Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…4748505253…96

Comments

  • #1472
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    FR.Ted Crilly wrote: »
    hes backed by pedos which probably is about 10% of the Irish vote, hes taking politics and the presidency to a hole new level !
    Will i be voting for this kind NO NEVER !

    http://intepid.com/res/417.gif


  • #1473
    Sonnenblumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,834 ✭✭✭Sonnenblumen


    bluecatmorgana wrote: »
    where does he stand on abortion does anyone sensible know?

    Feck that irrelevant rubbish, where will he be standing on Bloomsday?


  • #1474
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,079 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    FR.Ted Crilly wrote: »
    hes backed by pedos which probably is about 10% of the Irish vote, hes taking politics and the presidency to a hole new level !
    Will i be voting for this kind NO NEVER !


    Banned.


  • #1475
    Fluorescence
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 8,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fluorescence


    I like him a lot. Any time I've heard or seen him speak on tv and radio he's presented his opinions well and comes across as very erudite and engageable, not to mention knowledgeable on a vast array of topics. I agree with a great many of his views too. However, I see him more as a driving force for change in Ireland, and presidency would stifle him. He'd be effectively powerless as President, and while I think he would perform excellently in the role, I'd rather he got engaged in politics in a more active way.

    Still though, I prefer him to other candidates running at the moment.


  • #1476
    Spread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Spread


    RachaelVO wrote: »
    Just watched the TV3 interview he did with Ursula Halligan. It was on the news this evening, I wished it was longer. But it was insightful for and edited interview

    http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=59642

    @ Spread: Definitely no campness in this video :D

    When you wake up ........... the man of your dreams ....... complete with both pinkies ringed (or should it be rung :):))? Here I give you .... Presidental Candidate Senator David Norris:406px-David_Norris_politician.jpg

    Now this might be a bit early in the morning for you Rachael ....... but to me this is camping it up ...... ever so slightly. Non?


  • Advertisement
  • #1477
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    That's camp Spread? Seriously?
    Better not tell you about the metrosexuals...


  • #1478
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Min wrote: »
    The important bit and it was when John Paul II was Pope "behind him is Ratzinger, who is, in his mindset, a Nazi.”"

    We don't need a divisive man who shows hate for president.

    I hate the pope too, so I'd be more than happy to vote for DN. It would be a great step in ensuring that Ratzinger never gets a formal invite to Ireland. I'd imagine he would have to forgo a visit if it meant having to meet with Norris.


  • #1479
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    If you are David Norris you would be voting for Greek paedophiles.

    :confused:


  • #1480
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,395 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    Biggins wrote: »
    :confused:

    That's exactly what I thought


  • #1481
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I hate the pope too, so I'd be more than happy to vote for DN. It would be a great step in ensuring that Ratzinger never gets a formal invite to Ireland. I'd imagine he would have to forgo a visit if it meant having to meet with Norris.

    You vote for someone because you hate someone.
    It is the government who invites people, not the President and the President is suppose to represent everyone, not just people who hate the Pope.
    Biggins wrote: »
    :confused:

    David Norris: “‘a lot of nonsense’ and, ‘complete and utter public hysteria’ about paedophilia.”

    John Waters said “She said they had had a heated argument about it and he had refused to back down. After transcribing the interview, she had called him to read him the extracts she found problematic, but he said, ‘Yes, that’s fine’.”

    John Waters said Norris made references to “classic paedophilia”

    Now David Norris wants to be elected by people who are not in a select group that don't seem to care when it comes to Seanad.

    He uses the excuse of Greece but then says he would have liked it when he was younger, I believe in the past he said he would have liked it when he was 15 but he changed the age limit upwards since he was supporting underage sex...


  • Advertisement
  • #1482
    RachaelVO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭RachaelVO


    Spread wrote: »
    When you wake up ........... the man of your dreams ....... complete with both pinkies ringed (or should it be rung :):))? Here I give you .... Presidental Candidate Senator David Norris:406px-David_Norris_politician.jpg

    Now this might be a bit early in the morning for you Rachael ....... but to me this is camping it up ...... ever so slightly. Non?

    NON!

    Spread m'love, you have a pretty strange definition of what you think camp is, looking dapper doesn't make you camp! Not nearly flamboyant enough to be camp!

    I must also point out, you've a strange idea of who you think the man of my dreams is (FYI it's George Clooney, Antonio Bandares, Johnny Depp).


  • #1483
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    ...David Norris: “‘a lot of nonsense’ and, ‘complete and utter public hysteria’ about paedophilia.”

    John Waters said “She said they had had a heated argument about it and he had refused to back down. After transcribing the interview, she had called him to read him the extracts she found problematic, but he said, ‘Yes, that’s fine’.”

    John Waters said Norris made references to “classic paedophilia”

    Just a couple of points.

    John Waters is only going on what one old woman is telling him, a woman that can't even back up her version of events, even though she tried to claim previously she could!
    Very convenient she has now 'lost' her notes now when pulled up on them!

    How does Waters know exactly what Norris said truthfully to the woman - he wan't there!
    Min wrote: »
    ...He uses the excuse of Greece but then says he would have liked it when he was younger, I believe in the past he said he would have liked it when he was 15 but he changed the age limit upwards since he was supporting underage sex...
    He didn't use the excuse.
    He outlaid apparently (if the woman's earlier report has even some vestiges of truth) previous historical outlines of practices that happen in the past and Norris given his own cold, stoic, more homophobic upbringing might have said that such previous practices of sexual awareness and introduction, might have made life easier for a person whom was confused and isolated at such a crucial age.


  • #1484
    montane
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 245 ✭✭montane


    John Waters has a part 2 article today...

    Last weekend, I received an e-mail from a woman, a lesbian, who said that she normally disagrees with me, but not here.

    “Hasn’t anyone been listening?” she asked. “Hasn’t anyone learned anything? The Catholic Church dealt with its scandals by first protecting its own, issuing denials, asking for proof, pointing to the excellent record of accused clerics, minimising the seriousness of the issue, arguing the finer points of clerical law and finally blaming the victim or the messenger. The Norris case is being handled in the very same way by liberals who would roundly criticise a cleric coming out with the same statements. I know because I would be one of them.”

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0610/1224298690294.html


  • #1485
    RachaelVO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭RachaelVO


    Biggins wrote: »
    Just a couple of points.

    John Waters is only going on what one old woman is telling him, a woman that can't even back up her version of events, even though she tried to claim previously she could!
    Very convenient she has now 'lost' her notes now when pulled up on them!

    How does Waters know exactly what Norris said truthfully to the woman - he wan't there!


    He didn't use the excuse.
    He outlaid apparently (if the woman's earlier report has even some vestiges of truth) previous historical outlines of practices that happen in the past and Norris given his own cold, stoic, more homophobic upbringing might have said that such previous practices of sexual awareness and introduction, might have made life easier for a person whom was confused and isolated at such a crucial age.


    Biggins, I reckon you could well be wasting your time here. Now I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I can't help to run into a coincidence that we are going around in the same circles as with Sesna and the timing of another poster with some strong anti David Norris rhetoric starts once Sesna is banned. Might not be a connection, but it's quiet a coincidence!

    People are afraid of change, it really is very unfortunate that a good man, and one who would IMHO be the very best representative for Ireland is getting slated out of fear and ignorance. I really had hoped we'd moved on from staunch catholic Ireland, but it appears it's tentacles still want to have church and state combined.


  • #1486
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Norris is a beaten docket.

    Might have survived if he had kept his more controversial opinions to himself.

    heard him on the radio yesterday, and frankly I feel he belongs in academia,getting worked up about the intricacies of sexuality and relationships in ancient Greece, rather than President of a 21st century country.

    The average John and Joan Q. won't vote for him now, even if he gets a nomination.

    Gonzo Dottser.


  • #1487
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    RachaelVO wrote: »
    Biggins, I reckon you could well be wasting your time here. Now I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I can't help to run into a coincidence that we are going around in the same circles as with Sesna and the timing of another poster with some strong anti David Norris rhetoric starts once Sesna is banned. Might not be a connection, but it's quiet a coincidence!

    People are afraid of change, it really is very unfortunate that a good man, and one who would IMHO be the very best representative for Ireland is getting slated out of fear and ignorance. I really had hoped we'd moved on from staunch catholic Ireland, but it appears it's tentacles still want to have church and state combined.

    I don't know who the other person is, I was busy and only had time to post on other forums here.
    The fact is as what is posted by John waters in the Irish times, if David Norris was a priest the people supporting him now would be condemning him.
    It came to my mind how similar the defense was.

    I don't want anyone who goes around name calling as president,Norris found it find to sling mud atthe pope by calling him a Nazi, I believe the census will show Ireland has a catholic majority so he doesn't think much of their religious leader which is not the view of a majority of the population.

    Ireland had enough of paedophilia without having a controversial president who could be perceived whether rightly or wrongly as not being totally against it.

    Rachael, I cant help but think you want censorship of people who do not hold your view that David Norris is not presidential material.


  • #1488
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Yes, Norris is history. The smear campaign has been a roaring success & mainstream, normal folk can breathe a sigh of relief. Once again, curtain twitching, knee jerkery & Chinese whispers can set the agenda. Common sense prevails and all is rosy in the garden etc etc etc


  • #1489
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Min wrote: »
    I don't know who the other person is, I was busy and only had time to post on other forums here.
    The fact is as what is posted by John waters in the Irish times, if David Norris was a priest the people supporting him now would be condemning him.
    It came to my mind how similar the defense was.

    I don't want anyone who goes around name calling as president,Norris found it find to sling mud atthe pope by calling him a Nazi, I believe the census will show Ireland has a catholic majority so he doesn't think much of their religious leader which is not the view of a majority of the population.

    Ireland had enough of paedophilia without having a controversial president who could be perceived whether rightly or wrongly as not being totally against it.

    Rachael, I cant help but think you want censorship of people who do not hold your view that David Norris is not presidential material.

    As opposed to those who wish to Norris to just go away because he does not fit in with "the majority"..?


  • #1490
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    ...I believe the census will show Ireland has a catholic majority so he doesn't think much of their religious leader which is not the view of a majority of the population...

    I think that the vast majority of the Irish people know exactly what they feel about the Rome organisation and maybe thats why they are abandoning attending mass and the Org' in their droves!

    Norris might have lost a few old votes for his dis-liking of the present German strong-arm rules sitting on his throne - but he has also won the support of the more younger population who no longer are willing to be subjugate to a religious organisations dictates and out of date crap!

    Its about bloody time we had a president who is not afraid to speak up and is not restricted by government rules, to hold back from some truths in the heart of matters.

    ...But nooo, let the old ways continue and elect yet another alternative person to a position that will yet again be be cold and passionless, be fodder for the claims that the role of President is just a waste and unnecessary expense on the state.
    We elect another stoic, passionless fart to the office of president - they might be right!


  • #1491
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    RachaelVO wrote: »
    Biggins, I reckon you could well be wasting your time here. Now I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I can't help to run into a coincidence that we are going around in the same circles as with Sesna and the timing of another poster with some strong anti David Norris rhetoric starts once Sesna is banned. Might not be a connection, but it's quiet a coincidence!

    People are afraid of change, it really is very unfortunate that a good man, and one who would IMHO be the very best representative for Ireland is getting slated out of fear and ignorance. I really had hoped we'd moved on from staunch catholic Ireland, but it appears it's tentacles still want to have church and state combined.

    Well said Rachael! I agree 100%.

    Now I have no problem with anyone not voting for Norris so long as it's for genuine reasons and not because they are twisting his comments into something any intelligent person can see are something they are not or because they are quite simply homophobic.

    It is such a shame people would refuse to give him te vote for this reasons because to me he is one of the few good, honest politicians in this country and seems a cheerful and genuine man.


  • Advertisement
  • #1492
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    I think that the vast majority of the Irish people know exactly what they feel about the Rome organisation and maybe thats why they are abandoning attending mass and the Org' in their droves!

    Norris might have lost a few old votes for his dis-liking of the present German strong-arm rules sitting on his throne - but he has also won the support of the more younger population who no longer are willing to be subjugate to a religious organisations dictates and out of date crap!

    Its about bloody time we had a president who is not afraid to speak up and is not restricted by government rules, to hold back from some truths in the heart of matters.

    ...But nooo, let the old ways continue and elect yet another alternative person to a position that will yet again be be cold and passionless, be fodder for the claims that the role of President is just a waste and unnecessary expense on the state.
    We elect another stoic fart to the office of president - they might be right!

    The highlighted bit: you know this from attending mass or it just suits what you want to believe?

    I met our current president, she is far from cold and passionless in her role as president.


  • #1493
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    The highlighted bit: you know this from attending mass or it just suits what you want to believe?

    * http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/international/Irish_attendance_down.htm

    * http://viaintegra.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/ireland-church-attendance/

    * http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/where-now-weekly-mass-attendance-michael-kelly

    * http://www.publicinquiry.eu/category/catholic-church/

    * http://www.spiritans.com/layspiritansireland.htm

    * http://www.newrossstandard.ie/local-notes/the-changing-face-of-religion-2629803.html

    * http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1043849/posts

    * http://www.independent.ie/national-news/church-of-ireland-attendance-slumps-to-just-17pc-255729.html

    * http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/155865-sociology-church-attendance-ireland.html

    * http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ireland.survey.reveals.sharp.drop.in.church.attendance/4600.htm

    * http://catholicireland.net/books-a-media/196-religious-education/141-religion-the-irish-experience

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Ireland

    * http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/05/02/catholic_church_withers_in_europe/

    * http://www.alternatehistory.com/changingthetimes/samples/coldwar/troubles.htm


    Happy now or do you still think I'm talking through my arse?


  • #1494
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    * http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/international/Irish_attendance_down.htm

    * http://viaintegra.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/ireland-church-attendance/

    * http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/where-now-weekly-mass-attendance-michael-kelly

    * http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/155865-sociology-church-attendance-ireland.html

    * http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ireland.survey.reveals.sharp.drop.in.church.attendance/4600.htm

    * http://catholicireland.net/books-a-media/196-religious-education/141-religion-the-irish-experience

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Ireland

    * http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/05/02/catholic_church_withers_in_europe/


    Happy now or do you still think I'm talking through my arse?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055728753
    Mass attendance in Ireland is up
    PATSY McGARRY
    Religious Affairs Correspondent
    Mon, Nov 02, 2009

    WEEKLY AND monthly church attendance is up in Ireland, according to a new survey.


  • #1495
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055728753

    Yes one church based report says one thing from 2009 while another from 2011 says different (here) - whats even more, Archbishop O'Relly states - yet again in 2011 - that his is even by his numbers, are down in percentage! (here and above)

    I'll take many, many other reports over one PR spun Church report!
    You stick to your one report - I'll stick to the many independent others!


  • #1496
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    Min wrote: »
    You vote for someone because you hate someone.
    It is the government who invites people, not the President and the President is suppose to represent everyone, not just people who hate the Pope.



    David Norris: “‘a lot of nonsense’ and, ‘complete and utter public hysteria’ about paedophilia.”

    John Waters said “She said they had had a heated argument about it and he had refused to back down. After transcribing the interview, she had called him to read him the extracts she found problematic, but he said, ‘Yes, that’s fine’.”

    John Waters said Norris made references to “classic paedophilia”

    Now David Norris wants to be elected by people who are not in a select group that don't seem to care when it comes to Seanad.

    He uses the excuse of Greece but then says he would have liked it when he was younger, I believe in the past he said he would have liked it when he was 15 but he changed the age limit upwards since he was supporting underage sex...

    incorrect. John Watter said Helen lucy burke said Norris made references to classic paedophilia.

    Also, are you saying you never thought about sex when you were 15??? Unless you were a very late developer, that is a blatant lie.


  • #1497
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,968 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    I'd never heard about this Nazi comment until last night when I read it here

    A quick google gets me
    Senator Norris said that "he would not take moral instructions from a man with a swastika on his arms," a reference to the Pope's membership of the Hitler Youth Movement in 1940s Germany.

    Bit of a cheap shot.
    Ratzinger was 14 at the time and required to join up by law.
    Either that or risk your family getting attention from the authorities.Or maybe skip to Switzerland perhaps.

    A 14 years does what they're told, they're not going to run away to join underground resistance


  • #1498
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    Spread wrote: »
    When you wake up ........... the man of your dreams ....... complete with both pinkies ringed (or should it be rung :):))? Here I give you .... Presidental Candidate Senator David Norris:406px-David_Norris_politician.jpg

    Now this might be a bit early in the morning for you Rachael ....... but to me this is camping it up ...... ever so slightly. Non?

    i wear rings some times....



    DEAR LORD I'm GAY!!!!!?!!!?!?! :eek:


  • #1499
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    The pope stuff is admittedly regrettable, a cheap debating shot. However I dont think it's going to do much damage. The people most likely to take offence are the older generation, and most of them dislike ratzinger too, still all hung up on JP. Benedict compares poorly against JP, if it was JP that Norris has has a go at, he'd be in worse shape.


  • #1500
    Downlinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭Downlinz


    Would vote for him, I like his direct honest style. He's well spoken and speaks from the heart and without a politicians tongue which is incredibly rare and to have someone representing us who would do that would be a real honour, anyone can spout non-committal gargle, Norris could make a real impact, it'd definitely be interesting with him in office.


  • Advertisement
  • #1501
    RachaelVO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭RachaelVO


    Min wrote: »
    I don't know who the other person is, I was busy and only had time to post on other forums here.

    Hmmmmmm, coincidences are just ripe on this thread so!
    Min wrote: »
    The fact is as what is posted by John waters in the Irish times, if David Norris was a priest the people supporting him now would be condemning him.
    It came to my mind how similar the defense was.

    John Water said in todays times that he didn't understand why more national press didn't pick up on what he wrote. Lots of celebs do the same thing, I think it's called fame whoring! Why would anyone give him any credibility, he's turning into Piers Morgan, fueling sensationalist fires. This coming from the man who can so easily be mis quoted, coming form the sub-editor or magill the time the article was published. Lots of ars3 covering going on, and he's using the times as his own personal shield
    Min wrote: »
    I don't want anyone who goes around name calling as president,Norris found it find to sling mud atthe pope by calling him a Nazi, I believe the census will show Ireland has a catholic majority so he doesn't think much of their religious leader which is not the view of a majority of the population.

    Ireland is becoming a more and more secular nation, I don't know many people who go to mass more than once a year (if even), frankly anyone who says anything honest about the catholic church gets my vote. Not even taking into consideration the child abuse scandals, their stance on womens positions in the church alone give them the deserved criticism and any titles that have been thrown at them. They have controlled Irish politics for far too long, and now there is a chance we'll have a gay president and a proddy to boot! Must be cracking the remaining catholic hierarchy up.
    Min wrote: »
    Ireland had enough of paedophilia without having a controversial president who could be perceived whether rightly or wrongly as not being totally against it.

    You're right (miracles do happen) Ireland has had enough of paedophilla. However there is not doubt, David Norris, like YOU, find it abhorrent! Not perception, just fact!
    Min wrote: »
    Rachael, I cant help but think you want censorship of people who do not hold your view that David Norris is not presidential material.

    Before you start throwing accusations around, why don't you find a good and proper reason not to vote for Norris, as opposed to the sensationalist, right wing catholic, fundamental christian rhetoric (Enoch Burk et al). When you leave that out of it, then and only then have you made an informed decision!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement