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

RachaelVO · 06-06-2011 05:55PM

alex73 wrote: »

He believes if a young person consents to sex it's ok. It's on the record and he has not asked for the record to be changed. He has ambigous views on underage sex

No, no he doesn't!

Biggins · 06-06-2011 05:59PM

alex73 wrote: »

He believes if a young person consents to sex it's ok. It's on the record and he has not asked for the record to be changed. He has ambiguous views on under-age sex

You REALLY need to go back a read a fuller explanation of the original question, its context in which the period of history the woman was talking about and the FULL supposed answer that Norris gave in relation to the then PREVIOUS period to which the answer was applicable.

He was being VERY clear as to his answer given the background of the previous time.
He was not and still is not advocating under-age sex. NEVER!
Anyone that says different, hasn't a god-damn clue what the hell they are talking about.

foglight · 06-06-2011 06:24PM

Spread wrote: »

Niall O' Dowd is a truly good Irishman abroad. Also a good print chief as shown by his trio of papers here in the States. However, a President needs to be taken seriously and Niall's penchant for mischief making might scupper his chances. In The Irish Central, as well as great editorials, in the letters department he is a serious troll.

O'Dowd would be a breath of fresh air in the Aras. End of the stiff statues make it a place of work and endeavour.

AudreyHepburn · 06-06-2011 07:35PM

alex73 wrote: »

He believes if a young person consents to sex it's ok. It's on the record and he has not asked for the record to be changed. He has ambigous views on underage sex

No he doesn't have any such views. This point has been dicussed thoroughly already. Can we please leave this to rest now?

dvpower · 06-06-2011 07:46PM

alex73 wrote: »

He has ambigous views on underage sex

alex73 wrote: »

He believes if a young person consents to sex it's ok.

Make up your mind.

mikom · 06-06-2011 07:47PM

Biggins wrote: »

He was not and still is not advocating under-age sex. NEVER!
Anyone that says different, hasn't a god-damn clue what the hell they are talking about.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No he doesn't have any such views. This point has been dicussed thoroughly already. Can we please leave this to rest now?

Ah, come on now lads........... put on your Vatican specs and join the party.

AudreyHepburn · 06-06-2011 07:48PM

mikom wrote: »

Ah, come on now lads........... put on your Vatican specs and join the party.

lastlaugh · 06-06-2011 07:48PM

I'm sure he's a Jolly good old chap really behind it all but I think he should do the honourable thing and withdraw from the election.
Realistically, no one should run after giving such controversial opinions about those topics, no matter how long ago it was.

I'm sure he'll still get all the Gay vote, combined with all the uber liberal ones also.

wonderfulname · 06-06-2011 08:01PM

But the point is he didn't give those opinions? he was quoted out of context, doesn't actually believe that... this thread is getting very circular...

AudreyHepburn · 06-06-2011 08:05PM

lastlaugh wrote: »

I'm sure he's a Jolly good old chap really behind it all but I think he should do the honourable thing and withdraw from the election.
Realistically, no one should run after giving such controversial opinions about those topics, no matter how long ago it was.

I'm sure he'll still get all the Gay vote, combined with all the uber liberal ones also.

He doesn't have controversial opinions. His comments are being twisted way beyond what they were.

Can we please please move on from this now, it's becoming tedious.

wonderfulname · 06-06-2011 08:23PM

Because with modern media and technology that could so happen... and the President of Ireland has real power to sign in whatever they want all alone... yeah...

Spread · 06-06-2011 09:09PM

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

do we really want a President-elect who may potentially be blind in a few years..? Germany's Pres. in the 1930's , Hindenberg, signed into law whatever dodgy legislation was put in front of him - he was unable to read it so did not know better!

Does anyone know the cause of his blindness? Serious answers only, please.

Biggins · 06-06-2011 09:27PM

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

do we really want a President-elect who may potentially be blind in a few years..? Germany's Pres. in the 1930's , Hindenberg, signed into law whatever dodgy legislation was put in front of him - he was unable to read it so did not know better!

Blindness supposedly? This the latest tactic?
To now infer the man is actually going blind and more so pick on ones futuristic disabilities, if by chance it does happen?

Seriously? Is this the best you can do?

For the record, it can be contained at its current state. Please do your homework.

Speaking at a lunch held by the charity Fighting Blindness yesterday in the Shelbourne Hotel, Mr Norris said he was feeling “splendid” and his condition had not worsened since he was diagnosed in 2006. “There has been no noticeable deterioration. I can read without glasses. I can drive perfectly well. I have AMD in a mild form and there is great hope out there,” he said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0205/1224289076550.html

It is incurable, but can be contained

AudreyHepburn · 06-06-2011 10:09PM

Biggins wrote: »

Blindness supposedly? This the latest tactic?
To now infer the man is actually going blind and more so pick on ones futuristic disabilities, if by chance it does happen?

Seriously? Is this the best you can do?

For the record, it can be contained at its current state. Please do your homework.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0205/1224289076550.html

I can back you up on this Biggins as my grandfather has this condition but his eyesight, while obviously poorer than it was, has not deteriorated much if at all since he was diagnosed 5/6 years ago.

But suffice to say I would people would not start discriminating against candidates with disabilities on top of gay candidates.

Lockstep · 06-06-2011 10:39PM

He'll almost certainly get my number 2, with Michael D getting my No.1.

He seems a decent skin and a gentleman. Would still prefer to see Michael D in, but I'd not be unhappy to see Norris as president.

I get fairly bored of the whole "We should/shouldn't vote for him because he's gay" though. Being straight or gay shouldn't be an election issue.

Biggins · 06-06-2011 10:55PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I can back you up on this Biggins as my grandfather has this condition but his eyesight, while obviously poorer than it was, has not deteriorated much if at all since he was diagnosed 5/6 years ago.

But suffice to say I would people would not start discriminating against candidates with disabilities on top of gay candidates.

My own brother in law suffers from same and is still driving, allowed to in his role as a paramedic and is fine in every other day/night activity.

Sadly there is still those it seems who will underhandedly and disgustingly use any gutter tactics to knock a person down.

mikemac · 06-06-2011 11:11PM

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

do we really want a President-elect who may potentially be blind in a few years..?

Dev was almost blind by the time he stepped down

So it's been done before

sesna · 06-06-2011 11:25PM

mikemac wrote: »

Dev was almost blind by the time he stepped down

So it's been done before

Maybe blindness explains his sympathy toward the Nazis and why he rushed to the German legate to offer condolences on the death of Hitler.

goat2 · 07-06-2011 09:59AM

Show Time wrote: »

Vincent Browne would be ideal for the President.

i second that, brilliant candidate, if only we had the chance to vote him

sensibleken · 07-06-2011 10:22AM

mikemac wrote: »

Dev was almost blind by the time he stepped down

So it's been done before

so those maidens dancing at the cross roads was just some gorse bushes

sesna · 07-06-2011 11:29AM

goat2 wrote: »

i second that, brilliant candidate, if only we had the chance to vote him

Yes and the State is already bankrupt so no problem of Vincent ruining that too like he does with his business ventures.

sesna · 07-06-2011 07:00PM

PingPing · 07-06-2011 07:10PM

Yes, I would.
But then I'm one of those crazy uberliberal types... :rolleyes:
He's safe as long as Lady Gaga doesn't put her name forward anyhow.

pat13wx · 07-06-2011 09:09PM

I would not, could not vote for this man. His sexuality is one thing and is his own affair, but his attack on the Catholic Church and the Holy Father, referring to him as "evil" tells me he isn't right for the role of our President.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/norris-brands-pope-as-evil-over-verbal-attacks-on-gays-325704.html

joshrogan · 07-06-2011 09:21PM

pat13wx wrote: »

I would not, could not vote for this man. His sexuality is one thing and is his own affair, but his attack on the Catholic Church and the Holy Father, referring to him as "evil" tells me he isn't right for the role of our President.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/norris-brands-pope-as-evil-over-verbal-attacks-on-gays-325704.html

"an instrument for evil as far as I'm concerned because these constant, unremitting, ignorant, ill-informed attacks on the gay community have led to violence against the gay community"

You're taking it out of context IMO, he is probably reffering to that he has somewhat "evil" intentions by slating the gay community since there has been violence against them and he is instigating them by what he is saying.

wonderfulname · 07-06-2011 09:24PM

Ooh he even got the current pope in there too, I'm delighted, the Pope does preach some very backward and hate filled stuff with regards LGBT people, things that do not even fit in with the Catholic stance on the matter and go far beyond it, someone should speak out against it. I'd be more worried if he had been questioned on the topic and said nothing.

However I can understand that on this particular issue its purely a matter of beliefs, and that it would be a major voting issue for many and a major insult, but to me he's spoken out against a much larger and more damaging insult, and for that I commend him.

wonderfulname · 07-06-2011 09:28PM

joshrogan wrote: »

"an instrument for evil as far as I'm concerned because these constant, unremitting, ignorant, ill-informed attacks on the gay community have led to violence against the gay community"

You're taking it out of context IMO, he is probably reffering to that he has somewhat "evil" intentions by slating the gay community since there has been violence against them and he is instigating them by what he is saying.

No, it's probably not out of context, its probably an example of passion on the man's behalf, I hope he stands behind it when it gets tossed in his face, regardless of what it does to his campaign. If he backtracks it would really change my impression of his character and political nature.

RachaelVO · 07-06-2011 09:37PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, it's probably not out of context, its probably an example of passion on the man's behalf, I hope he stands behind it when it gets tossed in his face, regardless of what it does to his campaign. If he backtracks it would really change my impression of his character and political nature.

joshrogan wrote: »

"an instrument for evil as far as I'm concerned because these constant, unremitting, ignorant, ill-informed attacks on the gay community have led to violence against the gay community"

You're taking it out of context IMO, he is probably reffering to that he has somewhat "evil" intentions by slating the gay community since there has been violence against them and he is instigating them by what he is saying.

Lots of people can say a whole lot worse about any pope and the Catholic Church.

What our seemingly newbie poster has also seemingly failed to realise, is that alot of Irish people believe in the inherent evil of the "cover everything up" ethos of the Catholic Church which destroyed lives for what we know is decades, but it's quiet probably much longer! That's two evils so far, the list could go on and on. Lots of people can say a whole lot worse about any pope!

I don't see Norris backtracking on this one, this is a solid comment, and I would imagine, leave last weeks controversy out of it, that a lot of people would be saying the exact same thing, possibly a bit milder!

I personally applaude him for saying that, I've said a whole lot worse about the entire catholic church!

Mark200 · 07-06-2011 10:19PM

sesna wrote: »

Seriously, what is your problem? I mean it's clear that you're on some sort of mission to discredit Norris as much as is possible. Fair enough if you honestly hold the beliefs you claim, but after pages and pages of reasoned argument you still feel the need to throw out any link you can find that contains even the slightest implication that Norris supports paedophilia etc.

The contents of that video are no different to the contents of Waters' article. All he is saying is that the journalist who wrote this article about Norris told him the same thing that she's telling everyone else. Big. Deal. That doesn't make what she says any more legitimate or reliable. That doesn't mean that he wasn't taken out of context. That doesn't mean that she fully understood what Norris was saying to her.

It adds nothing to the debate, so it's absolutely meaningless for you to include it. And the idea that you feel that this somehow backs up or vindicates the arguments that you have been making is outstandingly pathetic.

AnonoBoy · 07-06-2011 10:21PM

pat13wx wrote: »

I would not, could not vote for this man. His sexuality is one thing and is his own affair, but his attack on the Catholic Church and the Holy Father, referring to him as "evil" tells me he isn't right for the role of our President.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/norris-brands-pope-as-evil-over-verbal-attacks-on-gays-325704.html

Yeah bad-mouthing a church which systematically abused children and covered that up. How dare he!

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

Comments