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

thebigbiffo wrote: »

for a start - he's just too bloody camp. gay is fine, camp is not.

He's too camp?
Check out some of his speeches in the Seanad.
He's all business.

yupyup7up wrote: »

I told you already, the website and the media is what I read.

I'm voting for Kodos.

**** you. I'm voting for Kang.

Spread wrote: »

Hey there! Ian O' Doherty is a columnist. AFAIK he doesn't do Editorials. You obviously don't read a lot of his work. He is not always as PC or gay-friendly in his pieces. He generally doesn't mince his words when talking about mincing!

Also, the fact that she now can't, contrary to her initial claims, find the actual interview tape makes her look as if she is standing on increasingly shaky ground.

Now, a declaration of interest -- I like David Norris.

In fairness to the man, he probably won't thank me for saying that publicly, but I do have a lot of time for him.

When the final whistle blows, and the debate finishes, we have a drink and an amiable chat and he is excellent company.

And Norris is proof that you can disagree on pretty much everything and still be civil to each other.

Excellent words from I O'D. He clearly supports Norris.
What you read in the article may differ from what is written above, but until I hear the actual tapes from that piece, I won't believe the paper this opinion piece is not written on.

Here's where he messes up:

Well, the grown-up thing to do would be to vote for Fergus Finlay, a fine and honourable man who has been doing sterling work for this country and for Irish children for years.

On the other hand, just think how pissed off so many people will be at the thought of Norris representing this country.

So, a vote for Norris is a vote for mischief.

This is not journalism. It's just opinion.
He's giving an opinion, much like every else on any internet forum. The only difference is that his opinion is sometimes published in a national newspaper.

Print is a dying media form. He is, in my opinion, trying to be controversial for the sake of it. It sells papers to the ignorant few who still believe everything they read in a paper is fact.

sesna wrote: »

According to a separate source today, for a full week Norris made absolutely no contact with Magill magazine to complain about misrepresentation. It was only when it was picked up on by Ireland on Sunday that Norris subsequently gave a clarification interview to a Sindo journalist.

It's interesting that he took no legal action at the time*, and even more so that he made no contact with Magill magazine following publication of the article. Norris has never denied that what was quoted in the article was incorrect, only that he was "misrepresented".

Far from setting Norris up, Waters** was intent on protecting Norris and extremely concerned by what he had said. Magill magazine went to great lengths to give Norris an opportunity to clarify what was said, yet he was happy with the version given. It seems Norris' strange views on Ancient Greece and musings on child abuse created this mess.

I find his reaction to the OSearcaigh documentary strange too where he seemed intent on shooting the messenger calling for an Oireachtas enquiry into the makers of the documentary and RTE.

*I posted earlier in this thread about how I could have taken legal action against several people.
Once again, not everyone is litigious.
Even if you are in the right, there's always the Streisand effect.


**I know of 2 people with the name "John Waters".
One married a nutball Irish singer, and the other directed a brilliant film called "Pecker".
Which is which?



Camp enough for you?

Spread wrote: »

There should be enough room in a double breasted suit for a mobile. Did he not have a man bag in those far off days?

He was leading a delegation of European parliamentarians to investigate the situation in Thailand regarding HIV/Aids and the trafficking in women and children for the purposes of prostitution. I doubt he was following the Irish media too closely that week.

I can identify with the previous comments by those who would be reluctant to vote for a camp president.
I'm positive they, like me, would also be reluctant to vote for a president that was overtly heterosexual.

nacho libre wrote: »

Is Waters trying to cover himself because he was consultant editior of Magill at the time? Waters, while he maybe many things, doesn't strike me as a bigot or someone who would stand by someone who is, shall we say, pursuing an agenda. The timing does seem suspect, also it's rather convenient that there is no tape forthcoming to clarify the issue.

since mr walters says he is agreeing with the lady, was he sitting with mr norris and this lady when she interviewed mr norris,