Libertas a pan European Project : Read OP Intro Carefully - Mod

Hermes wrote:

I think this thread is becoming very side tracked and extremely personal.

I can see where both Cactus and Toxic are coming from, in their main arguments. And I don't reckon that either needs blackballing due to their views.

I'd have slapped the little report post icon a few times in the last few hours, but the little blighter seems to have deserted us.

Tis fair enough to be digging for dirt on Mr Ganley as he intends to launch himself into the public as a public figure. To my knowledge, neither Cactus nor Toxic have done this and thus personal criticism that focuses on personality and integrity should end. Both parties are very decent people imo. My two cents.

hermes they have just been caught out trying to buy political influence and support. Enough of the "digging for dirt on Mr Ganley2.

Read the papers they are outed as a complete sham sorry if i have been saying it for a long time and now its breaking into reprots of what they are actually up to.

THEY ATTEPTED TO BUY A PARTY WITH 14 % support. that is like someone trying to buy the Irish Labour Party before their recent boosts in polls. IT IS REAL THEY DID IT IT IS NOT SPECULATION SEE THE IRISH TIMES YESTERDAY

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Hermes wrote:

I think this thread is becoming very side tracked and extremely personal.

I can see where both Cactus and Toxic are coming from, in their main arguments. And I don't reckon that either needs blackballing due to their views.

I'd have slapped the little report post icon a few times in the last few hours, but the little blighter seems to have deserted us.

Tis fair enough to be digging for dirt on Mr Ganley as he intends to launch himself into the public as a public figure. To my knowledge, neither Cactus nor Toxic have done this and thus personal criticism that focuses on personality and integrity should end. Both parties are very decent people imo. My two cents.

hermes they have just been caught out trying to buy political influence and support. Enough of the "digging for dirt on Mr Ganley2.

Read the papers they are outed as a complete sham sorry if i have been saying it for a long time and now its breaking into reprots of what they are actually up to.

THEY ATTEPTED TO BUY A PARTY WITH 14 % support. that is like someone trying to buy the Irish Labour Party before their recent boosts in polls. IT IS REAL THEY DID IT IT IS NOT SPECULATION SEE THE IRISH TIMES YESTERDAY

I haven't commented at all on the latest news story about Ganley. And until I see all the evidence that I expect to see, I'll not be making a judgement one way or the other. Neither will I be pressurised into forming such an opinion.

I was referring to what I see as a witch hunt beginning regarding two of our posters. Folks should be allowed to express their views without pressure or being insulted. If we all believed the same, this forum wouldn't need to exist.

snapple drinker wrote:

CF I wouldn’t pay much attention to toxic dissembler – he
hopes that his duplicity goes unnoted. Take his repeated denials that he is a
Libertas supporter: while that may be true, he’s spent more time here and on
the other site running interference for Ganley/Libertas than any other poster
save CM.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

While toxic has expended a great deal of time and energy tarring those who voice concerns about Libertas’ bona fides as paranoid scaremongering conspiracy theorists,
he does not shrink from appealing to others with like underhand means as long as it suits his eurosceptic agenda.

Here’s but a tiny sample of toxic’s hypocrisy
(tip of the iceberg).

Quote :

As predicted before Christmas, the central plank of the Government's pro-Lisbon campaign will be pure terror. The fear that people feel for their jobs, their families, and the future, in these uncertain times has presented an opportunity for the Government to exploit to the full, one that will see the fear and uncertainty preyed upon until they get their way on Lisbon. Basically, it's a hostage situation: 'Vote yes, or the country gets it...'*

Quote :

No more referendums and fake 'discussion', automatic rubber
stamps from now on for all European Treaties. And no more pretending our voice is 'valued'. It isn't. We're tolerated, that's all, so long as we do as we're
told. Fine, if that's the reality, but let's end the charade.**

Now a charlatan might bluster that such messages are merely
sarcasm (is there a lower form of wit) or vitriolic tirade – if honesty be
their thing. I would posit that the line ‘twixt scaremongering and such be a
line easily blurred - and blur it he does at every opportunity…

Quote :

we're being terrified into voting 'yes' by the Government, as evidenced by Martin and Roche's statements, I'm not trying to scare anyone, nor am I in Government (nor in the self-same Government that created the fear).***

“I’m not trying to scare anyone”, have you ever heard such guff? Toxic will speak out of whichever orifice suits his eurosceptic agenda best, down with this sort of thing!!


NB: these are corroborative permalinks to the other place, click at your own risk

*http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/47219-lisbon-fear-factor.html?s=f48d3a787443214b3cd53402efc33a8f&#post1442163
**http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/47219-lisbon-fear-factor-5.html?s=f48d3a787443214b3cd53402efc33a8f#post1461204
***http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/47219-lisbon-fear-factor-6.html?s=f48d3a787443214b3cd53402efc33a8f#post1462130

OH. DEAR. MOTHER. OF. GOD!!!!!!! I'm honoured that anyone bothers to read anything I post, but seriously, cyber-stalking isn't necessary...

Now, where's the hypocrisy? I attack the use of the economic fear to garner support for the yes vote, and that's the equivalent of a personal smear job how? At least I'm under no illusion about your motive on this one...

And which identity did you previously post under?

just calling a spade a spade you rail against scaremongering (blackening our concerns as a smear campaign) while excelling at it yourself.

Pot call kettle black much?

snapple drinker wrote:

just calling a spade a spade you rail against scaremongering (blackening our concerns as a smear campaign) while excelling at it yourself.

Pot call kettle black much?

What have the two got to do with each other? You charge 'hypocrisy!' at me, then don't explain how. I oppose scaremongering, and I oppose smear jobs. Where's the mutual exclusivity? I seem to have hit a nerve with you, so I'll give you a while to compose yourself...

see above

snapple drinker wrote:

see above

All I see is an incoherent rant whereby you searched p.ie for a Lisbon-related thread by me, then concocted something in your own mind whereby me criticising the government's tactics on the re-run (just as I criticised Libertas for the 'keep our commissioner' poster prior to the Lisbon 1) is somehow contradictory to me opposing a smear job on someone. You seem to have got very worked up and used several ad hominem insults to emphasise your case too, I was just wondering what the rationale was. I'm sensing there isn't one...

I should just add, thanks tonys and hermes. The appearance of a semblance of rationality on this thread is welcome...

Hermes wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Hermes wrote:

I think this thread is becoming very side tracked and extremely personal.

I can see where both Cactus and Toxic are coming from, in their main arguments. And I don't reckon that either needs blackballing due to their views.

I'd have slapped the little report post icon a few times in the last few hours, but the little blighter seems to have deserted us.

Tis fair enough to be digging for dirt on Mr Ganley as he intends to launch himself into the public as a public figure. To my knowledge, neither Cactus nor Toxic have done this and thus personal criticism that focuses on personality and integrity should end. Both parties are very decent people imo. My two cents.

hermes they have just been caught out trying to buy political influence and support. Enough of the "digging for dirt on Mr Ganley2.

Read the papers they are outed as a complete sham sorry if i have been saying it for a long time and now its breaking into reprots of what they are actually up to.

THEY ATTEPTED TO BUY A PARTY WITH 14 % support. that is like someone trying to buy the Irish Labour Party before their recent boosts in polls. IT IS REAL THEY DID IT IT IS NOT SPECULATION SEE THE IRISH TIMES YESTERDAY

I haven't commented at all on the latest news story about Ganley. And until I see all the evidence that I expect to see, I'll not be making a judgement one way or the other. Neither will I be pressurised into forming such an opinion.

I was referring to what I see as a witch hunt beginning regarding two of our posters. Folks should be allowed to express their views without pressure or being insulted. If we all believed the same, this forum wouldn't need to exist.

true and we are all free to still do it.

Toxic does get up the nose when each new layer is peeled from the Libertas charade with his continual apologia

Link to the Junilistan site with their take on the Libertas issue is here. It is in Swedish naturally, but the headline is in English which essentially confirms the story.

In fact, the first sentence in the piece:

Quote :

Den irländske affärsmannen Declan Ganley och hans parti Libertas har erbjudit Junilistan tio miljoner kronor för att bli en del av Junilistan.

translates (roughly) as:
The Irish business man Declan Ganley and his party Libertas have offered Junilistan ten million Kronor to be a part of Junilistan (literally "The June List")

which gives the impression of a Joint Libertas/Junilistan party list on the European election ballot papers.

I don't disagree with Toxic Avenger pointing the finger at Government for using scare tactics on Lisbon. He is right. What makes it even worse is to some considerable extent our predicament is a direct result of the Government's own actions and inactions, and also to the right wing Thatcherite economic agenda pushed by our glorious Commissioners Sutherland and McCreevy.

I have to correct Frightened Albanian - I don't support the Lisbon Treaty (and voted no to Nice x 2 and to Lisbon), or the EU.

I don't have a problem with Toxic Avenger or anyone else disagreeing with my view of Libertas, but I do draw the line at being told that if I raise my serious concerns I am "smearing" Ganley. These generalised allegations of smearing have not been accompanied by a single concrete example of what constitutes a supposed smear.

I have taken great care here to post substantiated fact about Ganley and Libertas because I have absolutely no interest in posting anything else. I would say also that Frightened Albanian, since requested to, generally posts substantiation and links for what he has said about Ganley and Libertas. If anyone disagrees with the content of those posts, its open to them to tackle the content and respond to it in the normal way.

My integrity and far more importantly the validity and relevance of what is posted here about Libertas and Ganley has repeatedly been rubbished here. I object very strongly to being repeatedly told that I am posting lies and smears. When no specific instance of an alleged lie or a smear is provided, this is a smear, couched in a way to which it is difficult to reply.

Libertas and Ganley are engaged in attempting to assemble the first ever pan-european party, aligned on the far right, in a time of historic crisis and political volatility. It is not the only thing going on in the world and it isn't the only thing I post on, but I can see absolutely no reason why discussion of this, and criticism of it, should be prevented.

This thread is going skew-ways.

There is now allegation from either side on the other side about smear. Can you fully substantiate all your assertions in your posts or the thread will cease to move forward and start to spiral.

Short quotes from credible sources or direct quotes backing up your claims please.

If you have a serious allegation that could be libellous please think twice before posting it here thanks. If you have doubts then leave it out is the rule. A couple of more potentially libellous remarks will have the posters banned for a week.

Happy to comply with that, Auditor #9.

Happy to comply. I stand over my comments about toxic which are all linked, corroborated and sound. As soon as he stops spreading smear & scare tactics here and elsewhere against those who question Libertas' bona fides I'll be happy.

snapple drinker wrote:

Happy to comply. I stand over my comments about toxic which are all linked, corroborated and sound. As soon as he stops spreading smear & scare tactics here and elsewhere against those who question Libertas' bona fides I'll be happy.

Thanks to yourself and cactus.

For the benefit of the mods and the few readers that we have as well as for the benefit of the art of presenting information in general and getting your point across clearly and making a case clearly and also for the benefit of the theory of instructing another on a theme or area they know nothing about I suggest

Make your point clearly and simply (mods may have more of an interest in the evolution of the microchip than politics so think about them)
Double-check anything that might be litigious as a mod might not know whether it is or not and will trigger-happily delete it if in doubt.
Link to credible sources.
Quote from your sources but please don't quote too much - I know it's often hard to get the pertinent paragraph that says it all but do try to look for it. If you can't find that perfect paragraph then write it yourself, please.
Report any post you think is a problem for the tone of the thread among other things.
Remember that it's the economically presented truth that will convince, rather than angry invective. You can rage against the machine here all you like but please leave individuals alone for obvious reasons.

Quote :

economically presented truth that will convince, rather than angry invective

Well said, and good advice to us all.

Fair enough Audi,
message received and understood
No more ad hominem in the face of vacuous scaremongering.

Unless its by the Swedes?

The the statement by Jumilistan

Quote :

We åre not for sale!

. The Irish businessman Declan Ganley and his party
Libertas has offered Junilistan ten o'clock million to become part of
Junilistan. The offer was rejected of course by Sören Wibe.

• Sören Wibe Sören Wibe
  

In principle, the Monday a bid for us.. We rejected this course, immediately, we are not for sale. Det här strider ju mot allt vad vi tror på. This is contrary to everything we believe. To be financed by a foreign billionaire in a political party . The actual offer is a direct rudeness, "says Sören Wibe to Ekot today-
Politics is not money. Politics is credible and that it is honest in its message to voters. . We strive to represent the people against the elite.en utländsk miljardär är fullkomligt otänkbart givetvis, säger Sören Wibe. That we would receive money from a foreign billionaire is completely unthinkable of course, "says Sören Wibe

.

Link ?

The link is in Paul R's post further up this page and in one of my posts in a previous page.

On Joe Higgins's views on Libertas, here are some links:

Quote :

Socialist Party leader Joe Higgins argued that the Government was now preparing to launch a massive propaganda campaign to justify what he said would be the consequences of Lisbon, which included taxes on worker’s wages, and changes in living standards.

He said that pro-Lisbon proponents were using “any old excuse” to justify it, including the claim that it would have helped tackle the financial crisis.

http://chartophylax.kaybensoft.com/?p=734

Quote :

“...Lisbon has a neoliberal agenda that is causing the world disaster,” he said.

He also rebuked the Government and media for a “vast conspiracy” to overturn last June’s decision. “The media have decided which opponents of the Lisbon Treaty they will promote to suit their agenda,” he said. “Most media have calculatedly reported [Declan] Ganley [of Libertas] as leader of the No campaign. He is not, and was not, the leader of the No campaign. He was only one of many components.”

“It suits the millionaire press to have one of their own as a main opponent just as Fine Gael and Labour are safe as the Opposition,” he added.

Quote :

Higgins says he cannot see Declan Ganley’s Libertas building much from the scattered breadcrumbs the PDs have left them, simply for the fact that there isn’t a market for a neo-liberal party in the current climate. “I think Libertas will have a real problem if they come out and try and set themselves up as a political force. They are a neo-liberal right-wing party, advocating privatisation. Ganley made his fortune ripping off the publicly owned industries in the former Stalinist States.”

http://yellowromancandles.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/joe-higgins-vs-the-world/

Quoted here by An Fear Rua - I am posting the whole letter as it is short and to the point -

Quote :

Madam, - Harry McGee of your political staff says that Mr Declan Ganley, chairman of the right-wing group, Libertas, "has found himself as the de facto figurehead of the campaign against the Treaty of Lisbon". (Weekend Review, January 12th ) . Mr Ganley is no such thing.

The Irish Times seems anxious to tar those who will campaign against this latest EU Treaty with a right-wing brush. On two recent occasions, on a flimsy pretext, your correspondents have suggested the possibility that the politically repulsive Jean Marie Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, might come here to "assist the No campaign". In fact his presence would be a major hindrance.

One of Mr Ganley`s problems with the Lisbon Treaty is that it does not give enough latitude to business corporations to engage in cut-throat competition in the ruthless pursuit of private profit. As if it weren`t enough that they have initiated the "race to the bottom" - the use of vulnerable migrant and other low-paid workers to undercut established wage levels and conditions - together with the push for privatisation of public services and attacks on workers` pension rights.

It is rather rich for Mr Ganley to pose as a defender of democracy in Europe. He enriched himself from speculation in public assets privatised by the corrupt bureaucracies which previously controlled the Soviet Union and satellite states as personal fiefdoms.

He was involved in the notorious "privatisation vouchers" scheme in Albania which later caused an economic and social collapse. The level of Mr Ganley`s concern for the proper planning and development of resources in the interests of the ordinary people of Albania can be deducted from the fact that he appointed the late Mr Liam Lawlor as an advisor to his privatisation projects.

Mr Ganley`s business dealings in Eastern Europe mirror those of the infamous Russian oligarchs who became obscenely rich in a short time by seizing private control of social assets that properly belonged to the Russian people, very many of whom were left in abject poverty by the privatisation process.

Privatisation and militarisation are further advanced within the EU by the proposals in the Lisbon Treaty. The Socialist Party will be advocating that working people in Ireland reject it. We will be campaigning both independently and in co-operation with other genuine opponents of neo-liberalism and capitalist globalisation, and certainly not as part of groupings which stand for an even more right-wing agenda than that already enshrined in the European Union.

- Yours, etc,

JOE HIGGINS, (Socialist Party ) Briarwood Close, Dublin 15

http://www.anfearrua.com/db.asp?a=topicdisplay&tid=429454

Joe Higgins fought an energetic campaign for a No vote and will do so again. I agree with Higgins both in opposing and opposing Ganley. I dont agree with this whole project of an exclusive, beggar my neighbour economic and military bloc.

I didn't say cactus was engaged in a smear job (her motives are different - in other words she actually has sincere concerns about what the others are posting), I think she's wrong to play along with these people is what I said. That the others are is evidenced by one thing above all others - they have no intention of posting on any other subject, they only post on this subject. Which means they're here with a co-ordinated agenda. So I'm not retracting a word in relation to any of them. I have been accused of being (effectively) a liar, a false-flag supporter, a hypocrite, and other abuse, and all because I don't like what is being done. The same people tried to destroy the other site and smear it as well, and were tolerated to an extraordinary degree out of fear of them claiming 'censorship' if they were moderated, but eventually the decent pro-Lisbon moderators like stringjack stepped in and spoke out against them too. I really enjoy this site (I tend to stick to the non-political here - this subject is an exception for the reasons outlined above) and think it is being abused by certain posters to push an agenda that they were eventually stopped from pushing elsewhere. Once more I'll say it, criticise Ganley and Libertas for their politics, by all means, I do myself, and criticise Ganley on other grounds if there is actual proper evidence against him, but do not first decide he's guilty and then construct a 'case' of unrelated factoids, the majority of which seem to rely on a very vague insinuation of wrongdoing without any actual assertion. And try to post on other things too, surely some of you garden, or notice the weather, or have an interest in the economic collapse?

I'm going to stay off this thread from now on. I can't be bothered making the same argument over and over and only providing a foil for them to continue on with the same trick. I'm going to leave it to the single-issue obsessives, let them talk to themselves.

Thanks for clarifying that Toxic Avenger. You have put up a fair challenge to posters not to post on a single string, and to enhance their credibility by showing a consistent political approach to Libertas and to the other political issues discussed here.

I would add that the single-issue posting here has been from Libertas as well as its opponents and that we are not confined here to talking about "wrong doing" in relation to Ganley, but rather to political analysis and debate on what he stands for. This site was set up for fair and open debate across all issues.

What you say about posters being entitled not to have their integrity smeared in insidious ways is also very important, cactus.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Link ?

sorry here it is use google translate for it

Link

toxic avenger wrote:

I didn't say cactus was engaged in a smear job (her motives are different - in other words she actually has sincere concerns about what the others are posting), I think she's wrong to play along with these people is what I said. That the others are is evidenced by one thing above all others - they have no intention of posting on any other subject, they only post on this subject. Which means they're here with a co-ordinated agenda. So I'm not retracting a word in relation to any of them. I have been accused of being (effectively) a liar, a false-flag supporter, a hypocrite, and other abuse, and all because I don't like what is being done. The same people tried to destroy the other site and smear it as well, and were tolerated to an extraordinary degree out of fear of them claiming 'censorship' if they were moderated, but eventually the decent pro-Lisbon moderators like stringjack stepped in and spoke out against them too. I really enjoy this site (I tend to stick to the non-political here - this subject is an exception for the reasons outlined above) and think it is being abused by certain posters to push an agenda that they were eventually stopped from pushing elsewhere. Once more I'll say it, criticise Ganley and Libertas for their politics, by all means, I do myself, and criticise Ganley on other grounds if there is actual proper evidence against him, but do not first decide he's guilty and then construct a 'case' of unrelated factoids, the majority of which seem to rely on a very vague insinuation of wrongdoing without any actual assertion. And try to post on other things too, surely some of you garden, or notice the weather, or have an interest in the economic collapse?

I'm going to stay off this thread from now on. I can't be bothered making the same argument over and over and only providing a foil for them to continue on with the same trick. I'm going to leave it to the single-issue obsessives, let them talk to themselves.

You are suggesting that various posters who are against Libertas you say " Which means they're here with a co-ordinated agenda."

That is absolutley false and the logical conclusion of your accusation is that anti Libertas posters except cactus are acting together in co ordination following some grand design. This is a very serious allegation without any substance to it.

I would advise redacting and apologising Toxic.