am still being bombarded by it. I have right to reply to it and show it for the absolute biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life. It is in the public and national interest to do so - because public money and power is at stake, and we all have active duties as Irish and EU citizens, to protect our nation and confederacy. This is no joke. I am firmly convinced that Libertas represent the biggest threat to Irish and European democracy in modern times, and while people are entitled to vote for who they like, they are also entitled to do so in an informed manner - rather than being rail-roaded and hoodwinked, through inappropriate use of THEIR OWN TAXPAPERS MONEY, and possible inappropriate use of private, foreign money.

Holding such views have you have is perfectly fine, so long as there is a factual basis to them (I myself am no fan of the right-wing ethos that Ganley seems to espouse in terms of labour relations). But it's the extent of the thing I have a problem with. I'm not disputing that you started over there on the Tara issue, laudable enough stuff, and then switched focus. But now when I see your name on the latest discussions page I can be nearly 100% confident that the post will be about Ganley. You and others have given him publicity here and there that wouldn't otherwise be the case, and I don't need to quote the Oscar Wilde thing at you. It's the spamming I object to, not the general sentiment, if backed by evidence.

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

Let's be very clear on this.

1. I can only speak for myself but this is nothing to do with the effin Lisbon Treaty. I was on 'the other site' for two months, minding my own business, which had nothing to do with Libertas or Lisbon, until I ran into a certain moderator, waving a Libertas flag and behaving in an appalling manner, on a very repetitive basis.

2. The main point I made above, was related to Katriona and Ganley, and quotes an article in The Officer, that has not been discussed anywhere yet. It may have a familiar intro, but it makes a point about a major public contract, that has not been discussed here before. Further, while the origin of the contract may appear dubious, there is no doubting that the Louisiana contract is a definite fact.

3. There has never been one post on this or the other site that posited a common theme between all of Ganley's seemingly very diverse business interests. The FACT that the Iraqi and European mobile phone businesses, the Russsian military base purchase and State forestry business, the Albanian Government investment fund privatisation business, and others all have one major thing in common, ie transfer of State resources into private hands, has not been made before, anywhere that I am aware of. It was made because the very point of this entire thread is a new theme - the privatisation of politics in Ireland. These are all examples of privatisation in politics, with regards to one group.

4. A factual question was asked of our Libertas friend here last night, concerning the transfer of EU public money to a private lobby group called Libertas, for the No campaign. Instead of simply saying - 'I don't know, but I will find out' or making any good faith effort to answer the questions, I was instead accused of bad faith. If I made any factual error or omission, then there is a perfect opportunity for any Libertas promoter to set the record straight right here, and say No. That has not happened.

As for repetition, how many times have you heard the same stupid jingles being repeated over and over again by Ganley, concerning the 'corrupt elites' or the need for 'openness and transparency'? He's still at it, and I am still being bombarded by it. I have right to reply to it and show it for the absolute biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life. It is in the public and national interest to do so - because public money and power is at stake, and we all have active duties as Irish and EU citizens, to protect our nation and confederacy. This is no joke. I am firmly convinced that Libertas represent the biggest threat to Irish and European democracy in modern times, and while people are entitled to vote for who they like, they are also entitled to do so in an informed manner - rather than being rail-roaded and hoodwinked, through inappropriate use of THEIR OWN TAXPAPERS MONEY, and possible inappropriate use of private, foreign money.

Holding such views have you have is perfectly fine, so long as there is a factual basis to them (I myself am no fan of the right-wing ethos that Ganley seems to espouse in terms of labour relations). But it's the extent of the thing I have a problem with. I'm not disputing that you started over there on the Tara issue, laudable enough stuff, and then switched focus. But now when I see your name on the latest discussions page I can be nearly 100% confident that the post will be about Ganley. You and others have given him publicity here and there that wouldn't otherwise be the case, and I don't need to quote the Oscar Wilde thing at you. It's the spamming I object to, not the general sentiment, if backed by evidence.

The reason you see me posting on the Libertas issue, is because I have decided, in the face of what I see as such a threat to our system, to engage with it, and combat it. Yes, I am on a mission here, for the moment, to expose the sham that is Libertas, and I make no apologies for that. However, don't hold me responsible for what others are posting, and their motivations for doing so. If you actually go back and look at previous use of the repeated references above, you will see that they were made by third parties, not me. I simply took an opportunity to tie together a number of previously unrelated facts or references, and place them into one coherent argument. Anyway, I was about to give myself and yourselves a break, and am still trying to drag myself away from the computer and engage with Christmas trees, hot whiskeys and conspicuous consumption, and would like to do so on good terms, but I keep getting sucked back in here So, once more with feeling, Merry Christmas all and a Happy New Year, again.