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

Biggins · 01-06-2011 06:51PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

Yeah you'd be listening! You'd be quiet alright, but I doubt you'd be listening!

alex73 · 01-06-2011 06:54PM

Nothing to do with his sexuality or interviews, but he isn't the best candidate.

btard · 01-06-2011 07:29PM

Politics is a dirty business. It's no place for an honest man. A successful politician has to be a hypocrite of the highest order. The mob are easily manipulated. They see things in terms of black and white, or good and bad. They don't have the capacity to understand a man like Norris, or what's going on here. They will only see the slur. He was badly advised to enter this arena. I fear they will destroy him.

Biggins · 01-06-2011 07:36PM

btard wrote: »

Politics is a dirty business. It's no place for an honest man. A successful politician has to be a hypocrite of the highest order. The mob are easily manipulated. They see things in terms of black and white, or good and bad. They don't have the capacity to understand a man like Norris, or what's going on here. They will only see the slur. He was badly advised to enter this arena. I fear they will destroy him.

I agree politics is a dirty business - and if you enter it with clean hands, its hard to keep them that way.
I fear 'they' will be allowed to be once again, be manipulated to some extent by the mass rag style tabloid media and their low-level gutter tactics.

Now if we were just given the honest facts, qualifications and achievements of each candidate, the selection process might be a lot easier.
But sadly (even as we can see by our now banned troll) there is those that will only seek to use low level intelligence to sidetrack us and hope we fall down to that level with them.

I choose to rise above such rubbish, decide on the more important facts and hope the majority of the electorate will too - and not just become one of 'them'.

sesna · 01-06-2011 07:42PM

Next time when the President of the USA, say Barack Obama, comes to our shores only to be met by two men, I doubt he will be too happy to leave his wife alone for hours by a supposedly "gay" man while he engages in official business with David.

Norris is a hardworking politician and after more extensive reading on the issue and his response, I am starting to think more and more that is a lame smear campaign. But those quotes did look really bad as presented, and Norris showed awful political judgement giving such an interview.

Biggins · 01-06-2011 07:44PM

sesna wrote: »

Next time when the President of the USA, say Barack Obama, comes to our shores only to be met by two men, I doubt he will be too happy to leave his wife alone for hours by a supposedly "gay" man while he engages in official business with David

I'm sorry but thats rubbish.
Are you saying now that all gay men are dangerous, dodgy or what?
Daftness, no matter what your insinuating - and frankly insulting too to anyone of that sexual category.

mikemac · 01-06-2011 07:47PM

btard wrote: »

Politics is a dirty business. It's no place for an honest man. A successful politician has to be a hypocrite of the highest order. The mob are easily manipulated. They see things in terms of black and white, or good and bad. They don't have the capacity to understand a man like Norris, or what's going on here. They will only see the slur. He was badly advised to enter this arena. I fear they will destroy him.

He has acknowledged this
A listener texted in to Pat Kenny show that Norris has spent too long in academia and among the "elite". The ordinary person would just read the headline and not be checking if it was a high minded academic discussion.

Well he didn't say he was naive but he admitted he handled it badly and he should have walked away from the interview.
Presidential elections can be dirty and they are no place for innocent lambs.

This whole episode will toughen him up

RachaelVO · 01-06-2011 07:49PM

sesna wrote: »

Next time when the President of the USA, say Barack Obama, comes to our shores only to be met by two men, I doubt he will be too happy to leave his wife alone for hours by a supposedly "gay" man while he engages in official business with David.

That's the strangest statement I've ever seen. Do you really think that? So you think he should be worried about leaving his wife with a gay man...

Jebus wept, cos that's a ludicrous statement!

RachaelVO · 01-06-2011 07:50PM

mikemac wrote: »

This whole episode will toughen him up

What a way to learn though!

mikemac · 01-06-2011 07:52PM

Baptism of fire you might say

He said on Pat Kenny he'll be watching every statement and everything he says from now on.
The ordinary voter isn't going to read things the same way as an academic will. Will this was one example anyway

Biggins · 01-06-2011 07:56PM

I think frankly it wrong to be making his sexuality an issue to be honest.
(Yes, I know we're not living in an ideal word)
Many other countries have moved on from this still backward thinking, out of date crap - Why the hell can't we for fcuks sake!
Come on you out of date farts - kop on please 'cos your doing our country no good.
Has it really to be pointed out that if Norris is elected, he won't be the first gay person to be the head of a government, a country, a public institution or whatever the hell!

Knock the man for academic reasons, for lack of experience in politics or what ever genuine reasons that could effect his work on the world stage - not this out of date daftness.
I'm disgusted that there is those still that are will to use this as ammunition to fire against him.
Its says more about them than it does about Norris.

RachaelVO · 01-06-2011 08:00PM

mikemac wrote: »

Baptism of fire you might say

He said on Pat Kenny he'll be watching every statement and everything he says from now on.
The ordinary voter isn't going to read things the same way as an academic will. Will this was one example anyway

A baptism of fire is right!

When I was listening to him on PK, I felt so sorry for him! He was nearly in tears it was having such a bad effect on him!

mikemac · 01-06-2011 08:00PM

Biggins wrote: »

I think frankly it wrong to be making his sexuality an issue to be honest.

I'm disgusted that there is those still that are will to use this as ammunition to fire against him.
Its says more about them than it does about Norris.

At the same time there are posters here who stated they vote for him just for that same reason.
And is that not equally as wrong?

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:02PM

Biggins wrote: »

I haven't read all the posts here so won't comment on previous ones.
I will just say that as much as I've heard from this old journalist who now admits can't produce a shred of evidence (tapes or notes) to back up what she says he said - I would still (as before) be voting for him over any of the others (some which I cannot stand and have met too in person).

Thats why i won't be voting for Norris. I have met him and nearly got sick listening to him, he's far too camp.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 08:02PM

sesna wrote: »

Next time when the President of the USA, say Barack Obama, comes to our shores only to be met by two men, I doubt he will be too happy to leave his wife alone for hours by a supposedly "gay" man while he engages in official business with David.

oh please do explain why, this has got to be good.

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:05PM

zuroph wrote: »

oh please do explain why, this has got to be good.

An attempt at lightheartedness which was superceded by a supportive statement for Norris before the first reply. You should be able to see that as a moderator. In poor taste, a bit like Norris' statement on ancient Greece.

Biggins · 01-06-2011 08:06PM

mikemac wrote: »

At the same time there are posters here who stated they vote for him just for that same reason.
And is that not equally as wrong?

No, your right. It should not be an issue either way.
Anyone that votes for him just because of his persuasion, is equally opening the doors to allow other, whats really non-important reasons, to become material which can be banded about as if it should make a difference.

I'm voting for the man NOT for his sexuality but for what I see is a well educated person, seems very likable, can mix well with any crowd, is funny at the appropriate time, is not big-headed and knows it, etc - and frankly if I was a foreign leader who meets him somewhere on the world stage of meetings, I would remember him more so against any other just political stiff suits that are just going through the rigors of politicking.

..And if that portrays Ireland even in a better image by connection to us, good for bloody him!

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:10PM

mikemac wrote: »

He has acknowledged this
A listener texted in to Pat Kenny show that Norris has spent too long in academia and among the "elite". The ordinary person would just read the headline and not be checking if it was a high minded academic discussion.

Well he didn't say he was naive but he admitted he handled it badly and he should have walked away from the interview.
Presidential elections can be dirty and they are no place for innocent lambs.

This whole episode will toughen him up

Innocent man indeed ???

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:12PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

A baptism of fire is right!

When I was listening to him on PK, I felt so sorry for him! He was nearly in tears it was having such a bad effect on him!

Maybe he was acting.

RachaelVO · 01-06-2011 08:14PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe he was acting.

Or maybe, just maybe he was genuinely upset. I think I'm gonna go with that one!

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:14PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe he was acting.

I dont place much value on the presence of tears in any situation. Some people are more emotional than others, doesnt advance their case. Sometimes they are crocodile tears.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 08:16PM

sesna wrote: »

An attempt at lightheartedness which was superceded by a supportive statement for Norris before the first reply. You should be able to see that as a moderator. In poor taste, a bit like Norris' statement on ancient Greece.

So because I support Norris, you won't explain your reasoning for your thinking?! lol

Again, I'm not a moderator here.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 08:18PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Innocent man indeed ???

you really do love to drop "innocent" and "guilty" into your posts a lot, when referring to Norris. Emotive language.

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:18PM

zuroph wrote: »

So because I support Norris, you won't explain your reasoning for your thinking?! lol

Again, I'm not a moderator here.

Nothing to do with him being gay. Merely an observation of the break from tradition of the first lady being assigned to engaging with a first man (if Norris even has a partner). Of course this has being going on for years anyway since the advent of female presidents meeting male presidents.

My name is URL · 01-06-2011 08:20PM

sesna wrote: »

I dont place much value on the presence of tears in any situation. Some people are more emotional than others, doesnt advance their case. Sometimes they are crocodile tears.

So on top of everything else, he's also a crocodile? :eek:

Won't somebody please think of the children?!

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:20PM

Biggins wrote: »

No, your right. It should not be an issue either way.
Anyone that votes for him just because of his persuasion, is equally opening the doors to allow other, whats really non-important reasons, to become material which can be banded about as if it should make a difference.

I'm voting for the man NOT for his sexuality but for what I see is a well educated person, seems very likable, can mix well with any crowd, is funny at the appropriate time, is not big-headed and knows it, etc - and frankly if I was a foreign leader who meets him somewhere on the world stage of meetings, I would remember him more so against any other just political stiff suits that are just going through the rigors of politicking.

..And if that portrays Ireland even in a better image by connection to us, good for bloody him!

Thats a very good post and a good reason to vote for him, but do you not think he overdoes the gay bit ? Just a wee bit even ? Another thing, why did he even get into the "classic paedophilia" thing in the first place ? Did he not think that the ordinary people would pick up on it as they dislike that kind of thing after the clerical sex scandals ?

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:21PM

My name is URL wrote: »

So on top of everything else, he's also a crocodile? :eek:

Won't somebody please think of the children?!

Crocodile tears is a phrase coined by Shakespeare to suggest fake tears. It was a statement of fact and nothing to do with Norris.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 08:24PM

sesna wrote: »

Nothing to do with him being gay. Merely an observation of the break from tradition of the first lady being assigned to engaging with a first man (if Norris even has a partner). Of course this has being going on for years anyway since the advent of female presidents meeting male presidents.

You said,

I doubt he will be too happy to leave his wife alone for hours by a supposedly "gay" man

How can that have nothing to do with him being gay??? You went out of your way to say it.

Probably the only reason we invited the queen, so that two sexes didnt have to stand side by side. imagine the international shame.

My name is URL · 01-06-2011 08:25PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Thats a very good post and a good reason to vote for him, but do you not think he overdoes the gay bit ? Just a wee bit even ?

'Overdoing the gay bit'.. you mean in the sense that he's comfortable with who he is and doesn't feel pressured into hiding it?

Do you ever look at a straight person and wish to yourself that they weren't so overtly straight?

sesna wrote: »

Crocodile tears is a phrase coined by Shakespeare to suggest fake tears. It was a statement of fact and nothing to do with Norris.

I was only joking dude

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:27PM

zuroph wrote: »

you really do love to drop "innocent" and "guilty" into your posts a lot, when referring to Norris. Emotive language.

I was replying to a quote that contained the word and questioning it. We do not know for sure who is innocent or guilty as we have not heard the tapes yet. Guilty would, however, only apply if H.L.B. was proved right and quoted D.N. correctly. He says she did not quote him correctly and that she took his comments out of context and that would make him right or innocent. Thats all.

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

Comments