David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

mike65

She might well decide its safer for her that the tapes are not found.

Laois_Man

Only read the first page. Is it one of those things where if you don't want to vote ofr the gay guy, you're automatically a homophobic?

Until recently, I was saying I had no intention of voting for anyone in the useless exercie that is the Irish Presidential election.

Afetr the recent vistis of the Queen and the US Prez, and the performance of McAleese in those visits, I can see SOME importance in the office (Although I still don't particularly find it to be good value for money)

But I will vote, and of the candidates mentioned so far, I think I would likely vote for Mairead McGuinness. Keeping an open mind though!

Mark200

tayto lover wrote: »

Either way his campaign is in trouble. His interview and back-tracking on P.K. will not get him out of trouble. He need to debate the issue face to face with H.L.B. on t.v. and then people will make up their minds.

What backtracking did he do? I didn't notice any

phantom_lord

tayto lover wrote: »

Either way his campaign is in trouble. His interview and back-tracking on P.K. will not get him out of trouble. He need to debate the issue face to
face with H.L.B. on t.v. and then people will make up their minds.

Seems like you've already got your mind made up.

oceanclub

I think Helen Lucy Burke's bona fides can be clearly shown by the fact that on Liveline she insinuated that a European delegation investigating the trafficking of women and children in Thailand, in which Norris took part, was a "holiday in Thailand". And we all know what that's code for, right?

http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/1newsletter.htm#thai

P.

apoeiguq3094y

Paparazzo wrote: »

Did you even read that link?

So, you're against democracy then?

Yes I read the article, did you? He was speaking about the benefits of joining the commonwealth, at a book launch for a book that was about Ireland joining the commonwealth, so I think we can make the leap that he's in favour of us joining.

alexjk wrote: »

It wouldn't make the Queen of the United Kingdom head of state in the Republic of Ireland which is what you seem to be implying.

Thats not what I was implying. I said she was the leader of an organisation that consisted of member states. Similar to the EU or BRIC or any other grouping of countries. By point is that she has that position by birth, not because of any democratic process.

phantom_lord wrote: »

Did you read the quotes from him or just the headline? He never said he wanted Ireland to rejoin the commonwealth.

While the article didn't quote him exactly saying that, as I said above its not unreasonable to take that message from his speech and presence at the book launch. He's entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to disagree with him.

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Robinson used the office to reflect and legitimise the public appetite for a shift away from a repressive and pervasive conservatism, which had stunted the cultural, social and economic progress of the State. She performed her duties with skill, intelligence and courage, she ruffled feathers, broke new ground and redefined the role for the better.

She swapped one form of elitism for another.

francois

Cheap and utterly blatant attempt at a smear

Laois_Man

Taken from: http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0531/norrisd.html

Ms Burke said she has found a cassette tape, which she believes is the recording of the interview but does not have a machine to play it back on.

She doesn't have a cassette player? :eek:

Pherekydes

mike65 wrote: »

She might well decide its safer for her that the tapes are not found.

She was already prevaricating yesterday, saying the tapes might not work after such a lapse of time. Joe shut her up though...

Nodin

Laois_Man wrote: »

Taken from: http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0531/norrisd.html



She doesn't have a cassette player? :eek:

O I'm sure somebody will provide one forthwith. Hopefully they'll do a transfer to a digital medium while standing over it as well.

hinault

Norris seems to be a principled bloke when it comes to issues of national/international injustice.

But unfortunately his private views have now been reported and those expressed views strike me as being deeply immoral and at variance to the moral stance that he takes in relation to more public issues.

I probably would have voted for him but his reported comments have led me to change my mind.

phantom_lord

apoeiguq3094y wrote: »

Yes I read the article, did you? He was speaking about the benefits of joining the commonwealth, at a book launch for a book that was about Ireland joining the commonwealth, so I think we can make the leap that he's in favour of us joining.



Thats not what I was implying. I said she was the leader of an organisation that consisted of member states. Similar to the EU or BRIC or any other grouping of countries. By point is that she has that position by birth, not because of any democratic process.



While the article didn't quote him exactly saying that, as I said above its not unreasonable to take that message from his speech and presence at the book launch. He's entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to disagree with him.

There's a reason the article doesn't quote him to back up the headline. It's because he's not in favor of rejoining the commonwealth and has said so explicitly when asked about it.

phantom_lord

hinault wrote: »

Norris seems to be a principled bloke when it comes to issues of national/international injustice.

But unfortunately his private views have now been reported and those expressed views strike me as being deeply immoral and at variance to the moral stance that he takes in relation to more public issues.

I probably would have voted for him but his reported comments have led me to change my mind.

It's not his private views that have been reported, only a gross misrepresentation of his views.

Elle Collins

mike65 wrote: »

You can see why Norris got into bother, whatever about HLB and her editorialising he needs to cut out the "freeform musing" as thats whats gets him in trouble.

"Freeform musing", is that what it's called now, when adults make comments that support sex between adults and adolescents? :rolleyes:

That pervy old fool would have been hung out to dry a long time ago had he been a heterosexual man "freeform musing" about grown men having sex with adolescent girls.

zuroph

tayto lover wrote: »

Either way his campaign is in trouble. His interview and back-tracking on P.K. will not get him out of trouble. He need to debate the issue face to face with H.L.B. on t.v. and then people will make up their minds.

care to bet on it? You had your mind up before the PK interview this morning.

zuroph

Elle Collins wrote: »

"Freeform musing", is that what it's called now, when adults make comments that support sex between adults and adolescents? :rolleyes:

That pervy old fool would have been hung out to dry a long time ago had he been a heterosexual man "freeform musing" about grown men having sex with adolescent girls.

which comments specifically are these? Or have you read the articles and retorts?

Ms.Odgeynist

Elle Collins wrote: »

"Freeform musing", is that what it's called now, when adults make comments that support sex between adults and adolescents? :rolleyes:

Which comments were they?

That pervy old fool would have been hung out to dry a long time ago had he been a heterosexual man "freeform musing" about grown men having sex with adolescent girls.

He never advocated or supported any such thing.
Pervy old fool??
The man is a celebrated academic, who is respected all over the world.

Pherekydes

tayto lover wrote: »

Either way his campaign is in trouble. His interview and back-tracking on P.K. will not get him out of trouble. He need to debate the issue face to face with H.L.B. on t.v. and then people will make up their minds.

There is nothing to debate. What he said is not in question. Her interpretation of is what's in question. She is wrong. Simple. His interpretation is correct, by definition. They are HIS words. She took him up wrongly, or she is wilfully misrepresenting his opinions. Personally, I think it's the latter.

You can't tell someone else what THEIR opinion is.

Badgermonkey

Nodin wrote: »

She swapped one form of elitism for another.

The above could be construed in more than one way but I presume you mean the marked shift from a conservative to liberal hegemony post 1990.

If so, you can hardly blame Robinson for that. It was only natural that such a move towards policies which gave voice to a more progressive and pluralist society would leave some feeling disenfranchised.

The resultant benefits to citizens in areas of health, equality, human rights and law reform have been EU driven though have been broadly reflective of the wishes of the majority of people.

ascanbe

'Young fellas running around in shorts: that's the kind of thing you like. Except you're probably imagining what they look like without shorts. You're sitting there, imagining that, with a big smile on your face...ya dirty fecker.'

conorhal

Elle Collins wrote: »

"Freeform musing", is that what it's called now, when adults make comments that support sex between adults and adolescents? :rolleyes:

That pervy old fool would have been hung out to dry a long time ago had he been a heterosexual man "freeform musing" about grown men having sex with adolescent girls.

Indeed, by Norris' standards 'ol Berlusconi should be re-elected with a pat on the back in two years time.

Nodin

Badgermonkey wrote: »

The above could be construed in more than one way but I presume you mean the marked shift from a conservative to liberal hegemony post 1990.
.

No, I mean a narrow view of "inclusivity" that was based on the world via the lens of Mary.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

If so, you can hardly blame Robinson for that. It was only natural that such a move towards policies which gave voice to a more progressive and pluralist society would leave some feeling disenfranchised..

"progressive" my arse. Conservatism with a smattering of social liberalism.

holystungun9

Yes

Badgermonkey

Nodin wrote: »

"progressive" my arse.

David Quinns new tatoo?

Spread

"I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex in the slightest bit attractive sexually. . . but in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man to adult life, there can be something said for it. Now, again, this is not something that appeals to me".
"Although when I was younger I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, treating me with affection, teaching me about life." (Irish Indo 31 May 2011)

If it's not his thing how can he say "there can be something in it"?
In the second half ........ surely the older man would be regarded as "predatory"

Deckof52

dizzywizlw wrote: »

You listed 4 out 196 sovereign states, which are very progressive, Germany being a good model for acceptance, when discounting the Turkish minority .

As a sample of heads of state (I'm not sure any of those you listed are heads of state, function versus political form is important for this role I think) its not particularly great. Barely any notable number of states have given the LGBT community the fundamental right to civil partnership whilst roughly a third of countries still have homosexuality as a crime on their statue books. My main point is and always will be, that to vote for Norris because of his sexuality is misguided, to vote against him because of it is ignorant.

He'd be a useless President; irreverant, elitist, euro-skeptic. He has never held political office of note (yes I count the seanad as useless) and he is very much the stereotype of comsmopolitian elitism. The man studied literature for Christs sake.

On my first point I was just showing that there have been lgbt people in significant countries that have had international obligations and there haven't been any backlash stories in the press. I wasn't talking about how progressive we are but how the world has to accept certain diplomatic realities.
I agree with the idea that to, "vote for Norris because of his sexuality is misguided, to vote against him because of it is ignorant.". But I was just explaining some of the effects or worries of his sexualities that were raised during the debate.

I think the idea of being elitist means that you believe yourself to be of a higher stature and you separate yourself from those of a lower stature. I cant see how David Norris has done this in any respect. A man who actively fights and helps Gay Rights, Disabled Rights and fights for cultural preservation in the form of Dublin City Parks, Joycean Awareness and Georgian Housing. I think if you 't can't see the idea of having some form of cultural intelligence and the presidency being linked, then the ceremonial nature of the office isn't fully understood.

zuroph

Spread wrote: »

"I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex in the slightest bit attractive sexually. . . but in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man to adult life, there can be something said for it. Now, again, this is not something that appeals to me".
"Although when I was younger I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, treating me with affection, teaching me about life." (Irish Indo 31 May 2011)

If it's not his thing how can he say "there can be something in it"?
In the second half ........ surely the older man would be regarded as "predatory"

and at the start of that sentence, which is seperated by quotation marks, he says "although" which would suggest the sentence is in contrast to something else he said, or how he feels now.

context is important.

Spread

zuroph wrote: »

and at the start of that sentence, which is seperated by quotation marks, he says "although" which would suggest the sentence is in contrast to something else he said, or how he feels now.

context is important.

zuroph, I agree wholeheartedly. But if you have a gander at the story in today's Indo, you'll see an anomoly within the many inverted commas in the extract that I quoted.

tayto lover

zuroph wrote: »

care to bet on it? You had your mind up before the PK interview this morning.

I had my mind made up not to vote for him a long time ago, even before the programme yesterday. Whether he is guilty or not i don't know. That is why there should be a debate between them on t.v. or radio.
You seem to have you're mind made up about H.L.B. on the issue. Maybe she is telling the truth.

tayto lover

Pherekydes wrote: »

There is nothing to debate. What he said is not in question. Her interpretation of is what's in question. She is wrong. Simple. His interpretation is correct, by definition. They are HIS words. She took him up wrongly, or she is wilfully misrepresenting his opinions. Personally, I think it's the latter.

You can't tell someone else what THEIR opinion is.

Have you even contemplated the thought that she is telling the truth and that he is back-tracking to escape trouble ?

tayto lover

francois wrote: »

Cheap and utterly blatant attempt at a smear

And you know that because .....

phantom_lord

tayto lover wrote: »

Have you even contemplated the thought that she is telling the truth and that he is back-tracking to escape trouble ?

When has he back tracked?

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

I had my mind made up not to vote for him a long time ago, even before the programme yesterday. Whether he is guilty or not i don't know. That is why there should be a debate between them on t.v. or radio.
You seem to have you're mind made up about H.L.B. on the issue. Maybe she is telling the truth.

Yeah we know that; you won't vote for him because he is gay.

Dudess

Oh yeah, tayto lover - you made your views on gays clear not too long ago. But anyhoo, what he's talking about is not paedophilic.

siltirocker

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Yeah we know that; you won't vote for him because he is gay.

This is why this thread is farcical! Cause if anyone says anything anti Norris. . . . BOOM! YOU HATE GAYS!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Retarded stuff folks.:rolleyes:

mikemac

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Yeah we know that; you won't vote for him because he is gay.

This type of statement has been all over this thread. And in Politics forum last year

The knuckle dragging bigots oppose Norris and the open minded, young sophisticated people can see this :rolleyes:
Every legitimate question must be a smear campaign I suppose....

Maybe the poster you quoted reckons there are better candidates. I definitely do

JessieM

It looks as if David Norris might well be backtracking.

I saw him in 2009 on an episode of "Seoige" on RTE1 speaking in favour of Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth, in a debate-style discussion.

This should be readily available to RTE in their archives.

So David Norris cannot honestly claim that he has never advocated Ireland rejoining the commonwealth as the evidence proves otherwise.

siltirocker

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Yeah we know that; you won't vote for him because he is gay.

I have just realised tayto lover might have INFACT said anti-homo stuff earlier. Apologies Johnnymcg.

Nate--IRL--

JessieM wrote: »

It looks as if David Norris might well be backtracking.

I saw him in 2009 on an episode of "Seoige" on RTE1 speaking in favour of Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth, in a debate-style discussion.

This should be readily available to RTE in their archives.

So David Norris cannot honestly claim that he has never advocated Ireland rejoining the commonwealth as the evidence proves otherwise.

I don't believe you.

Nate

Annasopra

siltirocker wrote: »

I have just realised tayto lover might have INFACT said anti-homo stuff earlier. Apologies Johnnymcg.

It's ok - I'm not voting for David Norris either (if he ever gets nominated)
But if people like taytolover want to go on and on about flaunting gayness well then I think it's fair to be blount and call them on it.

zuroph

tayto lover wrote: »

I had my mind made up not to vote for him a long time ago, even before the programme yesterday. Whether he is guilty or not i don't know. That is why there should be a debate between them on t.v. or radio.
You seem to have you're mind made up about H.L.B. on the issue. Maybe she is telling the truth.

I've not much of an opinion on HLB. I dont know the woman, and have no previous knowledge of her. My mind is made up that the comments seem to be out of context, and in the context Norris offers, seem to make much more sense.

Guilty of what exactly? Your language there is misleading, Norris is not accused of any crime.

zuroph

tayto lover wrote: »

And you know that because .....

because a nine year old article has suddenly been dug back up as he goes for president. why not over the last 9 years when he was a sitting senator? Or does that not matter?

tayto lover

zuroph wrote: »

because a nine year old article has suddenly been dug back up as he goes for president. why not over the last 9 years when he was a sitting senator? Or does that not matter?

Nothing out of the ordinary there, remember Brian Lenihan when he was running for the same office ? Tapes again.

RachaelVO

zuroph wrote: »

I've not much of an opinion on HLB. I dont know the woman, and have no previous knowledge of her. My mind is made up that the comments seem to be out of context, and in the context Norris offers, seem to make much more sense.

Guilty of what exactly? Your language there is misleading, Norris is not accused of any crime.

I wonder about HLB, ya know this site http://www.davidnorris4president.com (which has a disclaimer at the bottom *Note: This website is not endorsed or produced by David Norris. Furthermore Campaign for Conscience does not endorse David Norris for President.) well that's set up by these religious maniacs http://www.campaignforconscience.org/

I wonder if they are backing up HLB. Seems to me that she is regurgitating sh1te that suits their agenda.

RachaelVO

JessieM wrote: »

It looks as if David Norris might well be backtracking.

I saw him in 2009 on an episode of "Seoige" on RTE1 speaking in favour of Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth, in a debate-style discussion.

This should be readily available to RTE in their archives.

So David Norris cannot honestly claim that he has never advocated Ireland rejoining the commonwealth as the evidence proves otherwise.

He never did say he didn't say it. What he also said was, that it has how HE felt on the issue, and he would never push anything that the Irish nation didn't agree with. More stuff taken outta context... you any relation to HLB?

JessieM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I don't believe you.

Nate

It's not a matter of belief, Nate. This is a fact. RTE can prove it if they choose to publicise the interview or print a transcript.

John Waters spoke against rejoining the Commonwealth in the same interview so he can also back this up, as could the Seoige sisters who presented the programme.

I hope someone does indeed publicise the Senator's comments and ask him for his views. There seems to be a suggestion that he is turning his back on comments he made in the past if they are not now appropriate for his presidential campaign. Life in the public eye doesn't work like that.

zuroph

tayto lover wrote: »

Nothing out of the ordinary there, remember Brian Lenihan when he was running for the same office ? Tapes again.

the release of information, true or false, with the specific and sole intention to discredit someone at a specific time, is a smear campaign. If she genuinely cared about the issue, she'd have been pushing it for the last 9 years, not letting the tape gather dust in her attic.

Nate--IRL--

JessieM wrote: »

It's not a matter of belief, Nate. This is a fact. RTE can prove it if they choose to publicise the interview or print a transcript.

So I just have to take your word for it, that it is a fact? Not good enough.

Nate

My name is URL

Anyone know if Enoch Burke (campaign for conscience) is any relation to Helen Lucy Burke, or is the shared surname just coincidental?