Why isnt David Norris electable or popular for Taoiseach?

View

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't want someone as President who has such little respect for our democracy as to vote claiming residence in Meath having lived for years in the US as the EU ambassador.
In any other country, they'd have been prosecuted for electoral fraud.

Under the rules of diplomacy, embassies and ambassadorial residences are regarded as being extra-territorial enclaves - in other words, they are "foreign soil". It is "foreign" laws that apply in these enclaves, not "domestic" ones.

As such an ambassador doesn't live in the country they are posted to, but rather they live in a far-flung bubble of their "home country".

Hence, John Bruton lived and worked "in the EU" while posted to the US. As such, every time he hopped into bed, he slept soundly "in the EU" in a far-flung part of Meath - hence, he maintained residence in Meath at all times. :-)

You mightn't accept that argument but I suspect you'd be in a minority - any decent jury is going to want to acquit in a possible case like this.

dvpower

crayolastereo wrote: »

Because thats really the kind of language you want the head of your country using.

He's a great radio presenter, but he's no president.

In fairness, he explained the use of the expletive.

He is still insistent that the quote include the four-letter profanity for its alliterative impact.

Mind you, I don't think he's a great radio presenter.

dvpower

Joey the lips wrote: »

How do i say this correctly.,....


We have a dozy Taoiseach and now you want a dozy Predident....


Jesus no wonder Jay leno thinks we are daft.

Yep. Let's take what an American talk show guy thinks into account when we choose our president.
Dozy?:rolleyes:

The_Minister

alejandro1977 wrote: »

http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/

:eek:

Is that real???!!

nordisk celt83

Shelga wrote: »

Not quite... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hanna_Sigur%C3%B0ard%C3%B3ttir

In fairness, the poster you corrected is actually right. Joanna is neither a directly elected Head of State or President. She forged her political career as a twice married mother of three. So, David Norris would be the first openly gay Head of State in the world ever. Just like he was the first openly gay person elected to any national parliament in the world, others had been previously outed and subsequently ruined.

jimmycrackcorm

He's over qualified for the job.

dvpower

The_Minister wrote: »

:eek:

Is that real???!!

The article is real, but misrepresented him he says
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/01/28/story21948.asp

mikemac

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

others had been previously outed and subsequently ruined.

Don't you remember Emmet Stagg and the furore over male prostitutes in the Phoenix Park?

He was outed and the people in Kildare North have returned him the Dail ever since.

I'm sure others have been outed and ruined but realy Ireland is pretty progressive.
Sure wasn't Bertie Ahern separated and living with another women and nobody even cared. And rightly so, it's private business

jill_valentine

crayolastereo wrote: »

Because thats really the kind of language you want the head of your country using.

He's a great radio presenter, but he's no president.

I'd sooner have that than the waffle most politicians feed us; appropriate for public record, and safely devoid of any meaning or significance whatsoever to boot.

It's commonly said that our president is only a figurehead. If so, then let our country be represented by a man who will represent us - I can think of nobody in Irish politics today that I would rather have speak on my behalf.

When I look at "my" government, I see people who bowed to the Church for decades and think we've forgotten, people who believe they are above the law and have been given no reason to believe otherwise, people who feel absolutely no sense of responsibility to the citizens they supposedly represent, and people who got their job on the strength of their friends or their surname and pay back the favour in kind. Norris is fiercely intelligent, progressive, famously articulate and not a little gutsy - four qualities that have been sorely lacking from our politics for years, if not decades.

I'd be proud to have David Norris as a president, because it would prove to me that once, just once in Ireland, the right man got the right job because he was right for it.

Links234

Sgt.Peppers wrote: »

if gay people are bangin on about equality why dont thay vote for the person best for the job rather then one of their own?

You imply that an LGBT person would not be the best person for the job, but ignore that for the moment, can you not understand why someone would want someone in office that represents them?

LGBT people in this country are effected by a lot of social and legal issues that many outside of the community are oblivious to or ignorant about, and it's important to have people the government who can relate to people on these issues and represent them. and these issues may seem trivial to you, but for others they aren't. I'd like to see a transgender TD or senator

Lockstep

I'm always flabbergasted by the amount of people mentioning his sexuality in these threads.
Either along the lines of "It'd be great to have a gay president." or "I'm not voting for him because he's gay."

Seriously, if you like/dislike his style and what he stands for, support/oppose him on that basis. Voting for or against him because he's gay is utterly ridiculous and makes politics even more of a mockery. We need to start picking politicians on their transparency, honesty and intelligence. Not what gender they're attracted to.

However, Norris wouldn't be first choice for the presidency. He's an intelligent and artful man, but his views on 1916 mean I see him as unsuitable for the role (given 1916's role in defining our State and the President's role in embodying the State. It'd also make him overly divisive which goes against what the presidency stands for)

caseyann

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'd sooner have that than the waffle most politicians feed us; appropriate for public record, and safely devoid of any meaning or significance whatsoever to boot.

It's commonly said that our president is only a figurehead. If so, then let our country be represented by a man who will represent us - I can think of nobody in Irish politics today that I would rather have speak on my behalf.

When I look at "my" government, I see people who bowed to the Church for decades and think we've forgotten, people who believe they are above the law and have been given no reason to believe otherwise, people who feel absolutely no sense of responsibility to the citizens they supposedly represent, and people who got their job on the strength of their friends or their surname and pay back the favour in kind. Norris is fiercely intelligent, progressive, famously articulate and not a little gutsy - four qualities that have been sorely lacking from our politics for years, if not decades.

I'd be proud to have David Norris as a president, because it would prove to me that once, just once in Ireland, the right man got the right job because he was right for it.

Except for the part against the Church i agree with you.I wish people would stop bringing church and sexuality into this.Even if is an issue with some people and not sure or afraid of it.It is nothing to do with been capable or good for a job.
But i do agree people of same sexuality should not vote him in because he is gay and sways them that way.They should vote on his abilities for the job in hand.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm always flabbergasted by the amount of people mentioning his sexuality in these threads.
Either along the lines of "It'd be great to have a gay president." or "I'm not voting for him because he's gay."

Seriously, if you like/dislike his style and what he stands for, support/oppose him on that basis. Voting for or against him because he's gay is utterly ridiculous and makes politics even more of a mockery. We need to start picking politicians on their transparency, honesty and intelligence. Not what gender they're attracted to.

However, Norris wouldn't be first choice for the presidency. He's an intelligent and artful man, but his views on 1916 mean I see him as unsuitable for the role (given 1916's role in defining our State and the President's role in embodying the State. It'd also make him overly divisive which goes against what the presidency stands for)

I am not sure i ever heard his stand on 1916? What has he said in relation to it.As might change my mind also.Thanks Casey

RichTea

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

Ill take a practical, pragmatic politician like Bertie or Cowen over that sort of fella anyday.

:pac::pac:

Lockstep

caseyann wrote: »

I am not sure i ever heard his stand on 1916? What has he said in relation to it.As might change my mind also.Thanks Casey

Basically, he feels that the leaders of 1916 were terrorists.

Source

caseyann

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Basically, he feels that the leaders of 1916 were terrorists.

Source

Which then it says (Coming from such a pro-British background, he was horrified to learn at school about the beastly things the British had done in Ireland — the famine, penal laws and evictions. It was like finding out Santa was a paedophile, he claims.)
Now i dont know if he still stands the same on the 1916 rising.It does'nt sound like he does.

Lockstep

caseyann wrote: »

Which then it says (Coming from such a pro-British background, he was horrified to learn at school about the beastly things the British had done in Ireland — the famine, penal laws and evictions. It was like finding out Santa was a paedophile, he claims.)
Now i dont know if he still stands the same on the 1916 rising.It does'nt sound like he does.

Please explain what you mean here. There's no logical correlation between the two.
Unless he went to school after he became a politician.

caseyann

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Please explain what you mean here. There's no logical correlation between the two.
Unless he went to school after he became a politician.

So have i misinterpreted the comment made?I thought it was made in the past tense before he went to school and learned the truth about English atrocities.Because then i find it odd he would be against 1919 rising and also be shocked and disgusted at what British did.
I read it as a opinion of before he found learned the truth.

Lockstep

caseyann wrote: »

So have i misinterpreted the comment made?I thought it was made in the past tense before he went to school and learned the truth about English atrocities.Because then i find it odd he would be against 1919 rising and also be shocked and disgusted at what British did.
I read it as a opinion of before he found learned the truth.

The article states that while he was at school, he was shocked to find out about British atrocities. Not that he learned about these while he was a practicing politician.

Your entire argument would require him to have made his statements before he learned about history in school. He became a politician and made his statements long after he graduated .

The article notes that these are 'oft-articulated' quotes. Not ones he made before he went to school (I doubt the Times would be reporting on it otherwse)

dvpower

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Basically, he feels that the leaders of 1916 were terrorists.

Source

To be fair to him, I'd like to see an original source for this. I expect that his position would be more nuanced than this.

nordisk celt83

The 'VEILED' smears against David Norris are beginning to look beyond transparent.
Discounted and subsequently acknowledged misrepresentations, as well as comments with no real sources can't be taken seriously.

alejandro1977

dvpower wrote: »

The article is real, but misrepresented him he says
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/01/28/story21948.asp

misrepresented him?

In other words he regrets thinking out loud.

Most reasonable people accept homosexuality but realise that a [say] 15 year old who decides he's gay should be protected from predatory 30 something [say] gay men, in the same way that I or most hetrosexual men wouldn't take advantage of a 15 year old girl (no matter if she does look like a hot 18 year old).

Norris wasn't condoning forced pedarsty in the article but still made me uncomfortable with his 'boundaries'

He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age". When I asked about incest, he hesitated, and concluded that in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable...

In addition, I find him incredibly vain and shrill; his condemnation of Josef Ratzinger [ Pope Benedict] where he claimed that membership of the Nazi Youth wasn't compulsory springs to mind. (JR was 14 years old when he was a member of the NY; his handicapped cousin was murdered by the Nazis for being handicapped) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI#Background_and_childhood_.281927.E2.80.931943.29

Norris claimed he telephoned the German Embassy and "confirmed" this even though the historical facts are clear the German Parliament passed a law making membership compulsory (as a quick Wikipedia search would have revealed). It's laughable that this clown is referred to as a "scholar" given his abject contempt for rudimentary scholarship/research

Corsendonk

He doesn't have a political party, simple as that.

Lockstep

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

The 'VEILED' smears against David Norris are beginning to look beyond transparent.
Discounted and subsequently acknowledged misrepresentations, as well as comments with no real sources can't be taken seriously.

In fairness, the Times/Sunday Times is far from a rag. I wouldn't discount its articles: it's a profile, so its speaking in general terms.

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

misrepresented him?

That's what he said.

alejandro1977 wrote: »

In other words he regrets thinking out loud.

Oh look. Now you're doing it.:rolleyes:

alejandro1977 wrote: »

Most reasonable people accept homosexuality but realise that a [say] 15 year old who decides he's gay should be protected from predatory 30 something [say] gay men, in the same way that I or most hetrosexual men wouldn't take advantage of a 15 year old girl (no matter if she does look like a hot 18 year old).

I don't know why you bring homosexuality into this at all. (At risk of misrepresenting his views,) I'd say he would favour equality.

alejandro1977

dvpower wrote: »

That's what he said.


Oh look. Now you're doing it.:rolleyes:


I don't know why you bring homosexuality into this at all. (At risk of misrepresenting his views,) I'd say he would favour equality.

Question; does he dispute the direct quotes from Helen Luch Burke in the Magill article? and they are fairly 'outre' quotes to boot..

Answer: No - he says he was misrepresentd :rolleyes:

erm, he seemed to not favour equality e.g. the incest :eek: differentiation in homosexual / hetro relationships


and I'm not bringing homosexuality into it; I'm pointing out the hypocrisy whereby he can advocate/excuse [homosexual] sex with *consenting* minors without being called out. Can you imagine a hetro TD advocating sex with *consenting* minors?

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

Question; does he dispute the direct quotes from Helen Luch Burke in the Magill article? and they are fairly 'outre' quotes to boot..

Answer: No - he says he was misrepresentd :rolleyes:

erm, he seemed to not favour equality e.g. the incest :eek: differentiation in homosexual / hetro relationships


and I'm not bringing homosexuality into it; I'm pointing out the hypocrisy whereby he can advocate/excuse [homosexual] sex with *consenting* minors without being called out. Can you imagine a hetro TD advocating sex with *consenting* minors?

He says he was misrepresented. He provides some clarification of his views in the Examiner piece.
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/01/28/story21948.asp

Shouldn't you be forming your views based on all of the available information, instead of cherry picking from a contested article?

JonJoeDali

OisinT wrote: »

I'm not saying this against you, but it is this type of thinking that is what is wrong with this country.

I see you're quite good at the "down with that sort of thing" yourself.

OisinT wrote: »

There is so much ignorance in some parts of the country still that it may as well be 1910 rather than 2010.
Ignorance is really holding our country back in a serious way, even in terms of the recession. We need forward thinking, bright individuals - not people stuck in the past who value tradition and ignorance over open-mindedness and reform.

Blah, blah. Talk to Joe.

Oh yeah... So open-minded, one's head has fallen out.

JonJoeDali

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm always flabbergasted by the amount of people mentioning his sexuality in these threads.
Either along the lines of "It'd be great to have a gay president." or "I'm not voting for him because he's gay."

Seriously, if you like/dislike his style and what he stands for, support/oppose him on that basis. Voting for or against him because he's gay is utterly ridiculous and makes politics even more of a mockery. We need to start picking politicians on their transparency, honesty and intelligence. Not what gender they're attracted to.

However, Norris wouldn't be first choice for the presidency. He's an intelligent and artful man, but his views on 1916 mean I see him as unsuitable for the role (given 1916's role in defining our State and the President's role in embodying the State. It'd also make him overly divisive which goes against what the presidency stands for)

Apparently he now "has a girlfriend"? Trying to iron over a few creases perhaps?

dvpower

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Apparently he now "has a girlfriend"? Trying to iron over a few creases perhaps?

David Norris is trying to reinvent himself as a straight man?:eek:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. You won't let the people be fooled:rolleyes:

Lenny Lovett

rightwingdub wrote: »

He's far too intelligent to be Taoiseach, he'd be seen as an intelectual by Irish voters and Irish voters by and large don't value people with intelligence.

That's true. An example of this is Martin Mansergh. A highly intelligent man (drafted and negotiated most of the Good Friday agreement) but not a great orator. He failed to be elected first time out in Tipperary and struggled in the second time.

Let's face it, David Norris has obviously no desire to be Taoiseach because he's never put himself up for election to the Dáil, has he?