Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can Norris be President?

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Almost every war has acts of terrorism contained within them.

    So you condone the killing of Irish Citizens who's views and acts were not in line with views of the volunteers ? That is terrorism in anybody's book. Of course you seem to condone that, and deem it justifiable.
    Depends entirely on the circumstances doesn't it?


  • Options
    #63
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    vandammaged wrote: »
    I would vote for Norris no problem.
    He might change the way Ireland feels about Gay People.

    I've already said I'd vote for Norris, but I'd NOT vote for him for your reasoning.

    The man maybe gay, but pining gays hopes on him will lose him an opportunity for sure.

    He's an intelligent, well qualified figure and IMO the only president [potential] since Mary Robinson.


  • Options
    #64
    Gone West
    Registered Users Posts: 6,374 ✭✭✭Gone West


    who, exactly in the seanad are his "mates"?


  • Options
    #65
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    vandammaged wrote: »
    I would vote for Norris no problem.

    He might change the way Ireland feels about Gay People.

    But Knowing Irish people and and we always vote the wrong person in.

    I could see Ireland vote Bertie In cause that's prob whats going to happen.
    Thats right, vote for the man because he is gay.



    What would you say if I said I was going to vote for someone else because they are straight?


  • Options
    #66
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Depends entirely on the circumstances doesn't it?

    So then you can justify the attempts of Jihadists on the basis of "circumstances" i.e. that Christians are "infidels" and that the only way the World can be saved is to wipe us out. You could also seek to justify countless tyrannical acts on the basis of "circumstances"

    The killing of civilians who were not in line with their thinking equates to terrorism. If they were not going to help the volunteers, they were sure as hell not going to stop them. These were murders.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Het-Field wrote: »
    These were murders.

    Yes, unfortunately well documented in the very long civil war threads on boards. Much opportunism to 'get even' was taken advantage of.


  • Options
    #68
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Het-Field wrote: »
    So then you can justify the attempts of Jihadists on the basis of "circumstances" i.e. that Christians are "infidels" and that the only way the World can be saved is to wipe us out. You could also seek to justify countless tyrannical acts on the basis of "circumstances"

    The killing of civilians who were not in line with their thinking equates to terrorism. If they were not going to help the volunteers, they were sure as hell not going to stop them. These were murders.

    No. If they decided to "ethnically cleanse" Dublin of those who disagreed with them you would have a point.

    Yawn. TBH I have had this debate a hundred times and have little interest in having it again, especially when it is OT.


  • Options
    #69
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

    I've heard it all now! Are you/they working for some nascent David Norris electoral campaign? (good job, if you/they are)

    Yes, we must beware the sensitivities of every troglodyte that lands on our island and try and lower the entire tone just to accommodate them. Be on your guard, mná na hÉireann! You will soon have no right to show your faces because you might offend one of the aforementioned cavemen.

    Who are these newcomers that they (seemingly, at any rate) expect the Irish to change everything to suit them? The English? I can see Ireland's going to have a bright future if this "accommodate every foreign fanatic in Ireland" trend isn't nipped in the bud gan mhoill.


  • Options
    #70
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    No. If they decided to "ethnically cleanse" Dublin of those who disagreed with them you would have a point.

    Yawn. TBH I have had this debate a hundred times and have little interest in having it again, especially when it is OT.

    Leaving the semantics aside, the principle remains. One group of people failed to see things in the same light as the insurgents. As a result, they ended up dead. I think you will be able to draw a parallel between the mentalities of both parties.

    Of course you are tired of this debate. You are tired of having your beliefs shaken on a consistent basis.


  • Options
    #71
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Leaving the semantics aside, the principle remains. One group of people failed to see things in the same light as the insurgents. As a result, they ended up dead. I think you will be able to draw a parallel between the mentalities of both parties.

    Of course you are tired of this debate. You are tired of having your beliefs shaken on a consistent basis.

    My beliefs shaken? You obviously dont know me at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    So who'd ye vote for?


  • Options
    #73
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    gbee wrote: »
    So who'd ye vote for?

    I'd vote to abolish this pompous, affected pointless position - surpassed only by Seanad Éireann in terms of pointlessness (but the Seanad wins hands down in terms of waste, corruption, cronyism and general robbery of taxpayers).


  • Options
    #74
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I think the best reason to vote for Norris is that it will be giving the two fingers to regressive homophobic regimes.

    Amen brotha'!

    I had a bit of an argument with my father about this the other day. He said to me that that weirdo Norris is running for President. I asked why is he a weirdo?

    He's gay, of course!

    Nothing would infuriate this generation of Irish people more than to have a big Queen sitting in Arás an Uachterain. For that reason Norris will certainly get my vote.


  • Options
    #75
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    REPSOC1916 wrote: »
    Death is the price you pay for treason.

    Stupidity is the price you pay for groupthink.


  • Options
    #76
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    My beliefs shaken? You obviously dont know me at all.

    Well, you have deliberate lywalked away from our discussion, without rebutting any of my points. I can only assume you are shaken.


  • Options
    #77
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    What about electing Sea The Stars president of Ireland? I'm sure a hoof pint will suffice for a signature.


  • Options
    #78
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Yes he has. Take his times profile, that goes into his "oft articulated view that the men of 1916 were terrorists"

    Should a man like that oversee the centenary of the rising?

    It's no surprise that he would see it that way. He is a Protestant after all - and Ireland did a great job lynching Protestants and burning their homes in the wake of the great conflagration wrought by those that abandoned politics and took up arms.

    Funny how Norris' religion isn't really an issue, rather his sexuality; I suppose Childers got us over that taboo. However, I wish that Norris wasn't so loud about his sexual oreintation... or his other views.. or just in general, really.


  • Options
    #79
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Well, you have deliberate lywalked away from our discussion, without rebutting any of my points. I can only assume you are shaken.
    As I said it is OT and I am not in the mood to have that debate for the umpteenth time.


  • Options
    #80
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    David Norris' views on the Easter Rising are irrelevant. At most 0.1% of people passionately care about it, the majority just go along with this little Irelanderism. Republicans then get the wrong idea that people actually care.


  • Options
    #81
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Denerick wrote: »
    David Norris' views on the Easter Rising are irrelevant. At most 0.1% of people passionately care about it, the majority just go along with this little Irelanderism. Republicans then get the wrong idea that people actually care.
    The biggest thing that the next president will be doing is overseeing the celebrations of a hundred years since the rising, so how are his views on said men irrelevant?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    As I said it is OT and I am not in the mood to have that debate for the umpteenth time.

    Is that the best excuse you can come up with to defend the acts in Jacobs or Rogerstown ?


  • Options
    #83
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Well, I believe he holds the 1916 risers to be terrorists. Another reason to vote for him! :D
    timespast wrote: »
    As for 1916.....if he or you are being serious then thats made my mind up.
    These same people seem to have no problem with lionising those from WWI.
    REPSOC1916 wrote: »
    I don't think Norris made that comment about the men and women of '16 but he has been associated with the Reform Group, which is a "ridiculous unionist ginger group" as the Phoenix Magazine describes them, and he has called on the 26 counties to rejoin the commonwealth something which would irritate Republicans and voters along the border.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Yes he has. Take his times profile, that goes into his "oft articulated view that the men of 1916 were terrorists"

    Should a man like that oversee the centenary of the rising?


    Does anybody here have any evidence of Norris's views on the leaders of the 1916 Rising? Or that he is supportive, or even associated with, those poppy-wearing apologists for British imperialism in Robin Bury's so-called Reform Movement?

    Until Eliot Rosewater or anybody else produces that evidence it's unfair to slander David Norris like this.


  • Options
    #84
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    A typical response to anyone who has the gall to question the nationalist scheme of history

    How, like, "enlightened" of you to praise somebody who allegedly condemns Irish nationalist battles but who then commemorates British nationalist battles. When you are willing to question the British "nationalist scheme of history", as represented in poppy-wearing, and the glorification of naivity, idiocy and imperial warmongering (fights for "freedom", it appears) you might be on firmer ground with your avowed opposition to "nationalist" thinking.


  • Options
    #85
    The Raven.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    However, I wish that Norris wasn't so loud about his sexual oreintation...

    +1

    It is not the fact that he is gay. It is the persistent 'in your face' attitude that he has about it. Who the hell cares about his sexual persuasion? I am sick to death hearing about it! It is ironic that his high court action against the State was based on a claim that the law infringed on his right to privacy to have consensual sex with a male. In private is where it belongs!

    If heterosexual politicians kept harping on about their sexuality they would very quickly be told where to go!


  • Options
    #86
    Callan57
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭Callan57


    baalthor wrote: »
    Presumably homosexual acts are illegal in these countries just like they were here until the 90s.

    Some of these countries also ban adultery; if they ever stop visits from foreign politicians guilty of that "crime", then the diplomatic calendar is going to be pretty empty :D

    That's a lot of places Wayne Rooney can't go ...


  • Options
    #87
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Denerick wrote: »
    David Norris' views on the Easter Rising are irrelevant. At most 0.1% of people passionately care about it

    Any statistics to back up that shíte? If Norris is claiming that those who fought for Irish freedom are "terrorists" while then allegedly commemorating those who fought for the British Empire then it very much is relevant to the man's integrity, honour, courage and indeed sense of Irishness.

    And he won't get elected if this alleged view is widely publicised. No doubt you thought the Blueshirts were smart back in 1997 when they - John Bruton and Nora Owen memorably so - questioned the Irishness of Mary McAleese and the electorate repelled against them giving McAleese the largest majority received in any Presidential election since the first one in 1945.


  • Options
    #88
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    He is a Protestant after all - and Ireland did a great job lynching Protestants

    Hmmm. Have you a reference for this?

    History 101 Hint: Croppies, those who hung from the croppy tree, were by and large Catholic; Colonialists, those who hung them, were by and large Protestant.


  • Options
    #89
    timespast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭timespast


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Does anybody here have any evidence of Norris's views on the leaders of the 1916 Rising? Or that he is supportive, or even associated with, those poppy-wearing apologists for British imperialism in Robin Bury's so-called Reform Movement?

    Until Eliot Rosewater or anybody else produces that evidence it's unfair to slander David Norris like this.


    I've emailed David Norris on 1916 and joining the Commonwealth. (I always like to get it from the horse's mouth if possible)

    Unfortunately he's away from his office until the 22nd. (that's September by the way)

    I've been waiting 6 months for a reply from Gormley on another matter. I keep getting "Minister Gormley will get back to you A.S.A.P." So I won't be holding my breath.


  • Options
    #90
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

    Terrorism and war crimes are illegal in Ireland, yet we recieve foreign heads of state who have committed such acts with gusto.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Any statistics to back up that shíte? If Norris is claiming that those who fought for Irish freedom are "terrorists" while then allegedly commemorating those who fought for the British Empire then it very much is relevant to the man's integrity, honour, courage and indeed sense of Irishness.

    His sense of Irishness is and should not be linked to a glorification of a tiny group of elitists who believed they could murder and destroy the center of Dublin without any popular consent or legitimacy.

    Whether the Irish people actually care about the commemmoration of 1916 - or if they are shamed to do so by Republicans blabbing and whinging about 'the brave men of 1916' is something very much up for debate. It speaks for itself, however, that very few of the ordinary Irish person who claims to think 1916 was a brilliant event can name even more than two signatories of the proclomation of the Republic (To be fair, they usually get Connolly and Pearse right)


Advertisement