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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

John Bruton For President?

13»

Comments

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


    Any reason is a valid one. Weather it is a moral or ethical one is another matter. It is not his English ancestry really, but his attitude towards Britain and all things British. He is a relic of the Anglo/Irish aristocracy.


  • #63
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I clearly misunderstood him when he said: You seem to suffer from the delusion that anyone who is a republican is somehow incapable of sectarianism.

    yeah you actually did misunderstand him.

    and yes anyone who is a real republican would not be sectarian, that is no delusion. i thought you would have known that


  • #64
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    aDeener wrote: »
    and yes anyone who is a real republican would not be sectarian
    Of course that's part of the reason we have Irish labels - republicans, real republicans, Republicans, official republicans, provisional republicans, continuity republicans, just plain publicans, other variances with lower and upper case letters for outside labelling, additional prefixes, fellow travellers, acquaintances, well-wishers and people who just join in for the flower arranging (that's a Martyn Turner special from so long ago that most of you won't remember it). Only the long list of Protestant religious movements has as many subdivisions, though the NI unionists are learning in recent years and adding on quite a few of their own labels.

    It's not just the growing diversity of sexuality labels that made me decide that self-labelling as an identification method is best, albeit not precise and rather a waste of time. Northern Ireland taught me that a long time ago with the "I am X, therefore Y, he's X', therefore completely different" seriousness. The hardcore mathematician part of me cried and was brutally killed by the fuzzy pinko etymologist.

    Labels kill, folks. It's not just the people with the pointy weapons.

    Where were we again? Oh yes, David Norris. Not an idiot. As advantages go, that's a pretty darned big one. I have two funny anecdotes about Norris and the IRA but I'll save them for later.


  • #65
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    sceptre wrote: »

    Where were we again? Oh yes, David Norris. Not an idiot. As advantages go, that's a pretty darned big one. I have two funny anecdotes about Norris and the IRA but I'll save them for later.

    Ah don't tease us like that, at least give us one of them, please, pretty please........


  • #66
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Three people mentioned in the thread:

    John Bruton : I've no major objection to him
    David Norris : Too camp for my liking, with a voice & accent I can't stand
    Bertie Ahern : Another voice and accent I can't stand, tainted and disgraced by lies, incompetence and corruption

    Bruton comes out well, with Norris a tolerable plan B.

    Surely there must be more options than that, though ?

    Would Shane Ross be wasted in the role, or would he actually protect us from ridiculous projects like NAMA, refusing to sign our lives away via legislation ?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Three people mentioned in the thread:

    John Bruton : I've no major objection to him
    David Norris : Too camp for my liking, with a voice & accent I can't stand
    Bertie Ahern : Another voice and accent I can't stand, tainted and disgraced by lies, incompetence and corruption

    Bruton comes out well, with Norris a tolerable plan B.

    Surely there must be more options than that, though ?

    Would Shane Ross be wasted in the role, or would he actually protect us from ridiculous projects like NAMA, refusing to sign our lives away via legislation ?

    Well George Hook has promised to run against Bertie Ahern, if he runs, in fact he said if Bertie even runs for a bin man, he'll run against him :D


  • #68
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    Well George Hook has promised to run against Bertie Ahern, if he runs, in fact he said if Bertie even runs for a bin man, he'll run against him :D

    I'd run against the little rat myself, tbh......


  • #69
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Gerry Adams may run. There have been rumblings.


  • #70
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,029 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    I'm still batting for Michael D Higgins.


  • #71
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Gerry Adams may run. There have been rumblings.

    Hilarious, best joke I've heard all year


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    Hilarious, best joke I've heard all year
    Maybe a bit of wishful thinking on my part, but a better option than most others I have heard.


  • #73
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Maybe a bit of wishful thinking on my part, but a better option than most others I have heard.

    just as you said for David Norris, Gerry Adams does not represent the majority of us and doubt he ever will, not even if he makes it to a 100


  • #74
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Good point, but I would prefer him to Norris.

    Odds are if Bertie goes for it he will win anyway. I wouldn't mind him too much as president, at least he cant do any damage there!


  • #75
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    aDeener wrote: »
    he does? not that i would vote for him anyway...

    'Fraid so.
    lugha wrote: »
    They 1916 lads used violent means without having the support of the people they claimed to represent, on the basis that future generations would appreciate their actions. And in this respect they are identical to modern day dissident republicans. But I guess people of all hues are reluctant to give up their heroes.

    The 1916 rebels were not "terrorists" though.You can call them undemocratic, violent etc. but not terrorists.There aim was not to strike terror into the Irish or British populations but rather to seek independence from Britain.

    While they might be similar in dissident republicans in the one respect you have mentioned, they are also different in many other ways-For example, The 1916 rebels never used car bombs and so on which are the hallmark of terrorists (and before you mention civilian deaths in 1916, you can blame the British army for the majority of those, because they were the ones with artillery).More to the point, in the year 1916, using violence to achieve your aims was quite an acceptable strategy all around the world.Nowadays, the same cannot be said because use of violence is now practically universally condemned and abhorred (especially in developed countries like Ireland).


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »

    He also says that we should join the Commonwealth I believe.

    I forgot about that actually!Thanks for reminding me.That's another reason not to vote for him.;)


  • #76
    jacmcc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭jacmcc


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I'd run against the little rat myself, tbh......

    Bertie is cocky enough to go for it, would be disgusted if he ran or was elected.
    I'd love to see the likes of Harry Crosbie go for it but can't see that happening so I think Norris would be about the best. Could rename the Aras the Pink Palace


  • #77
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Wide Road wrote: »
    I heard that John Bruton is expected to be a candidate for president of Ireland according to MEP Sean Kelly. Sean said he would be interested himself but thought John would be the FG candidate. It would have made a fairytale ending, John as President in the Park and his brother Richard as Taoiseach in the Dail.

    **** no, I want John Bruton doing a useful job.


  • #78
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Good point, but I would prefer him to Norris.

    Odds are if Bertie goes for it he will win anyway. I wouldn't mind him too much as president, at least he cant do any damage there!


    you are not serious , could it be possible that after all that idiot has done people of ireland would vote him in to embarrass them everytime he opens his mouth ,


  • #79
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    bleg wrote: »
    **** no, I want John Bruton doing a useful job.


    are you sure those words , john bruton and useful belong in same sentance ?


  • #80
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    danbohan wrote: »
    you are not serious , could it be possible that after all that idiot has done people of ireland would vote him in to embarrass them everytime he opens his mouth ,
    Norris will have good popularity in Dublin, but the country as a whole? I doubt it. Bertie would be the man I would put money on to win. Not saying I want him to win mind.


  • #81
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    The 1916 rebels were not "terrorists" though.You can call them undemocratic, violent etc. but not terrorists.There aim was not to strike terror into the Irish or British populations but rather to seek independence from Britain.
    I would suggest you could say much the same about PIRA or even the dissident republicans. I don’t think their purpose was to instil terror. In any case, I am inclined to avoid the label “terrorist”, it a troublesome term as it tends to focus attention on the mode of violence (as you do in your post) and not the matter of whether those engaging in it have a mandate. Thus are Irish republican apologists able to make ludicrous comparisments between say Nelson Mandela and PIRA activists. The former had authority, the latter did not. But if you label them both as terrorists, that makes them the same, and as Nelson is a good guy so too much be the RA boys, or so their logic goes.

    The question is not do you fight dirty (BTW Michael Collins did not always adhere to the Queensbury rules, remember bloody Sunday), the question is do you have the authority to take what ever actions you do take. You seem to regard the disrespect for democracy shown by the 1916 leaders as nothing more than a minor blot against their character. But their undemocratic ways is precisely why they should not be held up as heroes.

    I would agree with you that Norris is not correct to describe them as terrorists but he is right to question their hero status the Irish afford to them, given that we simultaneously criticise dissidents who are travelling the same path.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    This is a major can of worms right here, and very off topic too. I honestly don't have the energy at the minute to go into detail about the British attitude to democracy(wouldn't listen unless they personally could get something out of it RE: Third home rule bill +1912 Parliament act as a result of holding balance of power) They fought so that the Irish people could have their own democracy, a government who would listen to them and follow their wishes, and not be ruled by a foreign power with a differing agenda. If Britain had of listened to the will of the people, illustrated by the numerous rebellions which occurred prior to 1916......




    Americans hold the signatories of their Proclamation as heroes, why cant we? I think the 1916 rebels were heroes. Most people would agree I say.


  • #83
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    lugha wrote: »
    I would suggest you could say much the same about PIRA or even the dissident republicans. I don’t think their purpose was to instil terror.

    That's a fair point, but whether they meant it or not, they did instil terror, bombing shopping centres and pubs and so on, hence why I label them terrorists.
    lugha wrote: »
    In any case, I am inclined to avoid the label “terrorist”, it a troublesome term as it tends to focus attention on the mode of violence (as you do in your post) and not the matter of whether those engaging in it have a mandate.

    I agree that it is quite an ambiguous term.I was just mentioning carbombs as a specific example btw.
    lugha wrote: »
    Thus are Irish republican apologists able to make ludicrous comparisments between say Nelson Mandela and PIRA activists. The former had authority, the latter did not. But if you label them both as terrorists, that makes them the same, and as Nelson is a good guy so too much be the RA boys, or so their logic goes.

    I've never made such comparisons so I can't speak for people who do.
    lugha wrote: »

    The question is not do you fight dirty (BTW Michael Collins did not always adhere to the Queensbury rules, remember bloody Sunday), the question is do you have the authority to take what ever actions you do take.

    Disagree.I think it is whether you fight dirty and not whether you have a mandate.I do think "Terrorism" a term that is very much open to interpretation however, and I can see where you are coming from.

    BTW, Bloody Sunday targeted British agents and therefore I view it as a legitimate means of warfare.
    lugha wrote: »
    You seem to regard the disrespect for democracy shown by the 1916 leaders as nothing more than a minor blot against their character. But their undemocratic ways is precisely why they should not be held up as heroes.


    I think is nothing more than a minor blot because it was a rebellion against British rule, and not Irish rule.Therefore I find such a rebellion difficult to condemn.Indeed, I think it is something admirable.

    Anyway, like Mussolini said, this is all massively OT.I'll just sum it up by saying I don't want Norris as president.:)


Advertisement