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

previous user · 31-05-2011 10:08PM

I'd vote for him just to completely wind up some of the conservative politicians in our
government and the Joe Duffy/Christian brigade that probably built that insane website.

Nodin · 31-05-2011 10:08PM

sesna wrote: »

The tape has been found by the meticulous journalist. Thankfully this was brought to light before the election.

....the "meticulous journalist" was on the 6 o clock news stating that she could not find said tape. Therefore its rather hard to see how

Liveline would not play the tape as they said it was too explicit for the time of the day

...could come about.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 10:09PM

zuroph wrote: »

can you produce any evidence that he said anything that supported sex with juveniles? I havent seen anything yet?

Is that not what H.L.B. was suggesting ?

Nodin · 31-05-2011 10:10PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Is that not what H.L.B. was suggesting ?

Correct.

AudreyHepburn · 31-05-2011 10:10PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Where did i say it was something to be proud about ? Also i am not anti gay/homophobic and if you had read all my posts, as you claimed to have done, you would have seen where i explained that.

You have complained repeatedly about them 'flaunting' their sexuality. You said that if you were near Senator Norris your skin would crawl.

If that is not homophobia I don't what is.

But that's your business.

Ally Dick · 31-05-2011 10:11PM

If Helen Lucy Burke stands for president, I'll vote for her.......NOT !

AudreyHepburn · 31-05-2011 10:11PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Is that not what H.L.B. was suggesting ?

That is just hearsay, just her word.

Zuroph asked for proof.

oppenheimer1 · 31-05-2011 10:13PM

zuroph wrote: »

can you produce any evidence that he said anything that supported sex with juveniles? I havent seen anything yet?

He didn't disagree with O'Searcaighs behaviour. While not illegal in Nepal, one would seriously question the wisdom of supporting the immoral behaviour of a rich westerner who was taking advantage of vunerable teenage boys.

AudreyHepburn · 31-05-2011 10:15PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

He didn't disagree with O'Searcaighs behaviour. While not illegal in Nepal, one would seriously question the wisdom of supporting the immoral behaviour of a rich westerner who was taking advantage of vunerable teenage boys.

Not disagreeing with something does not equal supporting it.

Ben Hadad · 31-05-2011 10:17PM

This thread is hilarious. People really attempting to seriously state that a picture of Norris grabbing a models breasts in a set up picture is some sort of evidence of his inability to be President of this country. Come on what kind of argument is that?

Also it would appear that certain people in this thread don't understand the constitutional role of the President in Irish society.

To answer the OP question, I personally hope that the next president regains Ireland moral compass and campaigns for foreign injustices on behalf of me as a citizen, that's what I would like to see in my President. Currently I know of nobody else running, which is quite strange as Norris appears to be coming in for some well organised dirt slinging. Perhaps they are trying to "torpedo" him before they can be accused of being behind the attacks, or maybe I am just being cynical.

Either way I feel Norris would be quite good for sticking up for minorities so I will probably vote for him in the election. Himself and former President Mary Robinson have worked together in the Norris vs. Ireland case in the European Court of Rights; Mary turned out alright, I think Norris will as well.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 10:18PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You have complained repeatedly about them 'flaunting' their sexuality. You said that if you were near Senator Norris your skin would crawl.

If that is not homophobia I don't what is.

But that's your business.

BUT i didn't say that about all of them now did i ? Maybe i'm semi-homophobic so. If didn't know that they
were Gay because they were not "acting out" like he seems to make a point of doing then i wouldn't feel bad then, would i ?

oppenheimer1 · 31-05-2011 10:19PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not disagreeing with something does not equal supporting it.

If you're not with us, you're against us.

sesna · 31-05-2011 10:20PM

Nodin wrote: »

....the "meticulous journalist" was on the 6 o clock news stating that she could not find said tape. Therefore its rather hard to see how

...could come about.

They have the tape and were looking for the correct dictaphone to play it. They didnt' play it then because of the obscenity. Or maybe they need to consult their lawyers due to previously unreleased content. It was announcted on the preview to liveline today, then it wasn't mentioned

oppenheimer1 · 31-05-2011 10:21PM

Ben Hadad wrote: »

This thread is hilarious. People really attempting to seriously state that a picture of Norris grabbing a models breasts in a set up picture is some sort of evidence of his inability to be President of this country. Come on what kind of argument is that?

Also it would appear that certain people in this thread don't understand the constitutional role of the President in Irish society.

To answer the OP question, I personally hope that the next president regains Ireland moral compass and campaigns for foreign injustices on behalf of me as a citizen, that's what I would like to see in my President. Currently I know of nobody else running, which is quite strange as Norris appears to be coming in for some well organised dirt slinging. Perhaps they are trying to "torpedo" him before they can be accused of being behind the attacks, or maybe I am just being cynical.

Either way I feel Norris would be quite good for sticking up for minorities so I will probably vote for him in the election. Himself and former President Mary Robinson have worked together in the Norris vs. Ireland case in the European Court of Rights; Mary turned out alright, I think Norris will as well.

Certainly seems good at sticking up for minority opinions on certain issues anyway.

AudreyHepburn · 31-05-2011 10:24PM

sesna wrote: »

They have the tape and were looking for the correct dictaphone to play it. They didnt' play it then because of the obscenity.

First she says she has it, then she has the wong tape, then she doesn't have the tape at all, then she does again.

Not a very reliable witness tbh.

oppenheimer1 · 31-05-2011 10:24PM

sesna wrote: »

They have the tape and were looking for the correct dictaphone to play it. They didnt' play it then because of the obscenity. Or maybe they need to consult their lawyers due to previously unreleased content.

I believe the journalist involved said that the tape she thought it was turned out not to be it, and the actual tape is now lost.

It doesn't matter because Norris is not denying the quotes only that it was taken out of context. Personally I'm struggling to find a context which would make such a quote acceptable.

sesna · 31-05-2011 10:24PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That is just hearsay, just her word.

Zuroph asked for proof.

Telling that Norris took no libel action at the time.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 10:25PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

First she says she has it, then she has the wong tape, then she doesn't have the tape at all, then she does again.

Not a very reliable witness tbh.

Getting worried now ?

sesna · 31-05-2011 10:26PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I believe the journalist involved said that the tape she thought it was turned out not to be it, and the actual tape is now lost.

It doesn't matter because Norris is not denying the quotes only that it was taken out of context. Personally I'm struggling to find a context which would make such a quote acceptable.

It's okay if you prefix those sick comments with the word "classic".

AudreyHepburn · 31-05-2011 10:27PM

tayto lover wrote: »

BUT i didn't say that about all of them now did i ? Maybe i'm semi-homophobic so. If didn't know that they
were Gay because they were not "acting out" like he seems to make a point of doing then i wouldn't feel bad then, would i ?

What gives you the authority to tell them, or anyone how to behave.

If it makes you uncomfortable it is your problem, not theirs.

AudreyHepburn · 31-05-2011 10:27PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Getting worried now ?

Why should I be worried?

AudreyHepburn · 31-05-2011 10:29PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If you're not with us, you're against us.

Terry · 31-05-2011 10:29PM

tayto lover wrote: »

If she comes up with the tape she claims to have will you then believe it ?

Yes.

mikemac wrote: »

To answer the OP, I wouldn't vote for him

But not over this.
I've been waiting for Michael D since 2004. Met him often around Galway and was always impressed

There's a few posts in this large thread however if you oppose Norris you must live outside Dublin and you're probably a bigot. :rolleyes:

You were doing well until the "outside Dublin" comment.

Fair enough, not everyone wants to vote for Norris, and that doesn't make them a bigot, but people really need to get over the Dublin Vs the rest of Ireland stuff.

You support Michael D. That's great. He's a good politician, and is probably the only one in the running who has a chance against Norris. There's no need to divide the the country into an us vs them scenario though.

I'm from Leinster, but not Dublin and I support Norris. However, I do not think that everyone who doesn't support him is a bigot.
You may not know Dublin too well if you believe that everyone who lives there is all for equality.

It's my opinion that saying everyone from Dublin thinks the rest of the country is bigoted if they don't vote for a gay man is bigoted itself. You're basically saying that you think that everyone from Dublin is pro-gay (I didn't want to have to go to the bother of typing out homosexual).

You're tarring everyone from Dublin with the same brush. Do you not see that you are bigoted yourself?

Anyway, if anyone has that journalist's contact details, please forward them to me.
I have access to a casette player, and I'd love to hear Norris say that he loves ****ing young boys.

Also, I can fix casette tapes. Many years experience of using cheap walkmans.

zuroph · 31-05-2011 10:30PM

sesna wrote: »

Telling that Norris took no libel action at the time.

Maybe he's not litigious, or didnt fancy suing a woman with little means? Not suing is not evidence of guilt in any way.

where did you get the comment that the tape "was too obscene"???? Because this evening she says she may have lost it when her roof collapsed.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 10:30PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What gives you the authority to tell them, or anyone how to behave.

If it makes you uncomfortable it is your problem, not theirs.

Where did i tell them how to behave ?
I said i didn't like certain behaviour.

Some of them certainly do make me feel uncomfortable, as i have said, and it is my problem indeed. I move if they are making me feel uncomfortable as is my right.

zuroph · 31-05-2011 10:31PM

sesna wrote: »

Malicious post. Norris' stance on sex with young boys is clear from the original article.

yes. he's against it. and you say you disagree with his stance.

sesna · 31-05-2011 10:32PM

zuroph wrote: »

Maybe he's not litigious, or didnt fancy suing a woman with little means? Not suing is not evidence of guilt in any way.

where did you get the comment that the tape "was too obscene"???? Because this evening she says she may have lost it when her roof collapsed.

What do you mean where did I get the comment? I wrote the comment.

I offered several possible explanations as to why it was to be played, and then wasn't played. The comments certainly are obscene. I shudder to think what else is on that tape.

sesna · 31-05-2011 10:35PM

zuroph wrote: »

yes. he's against it. and you say you disagree with his stance.

In terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think there can be something to be said for it.

Your post is malicious.

zuroph · 31-05-2011 10:35PM

sesna wrote: »

Norris' stance on sex with young boys is clear from the original article.

"Norris states "pre-pubescent children who lack any identifying characteristics of sexual maturity, I cannot understand why anyone would find them sexually appropriate". We can take from that he finds a presence of "identifying characteristics" "sexually appropriate".

you absolutely cannot, massive jump in logic.

"In terms of ... paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think there can be something to be said for it."

Disgusting that you support his sick stance.

second paragraph doesnt refer to sex at all? and you've edited a single word out, and norris claims the word was meant to be pederasty not paedophilia, whether he misspoke or was misquoted is unclear.
also, a younger man/boy is not neccesarily a young boy. a 17 year old is a boy, for example.

Daroxtar · 31-05-2011 10:36PM

I wouldn't vote for him. Nothing to do with the current controversy, I just find him irritating. Every year the same sh!te on Bloomsday...give it a rest Davey, its fúcking tedious.

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

Comments