Printable View
Sorry, didn't know she found the tape, i'd say Michael D Higgins will be rubbing his hands with delight.
Again it would have to be wondered why he didn't begin, or even threaten, legal action against the Burkes last October?
If you think the Pope is an instrument of evil, thats your choice. I don't.
Mr Norris also says "Ratzinger, who is, in his mindset, a Nazi".
So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
All this post is just a rehash of what was in todays Indo
I like to keep up to date by reading the sindo as well other papers. I think its better than just waffling. I'll make sure to read up on all candidates before I vote.
Religion is an issue here if you can't see it fair enough.
In all fairness people in the Republic of Ireland have voted in a fair amount of shady geezers over the years, why not Mr. Norris.
To be honest he never was going to get my vote, due to the fact he wants Ireland to join the British Commonwealth.
I no issue whats so ever of Mr. Norris been a homosexaul (my best friends father is a homosexual) or the fact he is a member of the Church of Ireland.
I think its not got to do with religion at all but the fact that a lot of people in Ireland cant get round the fact that we might have a gay prezQuote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
I don't think any major religion accepts homosexuality, Mr.Norris should accept this will never happen in the Catholic church and by insulting the Pope is not going to help him get elected. I don't think any country ever had a gay president. Irish people got around the fact we have a gay senator quickly!
So now he's a "shady geezer"? You do realise your posts read like copy from the Star, right?
On the bit in bold, Iceland's current president is gay. There's also a theory that James Buchanan, 15th President of the United States, was gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
However, on the post as a whole - including the bit in bold - what's your point? I don't think any of what you posted is actually relevant to the discussion or the presidency.
I'm only posting what I read in the papers. Do a bit of lateral thinking, you might see the trees from the wood.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
lol, I could have called him something else but I don't want another warning!Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
You're only posting what you readin the papers, and you suggest I try some lateral thinking?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
I don't think your post is actually relevant to the discussion or the presidency:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Rubbish bin I suggest!
Have an nice day.
Bennocelt, I don't think the majority are too bothered with his lifestyle choice, if he wants to be gay, so be it, but people can and have looked past it, in fact I'd say there is a good lump of the population who'd vote for him only because he's gay - simply to thumb their noses at the establishment and churches. I can see the benefit in having a relatively erudite and decent person like Norris as President, the pink economy would bloom and there would be a different slant given to the Irish situation. However there has to be a realisation that his private/academic thoughts have no impact on legislation - he cannot force a new law to drop the age of consent (which I heard on Radio 1 being used to slap him with), he cannot force young boys under the wings of older men, this is all nonsense. He does need to stop the populist (now) rants against the Catholic church as this will cost him long term. If he wants to represent the entire country, then he has to understand that despite what the meeja tell us, the population is yet to shake off the centuries of Catholic dogma and it's all about balance.
I don't see why restating what has been in the media (Sindo or otherwise) is such a crime, I didn't read any papers over the weekend having switched off my brain from the sensationalising aspect of this case. Plus there was a big match on, so that took precedence.
Too right - the amount of fundamentalist catholics reacting to this is nearly enough for him to get my vote! I really can't beleive that someone would link to that Norris site - imo that crap doesn't even deserve it's link to remain on foot.ie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
I still don't agree with the whole "is ireland ready for a Gay president" stuff if though that's the only reason you'd be against Norris, but the nature of the campaign against him is beginning to back fire into us (progressive non homophobes) v them (religious fundamentalist nutjobs). Which is a pretty bad state of affairs for demoracy.
You've hit the nail on the head Macy, what is the point about "is Ireland ready for a gay President", that's not even an issue and I believe that it's a purely meeja creation, the same as "is Ireland mature enough for the Queen to visit", it's not the point. The point is that we've go to move on with getting the country working and prospering, not about what our leaders choose for their lifestyle.
I know from my own family that my Mam (who is very liberal and always thinks for herself) won't vote for Norris because she doesn't believe he would be the best Ambassador for Ireland. My Dad (who is liberal but a strong Catholic) will vote for him because he knows the man and says that this would be the ultimate reward for his work and also be a great person to represent Ireland. Anybody with a brain will make their own decision, the meeja will do their best to push more sales and get more advertising, though he needs to be a lot more intelligent in how he handles his campaign.
It's hardly the biggest smear campaign ever. Mr Norris did say what it's reported he said. But he's running for president, if he said Bohs were a crap football team it would be brought up and discussed. Best option at this stage might be to convince people that his views have changed in the 7 to 10 years, but Mr Norris has never apologised for anything he's said, very arrogent and non diplomatic.
Pat Cox is now now the bookies favorite massive change in just a week. Liberal elites v Religious conservatism is just too simplistic a view in modern day Ireland. Neither would have enough votes on their own to elect a president. From the people I have been talking with, single people seem to show some empity towards the Mr. Norris situation, people with a family seem to be showing serious caution with his statements, they seem creeped-out, will cost him votes and transfers (I'm talking in general here).
Can't wait to hear the tape it will show who's telling the truth.
The story has been doing the Internet rounds for months, so there's no doubt that the essentials are true, very suspicious though that the tape hasn't been handed over, after all the country hardly lacks cassette players. Doesn't seem to have affected his ratings - a poll yesterday had him on 39%, double Cox's numbers, he'll need to be more circumspect in his dealings. McGuinness is probably the best placed FG candidate in that she'll pick up rural and urban votes, so could sneak a win on transfers, just think Cox has too much PD and European baggage to win the nomination. The latest name mentioned is Niall O'Dowd, the Irish-American newspaper editor, but would have thought he's wasting his time.
Not sure polls are that valid at this stage - for example I'd take it had Cox and McGuinness on it, when they both won't be running.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
Question - leaving side David Norris private life and his general enjoyment and articulate banter he gives on tv and radio etc, what qualifies him for this role ? This is not a rhetorical question - I genuinely don't know what his qualifications or credentials for this role are ?
I love listening to him - and he adds to the general gaiety (sic) of the nation and is articulate and intelligent. But by that rationale, half of the posters on this forum should be candidates......so if anybody knows him, please outline his credentials
Having said that, McAleese had no stand out credentials and has been superb in the role
I'd say the people who voted for her would not agree, or am I taking you out of context?:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
TBH Roy Keane or Shane Mc Gowan have better credentials than Mr. Norris.
wow:oQuote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Angus, you've asked the questions that the meeja should be asking, but won't as they won't sell adverts!Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Why would I vote for DN, what has he done?
1. He was a leader in the fight to save Wood Quay. He, along with Mary Robinson and John Bradley, and FX Martin, lay down in front of bulldozers and were kicked senseless in the bid to get them out of the way. He spoke massive amounts of sense about how we were destroying the past for future generations and how short term gain was killing long term profit. Also he was one of those who pointed out that the destruction of the most significant Viking settlement in the World did not have to be destroyed so completely.
2. He asked questions in the Seanaid in 1989-90 formally complaining about the shenanigans (his words) of the then DPP in relation to sex abuse cases in a major North Dublin Primary and Secondary School. He challenged the CB's to come forward with explanations and went so far as to go to the Gardai in the area to register a complaint.
3. He has been involved in a number of very charitable causes and not been seen to do so. I can name 2 that can be followed up on including the right for women to be allowed box (anyone who went to NUI Maynooth between 1997-99 can verify this). The second was in raising funds for an animal shelter in Ashtown.
4. Academically, while narrowly published, he is very respected abroad, in the Centre of Irish Studies in Voronezh a number of his papers are used for end of year tests - I always said that if you can understand what the heck he's on about then you get a 1st class honour!
I believe he is a decent person, who needs to calm himself down, who can be a great ambassador for Ireland and who can really help our economy. However I do fear that his chance has gone and we'll be stuck with a party animal, but not the good Road Trip kind.
You could add campaigning for the decriminalisation of homosexuality and preserving Georgian Dublin, and being an internationally regarded Joycean scholar.
I think people are more concerned about the flip side of the coin.
It's getting worse for Mr. Norris.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1OXa4NJAT
Agreed on Georgian Dublin, though he was one of a larger group. The homosexuality issue was one where he proved that there was a general groundswell in support for changes in the law, though I always hesitate in commending in fully for it as there have been rumours of "outing" that seemed to put pressure on people. I say rumours as I have never seen anything substantiated and in cases such as this there is always idle gossip.
The Daily Mail.... A thoroughly absorbing paper...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
In fairness to her she's an able spokesperson, but her experiences are such that impartiality is impossible (and lest anyone think I'm having a go at her, I had three uncles who spent some years in in the similarly tender care of this state) and the Mail doesn't let bias get in the way of a juicy story.
I know some say there's no smoke without fire, but my mother had a saying for the delusional: "'twill be a grand fire when it lights," said the monkey pi55ing in the snow.
Until I hear the recorded interview, I'm keeping an open mind. The longer it goes on without hearing it, the more sceptical I become.
And there was me expecting the Mail to be fully behind Norris. Case closed, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
As mentioned, the daily mail!!!!!:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
If you read the article Norris explains most of his viewpoints quite well. There's an argument regarding sexual maturity and the age at which consent can be considered as key to a sexual encounter. The fact that the legal age of consent varies greatly from place to place gives legitimacy to the arguement. His defence of O'Searchaigh comes down to the fact that he was being subjected to a trial by media which had little reference to fact or legality. Norris may be guilty of speaking too freely for someone with ambitions to become president but, liberal, intellectual debate is very different to condoning child sexual abuse.
So that's the sindo, indo, IT, BT, MoS who are anti Norris. I'm sure more can and will be added to the list.
People who don't understand where Mr Norris is coming from are Farmers from down the country, breakfast roll eaters, white van drivers and blocklayers.
Miss Buckley, 64, says she was left completely bewildered and betrayed by the man who had supported her in her quest for justice for the victims of clerical abuse.
You have got to ask yourself way?
Far from an open and shut case!
^^^ Is that a puzzle? Are we supposed to rearrange the words or something?
Sorry, something wrong with my netbook since I came back from France, i edited it, HTH.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
With the exception of John Waters, who is involved in the issue and finding the anger now that he didn’t appear to have a decade ago to denounce Norris (speaks volumes for the moral courage of our columnists!) I think the IT editorial line has been to call for clarification, and not at all condemnatory. INM Sindo/Indo is notoriously contrarian, and generally takes a line in favour of the incumbent government as long as it is in its best interests to do so (expect columns lionising Pat Cox if he gets the FG nod) and the Mail is a rag masquerading as a mid-market tabloid. Your sources are seriously lacking in credibility and impartiality - you have got to ask yourself why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
If this was really going to have legs, it would have had them by now; the Sunday papers had a week to prepare exclusives and shock stories. Where were they? More to the point, where are the pol corr heavyweights, not the columnists and regular staffers, in all of this? The questions I’m asking are why HLB and John Waters only remembered this now, not before any of the Seanad campaigns Norris contested. And who jogged HLB’s memory in the first place?
Answer the question, why has Miss Buckley issues with Mr.Norris?
"experiences are such that impartiality is impossible" = Waffle, I would think the exact opposite.
If the local teacher or priest made Mr Norris comments I don't think it would blow over after a while.
Hurt Locker - do you know what it means to hurt? Because I'll tell you: I don't. I can't begin to imagine it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
Do you want me to spell out the kind of experiences that she would have suffered? Or my uncles? FFS, we don't need to go into details about the rape and the beatings and the near starvation to understand that once you're exposed to that level of torture it takes an exceptional kind of person, a Mandela if you will, to move beyond it and become impartial. Do you think you have what it takes? I know I don't. My uncles were destroyed by it: their lives were dominated by alcoholism and despair and broken marriages, and a feeling that they had done wrong and deserved their punishment (for fecking apples and turnips to give to their mother, abandoned by a drunken husband in 1950s Holy Ireland). Can you believe that? For forty years Uncle R felt he deserved to be "touched" by a priest in a borstal. They have (had; one passed away last year in his early 60s) an inability to forgive the Church for what was done to them, and their views on these issues are coloured by their experiences. My point was that she has had similar issues, and while she may have made a better life for herself than other survivors of abuse, any right-minded person would conclude that she is less likely to have an impartial view of the Norris interview than people who have never been exposed to violence. It doesn't mean her view is wrong; it's just partial.
Obviously it's different - He's not in a position of power or trust of children though, and he doesn't have a history of hiding/ facilitate abusers like the Church did (does?) in parishes and schools. Even if was president, he wouldn't have direct access to children, if the comments somehow make him a danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
Hurt = physical damage to the body caused by violence, psychological suffering the death of somebody. Yes I know what hurt is. Don't be so condesending. Impartiality is the word you used.
I'm firmly with Miss Buckley on her comments.
Obvious some people can make comments and others can't. Can't see the lodgic in that!
Nobody's preventing you from voicing your opinions (apart from your less than considered contribution that not unreasonably ended up in the Rubbish forum) although from a quick scan through this thread you seem to be marching to your own drum, with very few followers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
Pursuing the Norris thing now seems like flogging a dead horse. The media have lost interest in the story; new candidates are raising their heads above the parapet - Gay Mitchell is making interesting noises, Niall O'Dowd has been mentioned - and maybe the story needs to move on to new pastures.
Attack the post not the poster!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
I'm not looking for followers.
Pat Cox is the man to watch, that's why he's the bookies favorite. It's FG's to lose now.
As for the "some people can make comments " reference, I was reffering to Norris v Teacher or Priest scenario.
I have no issues with Hamster giving me a warning, it was worth it.
As Mr. Norris knows when your explaining your losing!
Mr. Norris walked into his own selfmade sh1tstorm, get over it. It's basicly going to cost him, from a seemingly run away position.
As was explained earlier, Cox's political history makes it extremely unlikely he'd win FG's nomination, let alone become President - McGuinness could perform well, but still think it's between Higgins and Norris. As EG says, the story is running out of steam, any book on Ancient Greece or Greek mythology pretty much backs up what he intended to say, even if it was foolish to go off on an intellectual meandering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt Locker
Cox applied to join the FG party in Cork last night. Why did FG MEP Sean Kelly withdraw?Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
Cox wouldn't bother joining FG, unless he was in with a real shout of the nomination, imo. There's enough credible candidates that have ruled themselves out in FG. Not sure what Gay Mitchell is thinking - maybe a gay candidate upset his base.