Can Norris be President?

sceptre

Too much mutual trading of insults and poster personalisation in this thread, some of you doing it multiple times. Kindly keep such behaviour restrained please.

/mod

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It is apparently incomprehensible that one could condemn both the 1916 Rising and the First World War.

Well, when one does not condemn the latter then one's professed ability to condemn it is all quite academic.

Eliot Rosewater

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Does that logic extend to a certain Bertie Ahearn too?

Of course it does. A rather poor logical fallacy, if I may say so. "Bertie Ahern knows everyone in the Oireachtas. Bertie Ahern is a bad man. Therefore, anyone who knows everyone in the Oireachats is a bad man."

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Did I say that?

Well, you insinuated such. You said that David Norris didn't talk about anything "that matter" for twenty years. Given that he's done a lot of talking about equal rights for homosexuals, one can only assume that you do not consider such rights to be something "that matter".

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And what he's been doing since or campaigning for since.

The little niggly matter of homosexuals not being in receipt of the same rights as heterosexuals; a matter you seem to have overlooked.

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

Well, when one does not condemn the latter then one's professed ability to condemn it is all quite academic.

But that's ridiculous! We're talking about David Norris' position on the 1916 Rising. Are you suggesting that every time I wish to criticise the 1916 Rising I should also have to add in a footnote criticising the British Empire? Even when such a statement of criticism is off-topic and, as such, against the forum charter?

Pat D. Almighty

Manach wrote: »

I'd be very interested in seeing his tactics in wooing the Catholic vote in a presidential race.

I don't think anyone cares about Catholic/Protestant differences in this part of the country.

SillyMcCarthy

lynski wrote: »

well polygamy is illegal here but you will find it practiced by the heads of some of those states.
David Norris is an honest, educated, brave Irish man, he would be a wonderful president for Ireland in the 20-teens.

What in the world makes D. Norris a brave man?
Does the fact that I'm straight make me a brave Irish man too?
Personally I believe that someone of his orientation should NOT
be representative of any country. There are too many of these
people on T.V. & radio! It's almost to gotten to the stage where
it fashionable to be..un-straight!:mad:

Denerick

Rebelheart wrote: »

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.

Why are you inventing stuff? I never said that.

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.

Again, I never said anything of the sort. I'm aware of the history of agrarian movements in Ireland in the 18th century. It was sloppy phrasing but you've chosen to interpret that I've said something that I clearly haven't.

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.

The statistics were off the top of my head from what I can recall, a very rough approximation. I'm not going to go googling to appease Republicans in an internet battle.

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.

Oh please. Of course some of the numbers can be accounted for by withdrawn British troops, the desertion of the remaining landowning class etc. etc. But next thing you're going to be telling us that no Protestants were burnt out during the war or the Civil War :rolleyes: Tom Barry admits as much in his memoir. No amount of sophistry will get away from that.

The Protestant decline can only partly be explained by lower fertility or marriage rates, but the statistics speak for themselves about the extent of Protestant emigration during these years. Many just upped and left. I don't understand how you can be so callous about this national tragedy.

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.

Its not my fault that you're deliberately misinterpreting my posts to serve your own narrative of Republican inevitability - a highly dishonest tactic, and very transparant.

Denerick

Rebelheart wrote:

Try and do some historical research before the next bout of recidivistic anti-Irishness that passes as your posting here.

I should also add that I find it interesting that Rebelheart associates anti-Republicanism with anti-Irishness.

I've said it before, the more you delve into the dark heart of Irish Republicanism the closer you come to the fascist, intolerant, obscuritan demon that lies beneath. It is a fundamentally authoritarian ideology. The insane bigoted old clown John Mitchel sums up the entire belief system. Insanity resting on a bed of mostly invented and exaggerated historical grief.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

I should also add that I find it interesting that Rebelheart associates anti-Republicanism with anti-Irishness.

I've said it before, the more you delve into the dark heart of Irish Republicanism the closer you come to the fascist, intolerant, obscuritan demon that lies beneath. It is a fundamentally authoritarian ideology. The insane bigoted old clown John Mitchel sums up the entire belief system. Insanity resting on a bed of mostly invented and exaggerated historical grief.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Dont forget to add some hyperbole to your posts chara.. oh wait...

Denerick

Thats not hyperbole. Rhetoric like Rebelheart's is too frequent to be mere coincidence. There is something sickly and unwell about Irish Republicanism, and there always has been.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

Thats not hyperbole. Rhetoric like Rebelheart's is too frequent to be mere coincidence. There is something sickly and unwell about Irish Republicanism, and there always has been.

And by extent Irish Republicans?

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And by extent Irish Republicans?

There are always exceptions.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

There are always exceptions.

That made me smile. You are a clever, slippery customer all right!

DeVore

I've had dealings with Norris during my time as a civil rights activist in TCD and I found him to be a very principled and brave person. I would be proud to have him as my president.

DeV.

kowloon

DeVore wrote: »

I found him to be a very principled and brave person. I would be proud to have him as my president.

Seconded, he seems like a genuine person and someone with decent values.
Some people find him loud and opinionated, but I don't see it as a problem. Loud gets heard, and can I help it if I find I almost always agree with what he says?

Nijmegen

I think Norris would be an interesting choice. However, one thing that does bug me and would be a campaign issue: He spoke out in support of Cathal O Searcaigh, the poet of Nepalese fame.

JonJoeDali

He has also campaigned for 16 year-olds being legally allowed to have sex with 60 year-olds.

People outside the Pale will never vote for a homosexual in the Aras.

IrishTonyO

JonJoeDali wrote: »

He has also campaigned for 16 year-olds being legally allowed to have sex with 60 year-olds.

People outside the Pale will never vote for a homosexual in the Aras.

I assume by that you mean lowering the age of consent to 16, as it is now, 17 year olds can have sex with any age, even 90 year olds if they want.

Nijmegen

Lowering the age is something divisive, but with relevant opinions on either side.

Supporting a man who had very questionable relationships with boys in Nepal is a bit different.

Uriel.

wobzilla1 wrote: »

That's a great way to use your vote. Let's vote for him just because he's gay. That's exactly what happened in the US with Obama

Obama is gay?

Uriel.

Realistically though what has Norriss done as such. The vast majoirty of his work is based around Local Issues, particularly TCD and the Gay rights issue, which while national, even international, which is an issue that in the grand scheme of things for the average citizen is down the list on practical priorities.

I would say he has zero chance of getting elected as it is a national vote. Nobody outside of Dublin cares much about what he does as such and the whole cathlic hang up on homosexuality leaves he down the pile. I just can't see the old generation of Fianna Fail voters 70+ voting for him to be honest.

I've met him once, terribly nice guy, great speaker and he is very passionate about his convictions but unfortunately I just don't see him being a serious contender.

Grolschevik

Denerick wrote: »

Nothing would infuriate this generation of Irish people more than to have a big Queen in the Arás

Would we not need a referendum to establish a monarchy, so?:)

MarkGrisham

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.

Arresting a head of state is a huge deal. If a country doesn't want international scrutiny, they won't dare.

Nijmegen

MarkGrisham wrote: »

Arresting a head of state is a huge deal. If a country doesn't want international scrutiny, they won't dare.

A head of state has immunity. He or she wouldn't travel if they didn't.

vandammaged

I;D rather norris then bertie

bijapos

A friend of mine was at a conference in UCC last Saturday on Women in Politics. Senator Mary White FF was there, in her profile for the conference notes she stated her intention to seek the FF nomination for President.

professore

IrishTonyO wrote: »

David Norris is far too outspoken to be president. As president he would have to be impartial in everything and keep his opinions to himself. I don't reckon he would be able to do this.

That's it .... why rock the boat ? The best strategy is to keep quiet and sweep it all under the carpet if you see any wrongdoing. That's the kind of attitude that has us as a nation in the mess we're in. Personally I think he would make an outstanding president.

professore

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

What in the world makes D. Norris a brave man?
Does the fact that I'm straight make me a brave Irish man too?
Personally I believe that someone of his orientation should NOT
be representative of any country. There are too many of these
people on T.V. & radio! It's almost to gotten to the stage where
it fashionable to be..un-straight!:mad:

Ooooh nooo .... this thread is making me gay !!!! Down with this kind of thing !!!! Who would have thought it - one of them there negroes president of the USA ... and now a sodomite trying to get into the ar(a)s ....

IrishTonyO

professore wrote: »

That's it .... why rock the boat ? The best strategy is to keep quiet and sweep it all under the carpet if you see any wrongdoing. That's the kind of attitude that has us as a nation in the mess we're in. Personally I think he would make an outstanding president.

That is the role of president of Ireland a non political one. It is not an attitude of mine it is what the role is. The role is a non-executive and non policy role and the president has to abide by the decisions of the government even regarding foreign trips they may take, they can only do so with the governments blessing

professore

From Wikipedia :

Norris describes himself as a human rights activist and he has campaigned against some of the actions of the United States during its 'war on terror', including the confinement of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay detention camp. He is also a strong critic of both loyalist and republican terrorism. Norris has observed some controversial Orange marches in Northern Ireland. In February 2010, Norris declared his interest to run in the next Irish presidential election.

I have heard this man speak on several occasions. Each time I am impressed by the clarity and straightforwardness of his answers, and the way he actually seems to have principles, contrasting strongly to the bull**** waffle and the changing with the wind we get from most of our leaders.

I might not agree with everything he says - although I must say I agree with a lot of it - but at least he is more of a man than any other politician out there. As for his sexual orientation, well a lot of the people who won't vote for him on those grounds are the same people who will attend mass on a sunday and strongly defend and institution that actively shelters paedophiles to this day.