Bring Back Bertie ?

oceanclub

Good old Bertie turned up at what sounds like a Celtic Bubble bubble huckster convention (I presume that the sewerage system in the convention centre finally works):

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2010/0908/ireland/icon-of-the-boom-defies-convention-130142.html

THE disparate threads of the Celtic Tiger Tragedy suddenly became woven into a single tapestry of sorrow at the opening of the Convention Centre Dublin as what was intended to be the icon of the boom instead showcased those buried beneath the rubble of the bust.


Look! There’s Bertie Ahern! And what are the tarnished Taoiseach’s thoughts on his very own Seanad nominee Ivor Callely taking that extraordinary trip to the Four Courts?

"I’m afraid to say anything about lawyers – they’re very dangerous," Bertie shrugged, still beaming that shameless trademark twinkle which transfixed the tribunals.

And who’s that Bertie is man-hugging in the convention centre’s foyer? Why, it’s none other than developer Johnny Ronan.

You know, the property tiger who turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger when NAMA moved in to bail out his firm Treasury Holdings as he jetted off to Morocco with TV presenter Glenda Gilson to enjoy a week-long holiday which reportedly cost €60,000.

Oh, and just look at the views of downtown Dublin from Treasury Holdings’ magnificent glass edifice of the CCD! Not so much a panorama, more a NAMA-rama – as so many of the glinting buildings are now toxic follies propped up by the hard-pressed taxpayer.

P.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

We as a people overspent and now we have to pay it all back. That does not mean that every single person overspent . . but collectively we did and collectively we are responsible.

Let me put this to bed for you. We as a people are still only personally responsible for our financial mistakes or who we vote for and any mistakes we make we have to live with as most people are. The vast majority of people who did overspend ARE now taking responsibility and paying their overpriced mortgage while in negative equity. When personal mistakes becomes a public trend for whatever reason, the government are then responsible for stopping it, they were responsible for calming the bubble and you alleging the people would have replaced them shouldn't have stopped a strong government with the best interests of the country in mind - what you are admitting to is that FF sold Irelands future to remain in power.

So thats personal responsibility, now how has that been applied to Anglo and the banks? Suddenly Sean Fitzpatrick isn't responsible for mismanaging his bank, it was all his customers, nay it was the entire Irish people, onto whose shoulders his mistakes have been placed.

You as a member of FF have a serious personal responsibility, I wouldn't argue that it is collective but lets call it that (only in the sense that all you members choose to stay members). Trying to expand the collective responsibility at the level of party membership to a national level is ludicrous. You choose to remain a member of a piece of sh1t party that you love. Its not a difficult choice or much effort to leave. The rest of us choose to live in a country that we love, that has been ruined by your piece of sh1t party. And you say that if we don't leave we are collectively responsible? We should we leave? You can say you disagree with decisions but you remain a member, you support the party, you enable them to continue in government. And then you admit that you are responsible (its an empty gesture). What are you doing to take responsibility? Whats the consequences for you? Oh yes, I forgot, you are taking responsibility by reshaping the party from the inside out - PUKE! Thats not a consequence like having to pay back a mortgage on a shoebox you shouldn't have bought!

We want our pound of flesh and sooner or later this country will take it from every FFer. You are modern day traitors in support of economic treachery. Seriously, I dont know how you live with yourself with that kind of 'responsibility' over your head. And there I'll stop, I don't want to go as far as Bertie the Great

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, because.....



Because you're a member, and because you defend those actions here on boards. Do you not get that ? YOU CHOOSE to be a member. You see the actions of Ahern and then you propose him as Taoiseach. Do you not get that ?

So in both cases you ARE partly responsible.

Indeed, but I could follow your argument and say that I voted down policy X therefore I am not responsible for its outcome. . . I could only defend or take responsibility for those things that I personally supported. .

Fine, but democracy doesn't work that way in my mind . . In my mind democracy is about a) the people accepting the will of the majority and b) the people taking responsibility for the will of the majority.

It's not a red herring, because YOU'RE the one who made up the "we as a people" and "we all" and "everyone"......so - since you claimed that's who's responsible - it's only natural for those who didn't invent this "collective responsibility" lark to ask where you draw the line with your redefinition.

And you refuse to answer, claiming "pedantics", even though you're the one who wants to redefine the definition "collective"; of COURSE we're down to pedantics when you're trying to do that!

Your argument is ridiculous, and you can neither justify the generic and collective "we" nor even define it.

So I'll ask YET again : who do you want to include and exclude from this "collective responsibility" ?

It is a red herring . . Its a daft argument . . you would clearly line everyone up, examine their voting preferences and their spending habits over the past 15 years and then attach the appropriate "to blame" or "not to blame" label . . . I'm not interested in that nonsense . . I believe we, the people of Ireland overspent . . (and include the babies if you want, but I'm not sure what that achieves for you one way or another!)

oceanclub

I believe we, the people of Ireland overspent . . (and include the babies if you want

Is there any point continuing this discussion? It seems as futile as arguing with a fundamentalist. I mean, this guy actually thinks that new-born babies are as responisible for Ireland's economic problems as Bertie Ahern, I don't think any kind of rational argument is going to work. We're talking serious Kool Aid imbibing here.

P.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It is a red herring . . Its a daft argument . . you would clearly line everyone up, examine their voting preferences and their spending habits over the past 15 years and then attach the appropriate "to blame" or "not to blame" label . . . I'm not interested in that nonsense . . I believe we, the people of Ireland overspent . . (and include the babies if you want, but I'm not sure what that achieves for you one way or another!)

Blame is already apportioned to spending habits. If I ran up my credit card, I pay it back, If Joe Murphy bought an overpriced house, he pays it back, if Anglo owe billions.... oh wait, wow maybe blame isn't being proportionately doled out, fancy that? So I'm paying for Anglo AND I'm paying for your continued support of FF, now why would that make me mad, sure you keep telling me thats collective responsibility.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Indeed, but I could follow your argument and say that I voted down policy X therefore I am not responsible for its outcome. . . I could only defend or take responsibility for those things that I personally supported. .

And if the crap decisions outweigh the good ones, you leave.

You certainly don't start threads like this if you object to Ahern's dodgy dealings and mismanagement and nepotism and other "no-personal-financial-gain" corruption.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Fine, but democracy doesn't work that way in my mind . . In my mind democracy is about a) the people accepting the will of the majority and b) the people taking responsibility for the will of the majority.

We've seen what's "in your mind"; zero personal accountability for your FF heroes' decisions, and 100% collective responsibility for everyone for the same decisions. I doubt we even remotely have the same view of how democracy should work.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It is a red herring . . Its a daft argument . . you would clearly line everyone up, examine their voting preferences and their spending habits over the past 15 years and then attach the appropriate "to blame" or "not to blame" label

That would be the fairest option, allocating accountability based on people's decisions and actions, yes.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . . I'm not interested in that nonsense

So we noticed.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . I believe we, the people of Ireland overspent

As we have already seen in this thread, what someone believes is irrelevant as it doesn't have to take facts and other people's experience into account.

We've also established that "belief" is "unverifiable"; it's a gut feeling coloured by bias and personal preferences.

If I said "I believe Ahern is a corrupt con-man", you'd freak and demand proof, and make sure that each individual transaction and possibility was investigated thoroughly, looking for the FACTS.

And yet you ridicule the above approach of investigating the FACTS as to who did overspend and act recklessly. Strange, that.

Why should I pay and suffer because of what you believe ?

Laminations

So spending habits has a check and balance, in the regular non-FF world blame is properly and appropriately doled out - i.e. you spend, you pay. Now if only we could assign blame so easily to voting habits? I dont overly blame anyone who voted for FF in 2007, all the info wasn't out, the government were lying and it was the FF 'lets pretend' show. But now that the house of cards has fallen, I place severe levels of blame on any FF supporter and especially those crass enough to be members of the party that ruined this country. If you want to take responsibility for your membership then call for the disbandment of FF, hold your hands up and leave the building.

oh well , okay

Bertie Ahern has had the tribunals trawl through his every transaction over the last 30 year

This just isn't factually correct . The tribunal had a specific time frame in it's remit which I believe covered 9 years of Aherns accounts , it's also a stretch to say they covered every transaction . A significant part of Aherns public questioning concerned accounts which he had not originally disclosed to the inquiry .

When the tribunal finds (as Im confident it will) that Ahern has no case to answer to

How can you be so confident of it's findings when you don't understand it's remit ?

During this thread we've gone from (and I'm paraphrasing) Bertie was great should we bring him back to ..... OK well maybe he has a few questions hanging over him to .....well every other party is the same to .....mmmm actually we're all collectively responsible and everyone is to blame as much as the government .

This thread is like the government itself , it started off cocky and self important and is now flailing around helpless looking for other people to pin the blame on .

When the tribunal finds (as Im confident it will) that Ahern has no case to answer then I see no reason why not to put him back into the Taoiseach's chair. . .

It's September 2010 now , the present government will last at best to July 2012 , the tribunal will hardly report now before Spring 2011 .

Are you stating that Ahern should be brought back for the final 12 months of this government ? Is that really your position ?

Two questions....

Do you honestly think the country would benefit from this ?

Do you honestly think Fianna Fail would benefit from this ?

I really don't think you've thought this one through .

This thread is a joke .

raymon

hallelujajordan

You say that Fianna Fail has problems and you are changing the Fianna Fail party from within -

What have you proposed ??

Who did you announce your proposals to ???

What was their response ???

I dont believe you have proposed any changes to FF at all .

Have you made any difference ???

Or is starting a post to promote conmen to higher office the pinnacle of your effort .

Have you gotten off your armchair yet to do anything ??? I would guess not !!!

Biggins

jmayo wrote: »

...You do know that Goerge Hook stated he would stand against bertie ?

I didn't know what but if its the same man that is HERE, I'd give him every bit of support possible in a flash. Be that footwork, door knocking, financial or whatever.

We can't allow history to be re-written with time, too easily brushed aside or conveniently forgotten about either.
If we have any pride or best intentions for our state, its the least we should not allow to happen.
For the past effects the future!

jmayo

Biggins wrote: »

I didn't know what but if its the same man that is HERE, I'd give him every bit of support possible in a flash. Be that footwork, door knocking, financial or whatever.

We can't allow history to be re-written with time, too easily brushed aside or conveniently forgotten about either.
If we have any pride or best intentions for our state, its the least we should not allow to happen.
For the past effects the future!

Yes it is the same man.
He was also the only one to call the little ff mouthpiece, tubridy, up on his shameless ff spin broadcasting that I believe has signed the death knell for the late late show.
He put the scrawny sh** back in his box and tubridy did not like it one bit when he was called up on his very pro government or more correctly pro ff family party.

As bad as Pat Kenny ever was hosting that show he never degenerated to slagging off the opposition all the while giving soft focus interviews to the likes of bertie, cowen, o'rourke etc.

Liam Byrne

Biggins wrote: »

I didn't know what but if its the same man that is HERE, I'd give him every bit of support possible in a flash. Be that footwork, door knocking, financial or whatever.

We can't allow history to be re-written with time, too easily brushed aside or conveniently forgotten about either.

Not so sure how Hook holds up in that regard, Biggins; he's the one who wore a black armband when Sky got the rugby and now waxes lyrical about how great Sky are.

Better than Bertie, definitely, but the above shows that even Hook has a tendency to u-turn on principles when there's cash up for grabs.

Biggins

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not so sure how Hook holds up in that regard, Biggins; he's the one who wore a black armband when Sky got the rugby and now waxes lyrical about how great Sky are.

Better than Bertie, definitely, but the above shows that even Hook has a tendency to u-turn on principles when there's cash up for grabs.

Good to know.
Damn, I'm just have to go seek out someone more viable.
Would the last honest person in the country please stand up!

...No Jesus, you sit back down!

oceanclub

Norris for President! Personally I think it would give the country a huge boost, and give our image abroad the same kick-start that it did when we elected the first woman President.

P.

Essexboy

The economists Peter Boone and Simon Johnson have done some of the maths and found that the total amount of debt likely to end up with the Irish government amounts to about one-third of GDP. They concluded that with 10-year market rates at current levels – close to 6 per cent – Ireland is effectively insolvent. To correct this Ireland would need to generate spectacular rates of future growth. But do we really believe that the Celtic Tiger trick can be replicated? Was the presence of a global financial bubble not inherent in that model?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b11d2732-b915-11df-99be-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=Late_cta2a/NL/UKSeptember2010/Vanilla_europe/0/

The man who dropped us in the sh!t will get us out of it? :rolleyes:

The Raven.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

There is no doubt that this was a gaff on Bertie Ahern's part . . He spoke off-the-cuff, said something he should not have in the heat of the moment and apologised afterwards . . I think we have all done that at times . .

We may have all said things that we wish we hadn’t, but they pale in comparison to Bertie’s offensive suicide comment.

Let me ask you a question and also ask you to answer it honestly . . Do you really believe that Bertie Ahern felt that people like McWilliams etc ought to commit suicide ? Do you think he would have liked to see that happen ? Do you think he would have been happy afterwards ?

Let’s get one thing straight here. All my posts are honest. I don’t approve of dishonesty. Remember that in future!

How can I possibly know what goes on in Bertie’s mind? He constantly changes his statements to suit his agenda. In other words, he tells lies. With people like that, it is impossible to trust anything they say or to know precisely what they feel. People such as David McWilliams would have been an absolute thorn in his side, and one would imagine that Bertie would be happier if they didn’t exist. It would seem unlikely that Bertie would have wanted them to literally commit suicide, but I doubt if he would shed a tear if they did.

Let’s not forget that Bertie was reading from a carefully written speech, penned no doubt by his scriptwriters and scrutinized by his advisors. The main focus of that speech was to show how great he was and to inspire ‘confidence’ in his policies and achievements, couched in the language of a fawning publican to impress the union leaders at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. His suicide comment was delivered as part of his speech, not an ‘off-the-cuff’ remark. The comment may not have been written in the script, but it was delivered in the same tone. It signified his frustration at the fact that there were people intelligent enough to see through his lies – people he couldn’t fool, so he accused them of ‘talking us down’ and ‘finding banana skins’.

C'mon, I can understand a lot of the criticism of Ahern but our inability to forgive the suicide comment and recognise it for what it was is just childish as this stage.

Bertie’s ‘apology’ rang hollow at a time when Ireland had the 5th highest suicide rate in Europe. For a Taoiseach who claimed to be ‘very involved with The Suicide Action Group’ he has shown an appalling lack of sensitivity towards the families and friends of the people who have committed suicide. There is nothing ‘childish’ about not wanting to sweep this under the carpet and pretending that the author of these words is fit to hold public office.

hallelujajordan

The Raven. wrote: »

Let’s get one thing straight here. All my posts are honest. I don’t approve of dishonesty. Remember that in future!

How can I possibly know what goes on in Bertie’s mind? He constantly changes his statements to suit his agenda. In other words, he tells lies. With people like that, it is impossible to trust anything they say or to know precisely what they feel. People such as David McWilliams would have been an absolute thorn in his side, and one would imagine that Bertie would be happier if they didn’t exist. It would seem unlikely that Bertie would have wanted them to literally commit suicide, but I doubt if he would shed a tear if they did.

Let’s not forget that Bertie was reading from a carefully written speech, penned no doubt by his scriptwriters and scrutinized by his advisors. The main focus of that speech was to show how great he was and to inspire ‘confidence’ in his policies and achievements, couched in the language of a fawning publican to impress the union leaders at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. His suicide comment was delivered as part of his speech, not an ‘off-the-cuff’ remark. The comment may not have been written in the script, but it was delivered in the same tone. It signified his frustration at the fact that there were people intelligent enough to see through his lies – people he couldn’t fool, so he accused them of ‘talking us down’ and ‘finding banana skins’.

I will remember that and thank you for acknowledging that although none of us can know exactly what was in Bertie Ahern's mind it is extremely unlikely that he meant that comment literally. . .

There are lots of reasons to criticise Bertie Ahern . . Some I agree with; some I don't but those who continually revisit this comment to score a political dig at Ahern are not showing any more sensitivity to the families and friends of suicide victims than he did. .

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

those who continually revisit this comment to score a political dig at Ahern are not showing any more sensitivity to the families and friends of suicide victims than he did. .

Give me a break!

I've heard some pathetic attempts to prevent people from acknowledging Ahern's many faults and cock-ups, but this one is a new low!

Next thing you know some Ahern fans will be saying that we can't point out how much Ahern has screwed up the economy because it's not being sensitive enough to those who have lost their jobs and are on the breadline because of the little rat!

hallelujajordan - do you believe in accountability or not ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Give me a break!

I've heard some pathetic attempts to prevent people from acknowledging Ahern's many faults and cock-ups, but this one is a new low!

Next thing you know some Ahern fans will be saying that we can't point out how much Ahern has screwed up the economy because it's not being sensitive enough to those who have lost their jobs and are on the breadline because of the little rat!

hallelujajordan - do you believe in accountability or not ?

Yes, I believe in accountability . . I've never tried to avoid it . . I believe that Fianna Fail are responsible for following a set of policies that got us into this situation. I've never said otherwise. . I believe that Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach has a level of personal responsibility as the leader of the government who made the wrong decisions. I've never suggested otherwise. . . I believe that I have a responsibility as a member of Fianna Fail. I've never tried to avoid that responsibility.

I also believe that there is a bigger picture of responsibility that if we chose to ignore will be more detrimental to us in the longer term.

And I believe that whatever you say about Bertie Ahern, he never wanted or wished for anyone to commit suicide. .

The Raven.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I believe we, the people of Ireland overspent . . (and include the babies if you want… )

Is this some new interpretation of original sin? Not the apple on the tree or the pair on the ground? :eek:

Seth Brundle

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, I believe in accountability . . I've never tried to avoid it . . I believe that Fianna Fail are responsible for following a set of policies that got us into this situation. I've never said otherwise. . I believe that Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach has a level of personal responsibility as the leader of the government who made the wrong decisions. I've never suggested otherwise. . . I believe that I have a responsibility as a member of Fianna Fail. I've never tried to avoid that responsibility.

They followed a set of policies? WHo came up with these policies?
Bertie as head of the cabinet who implemented the FF & PD policies is the primary focus of blame with Charlie, Harney et al following closely behind.

Bertie also liked to keep everyone happy through a policy of throwing money at a problem creating an upward spiral that got the unions, etc on side but is now costing us a fortune.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I also believe that there is a bigger picture of responsibility that if we chose to ignore will be more detrimental to us in the longer term.

such as?
Are you suggesting that I for example am partly responsible and if so, how?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And I believe that whatever you say about Bertie Ahern, he never wanted or wished for anyone to commit suicide. .

Maybe so but he did choose to offend the families of suicide victims through his words!

hallelujajordan

The Raven. wrote: »

Is this some new interpretation of original sin? Not the apple on the tree or the pair on the ground? :eek:

Oh come on, read the thread . . Liam Byrne asked if babies were responsible as a complete red herring . . I think its as ridiculous as you do (and if you read my other responses and didn't quote selectively, you'd see that)

hallelujajordan

kbannon wrote: »

such as?
Are you suggesting that I for example am partly responsible and if so, how?

I've already answered this in detail . . you might not agree with my concept of collective responsibility but do I really need to keep explaining it ? ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I also believe that there is a bigger picture of responsibility that if we chose to ignore will be more detrimental to us in the longer term.

I might have thanked that post were it not for 2 things.

1) The above; what does it mean ?
2) Since you've acknowledged FF's crap decisions, should people avoid voting for them next time, and if not, why not ?

And, of course, there's the whole topic of this thread; since you were honest enough to acknowledge Ahern's many failings, what makes you still suggest that he be "brought back" ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Oh come on, read the thread . . Liam Byrne asked if babies were responsible as a complete red herring . . I think its as ridiculous as you do (and if you read my other responses and didn't quote selectively, you'd see that)

OK - now I'm glad that I didn't thank the previous post.

I did not ask ANYTHING "as a complete red herring".

You suggested that living in this country, etc, somehow caused "collective responsibility", and those babies are living in this country.

You extended the definition of "collective responsibility" beyond what most people would reasonably find acceptable, and therefore it is perfectly valid to ask what your definition extends to.

Dismissing it as a red herring is just a way of avoiding explaining what your definition entails, which is quite convenient.

Ahern : responsible
So-called financial "regulator" : responsible
Bankers & gamblers : responsible
FF : responsible
FF members : responsible by their choice of association
FF voters : Responsible by their choices
People who got massively greedy and borrowed way too much : responsible by their choices
People who got massively greedy and overcharged and created rip-off Ireland : responsible by their choices

Other people who just happen to live in Ireland, didn't gamble, didn't vote FF and didn't rip people off : not responsible, by any stretch of the imagination

If you believe in accountability, how can you make those who made the above choices "accountable" while tarring everyone else with the same brush ?

I would suggest that 99% of people would agree with the above, and therefore if you are suggesting otherwise it is up to you to state clearly what your own definition extends to, and why.

Otherwise your definition is as bogus and self-interestedly over-extended as Callely's definition of "principal place of residence" and as unexplainable as Ahern's finances.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ahern : responsible
So-called financial "regulator" : responsible
Bankers & gamblers : responsible
FF : responsible
FF members : responsible by their choice of association
FF voters : Responsible by their choices
People who got massively greedy and borrowed way too much : responsible by their choices
People who got massively greedy and overcharged and created rip-off Ireland : responsible by their choices

OK, so I would question how you define those last two categories. . Who decides what 'massively greedy' is . . Are you and some of the gang here going to form a committee . .

But ignoring that small technicality for a second, what does this appropriation of blame achieve for you . . Does it make you feel better ? Does it help us solve our problems.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

OK, so I would question how you define those last two categories. . Who decides what 'massively greedy' is . . Are you and some of the gang here going to form a committee . .

Fair question. But like all investigations the first step is involves acknowledging that the above is true.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

But ignoring that small technicality for a second, what does this appropriation of blame achieve for you . . Does it make you feel better ? Does it help us solve our problems.

It would be a start. Punishing people who weren't responsible just creates unrest, and avoiding punishing people who were creates further unrest and discord, and hampers the process.

Mind you, I'm surprised that you even asked that since you already indicated that you're in favour of accountability. If you truly were, then the above is a requirement for the operation of normal society.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I might have thanked that post were it not for 2 things.

1) The above; what does it mean ?

You know what it means . . I have explained how I believe that the people, the country got carried away. We can either decide to blame FF for everything and do it all again when the next boom comes around or we can look to ourselves. The people of Ireland got greedy. I don't usually like to generalise but I really believe that.

2) Since you've acknowledged FF's crap decisions, should people avoid voting for them next time, and if not, why not ?

People should make up their own mind based on policies and manifestos at the time. I don't believe in 'punishing' political partied. I believe in selecting the best political party based on policies, manifestos and personnel . .

And, of course, there's the whole topic of this thread; since you were honest enough to acknowledge Ahern's many failings, what makes you still suggest that he be "brought back" ?

Because I think he is a better leader than the current Taoiseach . . I think he is a better potential leader than anyone else in Fianna Fail and I think he is a better leader than anyone in the opposition. . .

If you believe that he is 'the most devious, the most cunning of all' . . as some people on here constantly quote then maybe we need some of that cunning to dig ourselves out of this hole ..

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fair question. But like all investigations the first step is involves acknowledging that the above is true.



It would be a start. Punishing people who weren't responsible just creates unrest, and avoiding punishing people who were creates further unrest and discord, and hampers the process.

Mind you, I'm surprised that you even asked that since you already indicated that you're in favour of accountability. If you truly were, then the above is a requirement for the operation of normal society.

So, how do you punish them ? Do those who fall into the 'massively greedy' category have to pay higher taxes ?

And, since when does accountability = punishment ?

Darlughda

oceanclub wrote: »

Norris for President! Personally I think it would give the country a huge boost, and give our image abroad the same kick-start that it did when we elected the first woman President.

P.

Do not degrade the cause of feminism which you obviouslly know diddly squat.

Norris is concerned with things thing like the Abbey theatre being situated at at the GPO. FFS. Yeah the champion of upper middle class overstuffed waistcoats.
Do not try to equate the first woman president with some bs egalitarian idea of the first gay president.
I would love to see a lesbian or gay politician in this country holding the highest office, but not one overstuffed on quail.

Mary Robinson had and still has a keen understanding of human rights. Norris is nothing more than an overstuffed puff of his own self importance thinking he is champioining the cause of human rights.