Can Norris be President?

RandomName2

Rebelheart wrote: »

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.

Your views are so wrong headed I wouldn't know where to start. The fact that you are using an nineteenth century term is perhaps indicative that it would take two hundred years to explain to you what is and is not reality.

Denerick

Rebelheart needs to read some history. One of the most famous Irish croppies was Lord Edward Fitzgerald, a co. Kildare aristocrat (Protestant) and the most famous United Irishman of his day.

RandomName2

Denerick wrote: »

Rebelheart needs to read some history. One of the most famous Irish croppies was Lord Edward Fitzgerald, a co. Kildare aristocrat (Protestant) and the most famous United Irishman of his day.

Not to mention that the United Irishmen as a whole were Protestant 'Colonialists' sheesh.

Having 'colonialists' such as Molly Keane burned out of their homes is part of the unfortunate history of our country ... along with the 'mysterious' decrease in Protestant percentage of the population following independence.

imme

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

given his open homosexuality

when did this happen:eek:

Rebelheart

Denerick wrote: »

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.

But of course it should be linked to the glorification of naive, foolish, misguided and blinkered cannonfodder (at best) who went out to die for the British Empire and the herrenvolk aims of British imperialism. Well done, Denerick. You're not Robin Bury, Derek Simpson or Ruth Dudley Edwards by chance?

Denerick wrote: »

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

The only thing that's speaking there is yet another need for a reference to support your claims.

Denerick wrote: »

Rebelheart needs to read some history. One of the most famous Irish croppies was Lord Edward Fitzgerald, a co. Kildare aristocrat (Protestant) and the most famous United Irishman of his day.

Not really. The words "by and large" actually have a meaning akin to "generally". You should discover that meaning. Saying that many of the leaders of the United Irishmen were not Catholic is not really news to anybody beyond Junior Cert history so you can stop patting your back there with that brainwave. And it might be advisable in future, before trying to claim historical exactitude, to avoid equating the United Irishmen with the croppies. They were not synonymous, with many Defenders executed for being croppies. Most of the Defenders, as with the ordinary United Irishmen, were Catholic and their membership had a very strong crossover in many areas.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your views are so wrong headed I wouldn't know where to start. The fact that you are using an nineteenth century term is perhaps indicative that it would take two hundred years to explain to you what is and is not reality.

If you're seriously contending that the word 'croppy' derives from the nineteenth century, rather than being a contemporary term for those who fought against the British during 1798 and who had a cropped haircut in sympathy with the French revolution, then I just don't know what you're reading for your "history".

So, girls: must do better in history class.

Rebelheart

RandomName2 wrote: »

along with the 'mysterious' decrease in Protestant percentage of the population following independence.

Are you taking the piss?

baalthor

Rebelheart wrote: »

Does anybody here have any evidence of Norris's views on the leaders of the 1916 Rising?.

Well, that is the key question ...

Using the power of Google, I searched for David Norris 1916 and David Norris terrorists 1916.

And this is what I found:

Feb 28, 2010:
The above mentioned "Irish" Sunday Times article

Mar 6, 2010
A post on politics.ie repeating the allegations from the article

June 25, 2010
A comment on cedarlounge also repeating the allegation

But nothing from the man himself except this excerpt from the Indo where he complains that the gay heroes of 1916 were not commemorated in the centenary celebrations.

Although, here he does refer to "terrorists" of a more recent vintage ...

I also searched the Seanad debates. Norris has made a vast amount of speeches but among the quotes I found from him about 1916 was this one from 1988:

I wish — I am sure the Minister will share this wish with me — that the Easter Proclamation of 1916 had been incorporated into the Constitution of this country, that we would have very clearly on the record the noble [980] declaration of Padraig Pearse, that this country would cherish all the children of the nation equally

So, the only place I could find where Norris is alleged to describe the 1916 leaders as terrorists is the original article from the Sunday Times which people on the web are already repeating as truth.

Of course, maybe Norris has described the 1916 men as terrorists, not everything is on the web, but you might expect views that are "oft articulated" to appear somewhere on-line.

You might also expect the author of the article to offer a source (or even sources) for these "oft articulated" views. But we don't even know who the author of the anonymous profile is ...

Reading back over the article, it is a bit of a sly hatchet job but who knows, maybe the Murdochacracy might have a slight issue with the very liberal,Pro Palestinian, anti-war, anti-war-on-terror, anti-Shell, outspoken critic of Bush, Blair and their policies becoming President of Ireland.

Denerick

Rebelheart wrote: »

But of course it should be linked to the glorification of naive, foolish, misguided and blinkered cannonfodder (at best) who went out to die for the British Empire and the herrenvolk aims of British imperialism. Well done, Denerick. You're not Robin Bury, Derek Simpson or Ruth Dudley Edwards by chance?

How did you conclude that? Opposing Republican fascism and elitism does not make me an apologist for the British Empire. It must be so tiring to be so consumed by ideology that you've completely lost your ability to reason.

The only thing that's speaking there is yet another need for a reference to support your claims.

Meh.

Not really. The words "by and large" actually have a meaning akin to "generally". You should discover that meaning. Saying that many of the leaders of the United Irishmen were not Catholic is not really news to anybody beyond Junior Cert history so you can stop patting your back there with that brainwave.

Given your sectarian comment, it appeared that you did not know that the majority of the United Irish leadership were Protestant. I was worried that you dropped out of history at Junior Cert level. Luckily I was wrong, as your bigoted sentance was merely a reflex on your part and not a sign of a gap in historical knowledge.

And it might be advisable in future, before trying to claim historical exactitude, to avoid equating the United Irishmen with the croppies. They were not synonymous, with many Defenders executed for being croppies. Most of the Defenders, as with the ordinary United Irishmen, were Catholic and their membership had a very strong crossover in many areas.

All kinds of derogatory adjectives were used to describe captured rebels; most of the rank and file outside Ulster being Catholic. Thus contemporary publications had croppies and catholics as synonomous as the vast majority of United Irishmen and Defenders were indeed Catholic (The exception of course in Ulster were they were mainly Presbyterian)

Your point is meaningless in the sense that it says absolutely nothing of value

So, girls: must do better in history class.

Finishing a point with a sexist insult is the best way to prove to people that you are not a stereotypically boorish and aggressive Republican caricature. Well done. Next thing you'll be calling us West British Protestants or something.

Denerick

Rebelheart wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

25% of the Protestant population disappeared between the 1911 and 1926 census. The catholic population declined by around 4%.

Coincidence?

Personally I think its more likely that they fled because Republicans were burning their homes and killing their friends.

gbee

Rebelheart wrote: »

If you're seriously contending that the word 'croppy' derives from the nineteenth century, rather than being a contemporary term for those who fought against the British during 1798

You'll find that anecdotes and popular names can reverse their meaning, depending on the place, the history, the author.

But the croppy boy has to be taken to mean the republican version, made famous by the song of the same name.

This writes a new history, this may or may not be correct in factual analysis, but the meaning is for the 'intent' that has taken popularity from the song, and not a history book.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes they can be condoned. Those men where heroes, and went out to die in the hope to inspire others. No other description for them other than heroes.

I can think of another description for them. Firstly it is nuanced, not some part of a Republican hagiography. They were men (and one woman), very and deeply flawed men. Their 'philosophy' had engaged in the marketplace of ideas for at least 50 years, to no avail or popular support. What do you do when nobody agree's with you? Accept that you may be wrong? Endeavour to persuade them peacefully?

Or take up arms against a regime most Irish people were indifferent to, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, and the destruction of central Dublin? I've said it for ages now, that if the Irish hadn't have lost their sense of humour for a couple of years in the early 20th century these bufoons would have been mocked with impunity.

Heroes? Cretinous imbeciles more like. And thats my nuanced view.

goose2005

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would be ashamed if someone like Norris became president. Someone who regards the founders of this state as terrorists and a guy who desperately wants to rejoin the commonwealth.

The founders of this state were the Irish people - all of them. Would you hold it against David Cameron if he saw the founders of his state as bloodthirsty medieval warlords? As for the Commonwealth, what harm would it do to forge a few more international links and to show we're over the Four Green Fields stuff?

goose2005

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Those men where heroes, and went out to die in the hope to inspire others. No other description for them other than heroes.

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers go out to die in order to inspire others and strike fear into the enemy? Dying doesn't make you right.

timespast

goose2005 wrote: »

The founders of this state were the Irish people - all of them. Would you hold it against David Cameron if he saw the founders of his state as bloodthirsty medieval warlords? As for the Commonwealth, what harm would it do to forge a few more international links and to show we're over the Four Green Fields stuff?

Given we are in the EU and a sizeable % of Tories want out of the EU. Why don't they forge more credible international links within the EU instead of a mickey mouse organisation headed by Liz II?

RandomName2

Rebelheart wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

Of you: perhaps. But in this case it would be easy to work you up by just speaking the truth. If it wasn't so off topic I would, by periphrastic means get you to justify the Enniskillen bombing, but you're doing that off your own bat anyway. It's kind of like goading people who believe that the Earth was created 4,000 years ago. It's cruel, and without the benefit of being able to make them see sense. I suppose when goading republicans you would want to be out of Armalite range, though.

RandomName2

goose2005 wrote: »

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers go out to die in order to inspire others and strike fear into the enemy? Dying doesn't make you right.

This is such a funny line to end up in a discussion concerning the electability of a gay, protestant, ex-Trinity lecturer, media mogul to a token public position.

Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart!

timespast

Denerick wrote: »

I can think of another description for them. Firstly it is nuanced, not some part of a Republican hagiography. They were men (and one woman), very and deeply flawed men. Their 'philosophy' had engaged in the marketplace of ideas for at least 50 years, to no avail or popular support. What do you do when nobody agree's with you? Accept that you may be wrong? Endeavour to persuade them peacefully?

Or take up arms against a regime most Irish people were indifferent to, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, and the destruction of central Dublin? I've said it for ages now, that if the Irish hadn't have lost their sense of humour for a couple of years in the early 20th century these bufoons would have been mocked with impunity.

Heroes? Cretinous imbeciles more like. And thats my nuanced view.

Would you accept that all who died in WWI were cretinous imbeciles?

Denerick

timespast wrote: »

Would you accept that all who died in WWI were cretinous imbeciles?

Tongue in cheek? You understand, yes?

How you can equate the quixotic uprising of 2,000 people with a continental war gripping all of the major players is beyond me.

timespast

Denerick wrote: »

Tongue in cheek? You understand, yes?

How you can equate the quixotic uprising of 2,000 people with a continental war gripping all of the major players is beyond me.

These achieved within a few years independence of sort that led to a sovereign state.....as did so many other countries.

Millions died in WWI because imperialist countries were fighting it out again.

In Ireland it was stupid (according to you) yet a few here (particularly in the media) think it was even more glorious to watch men being mown down in their thousands in WWI.

Id have more respect for your opinion if you were against the folly of death etc. but I suspect you're just scoring points.

I had a Great Grandfather who was in the old IRA and a Grandfather who served in WWII....equally proud of both.

I've had your opinion...Im bored now...time to move on.

Shea O'Meara

The Presidency is a mix of 'Who cares?' and a popularity contest. I doubt he has much chance due to his annoying accent. I think he would make a decent job of it, but I can't see a lot of people get past his voice more so than his sexuality.
On a side note, Finlay could be good, but he seems to have a record of commiting to something then backing off after a period. He'll most likely never appear on any ballot.
There may be a surge in interest in this race as people are hungry to voice their opinion and there being no election on the horizon (untill FFail feel we are war weary with things) we may see an increase in turn out for this race.

JonJoeDali

Peppapig wrote: »

Well as I said, I doesn't bother me who is president, the fact that Norris is gay would enrage many homphobic people in Ireland. Is it wrong that for me to want this? No.

Fair play to ye. Nobody ever said democracy was perfect.

evenmicheal

Think he can, Catholic Church is so badly damaged a lot of people will see him as a break from the past and a sign off a new secular modern Ireland. He seems the most interesting candidate at the moment.

Jeboa Safari

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

t, but I can't see a lot of people get past his voice more so than his sexuality.

This, one big reason I wouldn't vote for him is because he's so loud and hyper. If he got to be president we'd have to listen to him even more and he wouldn't know when to shut up.

Rebelheart

Denerick wrote: »

Given your sectarian comment...your bigoted sentance ....

And what sectarian and bigoted "sentance" would that be now? The one in response to your fellow unionist's (unsubstantiated) claim that "Protestants" were lynched in Ireland? Please try and be precise in your response.

Denerick wrote: »

it appeared that you did not know that the majority of the United Irish leadership were Protestant.

Perhaps you shouldn't judge everybody else's knowledge of Irish history to be as lowly as your own rather undergraduate knowledge which equated the United Irishmen with all participants on the Irish side.

Denerick wrote: »

the vast majority of United Irishmen and Defenders were indeed Catholic (The exception of course in Ulster were they were mainly Presbyterian)

Most of the Defenders in Ulster were not Presbyterian. This is basic. For one so sure of his historical knowledge your inability to distinguish between the United Irishmen and Defenders in Ulster belies your claims to historical reliability. If you were aware of why they were called Defenders you wouldn't have made this mistake.

Denerick wrote: »

25% of the Protestant population disappeared between the 1911 and 1926 census. The catholic population declined by around 4%. Coincidence?

Personally I think its more likely that they fled because Republicans were burning their homes and killing their friends.

Your "statistics" are, to be kind, not precise. It would have taken you a moment to get more accurate statistics but you didn't bother. So much for your claim to be a historian.

Nevertheless, of course this decline had nothing to do with a large number of that population being misguided idiots who went and died for the British Empire in World War 1? Or that 25% of the figure can be accounted for by the withdrawal of the British garrison in 1922? Or that the decline was greater in the cities and urban centres than it was in rural Ireland? Or that they had a lower marriage rate? Or lower fertility rates? Or the greater effect of their (albeit lower) emigration rate on their community? No, we wouldn't want to let historical facts and complexity interfere with your understanding of a multifaceted historical issue when you can resort with greater ease to atavism.

Have you read a single book on this issue? Or did you merely fleetingly google Wesley Johnston's homepage some years ago and accept it all?

In a nutshell what you "personally" feel/think on this issue is irrelevant. Try and do some historical research before the next bout of recidivistic anti-Irishness that passes as your posting here.

Rebelheart

gbee wrote: »

But the croppy boy has to be taken to mean the republican version, made famous by the song of the same name.

This writes a new history, this may or may not be correct in factual analysis, but the meaning is for the 'intent' that has taken popularity from the song, and not a history book.

It doesn't, and it isn't. 'Croppy' was, despite the claim by RandomName2, widely used during the 1798 uprising by loyalists to describe many of the insurgents but also to describe many of the people within the loyalist community who tried to mollify and moderate actions within that community.

One minute I'm being accused of not knowing my history and the next I'm being accused of not basing my understanding of history on a song. :rolleyes:

IrishTonyO

Biggins wrote: »

GOOD!!!

Maybe then we can have a President that can think for themselves and thus open their mouths without having to grovel and ask permission to speak.

That is not the role of the Irish president

Rebelheart

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ireland did a great job lynching Protestants.

Still waiting for you to back up this "sectarian" and "bigoted" sentence. Or is it beyond your intellectual capacity to rely on something other than your anti-Irish prejudices?

Rebelheart

baalthor wrote: »

Well, that is the key question ...

Using the power of Google, I searched for David Norris 1916 and David Norris terrorists 1916.

And this is what I found:

Feb 28, 2010:
The above mentioned "Irish" Sunday Times article

Mar 6, 2010
A post on politics.ie repeating the allegations from the article

June 25, 2010
A comment on cedarlounge also repeating the allegation

But nothing from the man himself except this excerpt from the Indo where he complains that the gay heroes of 1916 were not commemorated in the centenary celebrations.

Although, here he does refer to "terrorists" of a more recent vintage ...

I also searched the Seanad debates. Norris has made a vast amount of speeches but among the quotes I found from him about 1916 was this one from 1988:
So, the only place I could find where Norris is alleged to describe the 1916 leaders as terrorists is the original article from the Sunday Times which people on the web are already repeating as truth.

Of course, maybe Norris has described the 1916 men as terrorists, not everything is on the web, but you might expect views that are "oft articulated" to appear somewhere on-line.

You might also expect the author of the article to offer a source (or even sources) for these "oft articulated" views. But we don't even know who the author of the anonymous profile is ...

Reading back over the article, it is a bit of a sly hatchet job but who knows, maybe the Murdochacracy might have a slight issue with the very liberal,Pro Palestinian, anti-war, anti-war-on-terror, anti-Shell, outspoken critic of Bush, Blair and their policies becoming President of Ireland.

Thank you, Baalthor, for that research. It seems that, as things stand, certain people are trying to discredit David Norris.

timespast wrote: »

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).

Good work; never thought of doing that. We'll have our answer soon enough then.

Rebelheart

RandomName2 wrote: »

Funny how Norris' religion isn't really an issue, rather his sexuality; I suppose Childers got us over that taboo.

I suppose you've never heard of Dubhghlas de hÍde or was he too Irish to be a "real" Protestant in your eyes?

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

How, like, "enlightened" of you to praise somebody who allegedly condemns Irish nationalist battles but who then commemorates British nationalist battles.

This, I think, is the most irritating part of Irish nationalism. If you're not willing to hold the 1916 risers as good then you're automatically a British Imperialist sympathiser who believes in fighting wars and oppressing the weak. It is apparently incomprehensible that one could condemn both the 1916 Rising and the First World War.