John Gormley says scale of Ireland's deficit is fault of previous administrations

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,940
On the subject of favourite goosebump quotes, here's a couple (as you can see I just searched for the words 'bank' and 'guarantee', though a similar search seems to be beyond poor goosey who can't support his claim about my previous posts)...
Yes, I was wrong about the scale of Anglo's debts in Dec 2008, in exactly the same way that you were wrong about the possibility of burning the senior debt holders, which you admitted last week, after telling us it was possible for 2 years.

http://www.politics.ie/3047446-post105.html

Thankfully, the word 'pyrrhic' doesn't feature too often on politics.ie too often, and is easily found in a search.

I got a prediction wrong at the very beginning of the debate. You got a fundamental fact wrong after 2 years of the debate.

And while we're digging up posts that are utterly irrelevant to the current thread, here's another one of your highly reputable contributions to this forum, in which you defended the actions of GRA Rep Michael Boyce when he tried to make an overtly political speech at last year's GRA conference.

http://www.politics.ie/2630456-post49.html

O'Boyce's actions were roundly criticised in every newspaper editorial the following day. Even the Daily Mail called foul.

Not you, though. No, siree.
 
Last edited:


Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
goosebump said:
Yes, I was wrong about the scale of Anglo's debts in Dec 2008, in exactly the same way that you were wrong about the possibility of burning the senior debt holders, which you admitted last week, after telling us it was possible for 2 years.
I encourage everyone to read that paraphrased description of what goosebump thinks I wrote, and the actual text of what I wrote in the link he provides.

Others may have better luck than he spotting the difference between the forms of claim "x is a mistake" and "x is a mistake if bad thing y results".

goosebump said:
And while we're digging up posts that are utterly irrelevant to the current thread, here's another one of your highly reputable contributions to this forum, in which you defended the actions of GRA Rep Michael Boyce when he tried to make an overtly political speech at last year's GRA conference.
Again, others may get on better distinguishing between my supposed condoning of the man's exact words, and my merely pointing out that political content is a fairly vague ground on which to oppose speech by a Garda representative.

Sad, really.
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,175
Actually, the son of a very good friend of mine is a member of the green party and canvassed on their behalf in 2007 later being elected to Wexford CC in the last locals.

I have had this debate with father and son on many occasions.

They don't tell me I was lazy but do say I was naive to expect the greens to keep their 'promise' (they accept that the message put out was that they would not support FF in a new government) when a real opportunity to assume power presented itself and particularly when FG were only half-hearted about forming a broader-based coalition.

They are still friends but we don't discuss the greens anymore and I won't be canvassed on their behalf anymore!!
And there's the problem. Even though it's been pointed out several times that no such promise was ever made you still refuse to admit you were misled because didn't parse the statement properly.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
And there's the problem. Even though it's been pointed out several times that no such promise was ever made you still refuse to admit you were misled because didn't parse the statement properly.
You are absolutely right. No such promise was made. Trevor's promise not to lead the Greens into coalition with FF, however, did sound like promise that the greens would not go into coalition with FF.

It should be said though that by going into coalition with Fianna Fáil, the Greens showed far more naiveté than dishonesty.
 

consultant

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,010
And there's the problem. Even though it's been pointed out several times that no such promise was ever made you still refuse to admit you were misled because didn't parse the statement properly.
I still refuse to accept that the greens are not liars and fraudsters and are in government with a mandate earned at the 2007 election.

That is true.

Your arguement though strong and well presented is insufficient to change that view.

Looks like we shall have to agree to differ.
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,175
You are absolutely right. No such promise was made. Trevor's promise not to lead the Greens into coalition with FF, however, did sound like promise that the greens would not go into coalition with FF.
That's why I keep saying we need to pay more attention to what politicians actually say rather than deluding ourselves that they're saying what we'd like them to say.

It should be said though that by going into coalition with Fianna Fáil, the Greens showed far more naiveté than dishonesty.
When the PDs and Lab were in government with FF they pretty much wrote the PfG. The problem for the Greens is they got nothing but a job for everyone in the audience. Out went Shannon, Tara, incineration, Shell etc but everyone who ever stuck a Green leaflet through a letterbox got fixed up with a sinecure. They should be hammered at the GE for that and not because we blame them for breaking a promise they never made.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom