1 in 3 want Norris to run

nacho libre · 07-09-2011 12:36AM

Yahew wrote: »

why? This 30% probably always wanted Norris to win, the sturm und drang of the pitch fork wielding mobs notwithstanding.

Because he has lambasted the church for their moral ambiguity on paedophilia, yet it seem his thoughts on the matter are equally ambivalent judging by his various uterrances on the subject. His supporters can't have it both ways.

Spread · 07-09-2011 01:37AM

Is this raging old windbag contemplating running again? If so he is more deluded than before.

Biggins · 10-09-2011 11:57PM

Spread wrote: »

Is this raging old windbag contemplating running again? If so he is more deluded than before.

Tomorrows paper (So I'm informed): http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3599/32470610150281132064094o.jpg

jimmycrackcorm · 11-09-2011 12:03AM

Are these 1 in 3 the same kind of people who voted in FF in the last election?

westendgirlie · 11-09-2011 12:07AM

Is it ok that I didn't know who David Norris was until he stood down from the election ?

Solnskaya · 11-09-2011 12:29AM

I definitly think he should run, Chuck for pres.Chuck for pres. When Chuck Norris runs for president, the presidency runs towards him.

Namlub · 11-09-2011 12:30AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Are these 1 in 3 the same kind of people who voted in FF in the last election?

Because the actions of FF and the actions of David Norris were so similar...

Liam Byrne · 11-09-2011 12:34AM

Namlub wrote: »

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Are these 1 in 3 the same kind of people who voted in FF in the last election?

Because the actions of FF and the actions of David Norris were so similar...

In terns of excusing the inexcusable and their blinkered supporters pretending they were still popular while crying "witch hunt" to hide their f**k ups, there's a strong similarity alright!

And FF were also happy to play down the rape of kids and help out / excuse those involved.

later12 · 11-09-2011 12:36AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And FF were also happy to play down the rape of kids and help out / excuse those involved.

Interesting accusation.

Some recent examples, please.

later12 · 11-09-2011 12:38AM

Min wrote: »

No, David Norris said in the past he wished he was abused as a child.

Complete misrepresentation, taken way out of context. Do you think we are all illiterate, or don't read papers, only relying on imbecilic posts like this to inform us

Really?

woodoo · 11-09-2011 12:41AM

Let the people decide. Put him up and let the Irish people decide if he should be president. There is obviously a market for him.

joshrogan · 11-09-2011 12:47AM

Higgins would have my vote if I was 18 for the election.(I'm 18th at the end of October

.)

later12 · 11-09-2011 01:06AM

woodoo wrote: »

Let the people decide. Put him up and let the Irish people decide if he should be president. There is obviously a market for him.

Have to agree with this. For various reasons (including being a fan of his outspoken nature) I would not vote for David Norris if he were the only candidate on the list.

Nevertheless, he clearly deserves a nomination; any Presidential victory will be a hollow one in the absence of his candidature.

Yahew · 11-09-2011 01:09AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Are these 1 in 3 the same kind of people who voted in FF in the last election?

No, the kind of people who vote for David Norris are and were the kind of people who never voted for FF.

I am, however, utterly convinced that the trite anti-FF comments brought into off-topic threads like this one, are made by the very kind of people who voted FF until 2010.

Solnskaya · 11-09-2011 01:23AM

David Norris is an un-worldly, sheltered, out of touch windbag with a grasp on reality like that of a toddler. He would be an embarrasment as a president, an embarrasment as a national representative, and a great bit of craic to have a few beers with. Likeable? Probably. Electable?, feck off.

dvpower · 11-09-2011 09:33AM

Biggins wrote: »

Tomorrows paper (So I'm informed): http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3599/32470610150281132064094o.jpg

Seems to be something to it alright.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/senator-david-norris-plans-to-reenter-race-for-president-2873139.html

If anything good comes of it, it will be that he will be able to / have to answer some of the more outlandish claims that have been made against him.

Its hard to see him winning it or even getting a nomination. The big winner, if he does get nominated, may be Gay Mitchell.

Biggins · 11-09-2011 09:42AM

dvpower wrote: »

...The big winner, if he does get nominated, may be Gay Mitchell.

Christ - I hope not! :mad:

westendgirlie · 11-09-2011 10:15AM

I have no idea who any of these candidates are

So, I am gonna treat this election as I would the Grand National and pick whoever on the list has the most catchy name.

Nb: I never win on the National

touts · 11-09-2011 10:23AM

I must have missed the news on the day it was discovered that Norris' partner didnt rape a child and that Norris did not try to use his position as a Senator to get hin off. Does anyone have a link to that story. Otherwise Norris should be reconsidering his position as a senator never mind reconsidering running for the presidency.

ShiresV2 · 11-09-2011 11:07AM

touts wrote: »

I must have missed the news on the day it was discovered that Norris' partner didnt rape a child

Ezra Nawi didn't rape a child. He was however convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to 1 month in prison. Go figure.

Biggins · 11-09-2011 11:11AM

ShiresV2 wrote: »

Ezra Nawi didn't rape a child. He was however convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to 1 month in prison. Go figure.

Correct - also I think he was not Norris's partner at the time nor was after.
...But Touts, don't let the facts come in the way of a story spin.

4leto · 11-09-2011 11:18AM

I am gay/bi and I don't want him to run, the chap turned out to be an embarrassment to our whole community.

No Ezra Nawi did not rape a child, but he did have consensual sex with an under-age 15 year old, a statutory rape. If I was the judge I would have thrown the book at him, that is just wrong, fullstop.

Norris then in my name and the rest of the citizens of Ireland defended him in open court by abusing his position and using his entrusted public position to try influence the sentence for an x lover.

He should be asked to resign.

touts · 11-09-2011 11:29AM

The boy was underage and therefore a child. The sex was illegal and therefore rape. It was not two teenagers having sex it was a middle aged man who identified, groomed and raped a vunerable teenage boy. The child rapist was at one point Norris' partner. Norris used his position as Senator to help get a light sentence. Those are the facts and no one not even Norris or the child rapist deny these things happen. If he had pleaded for mercy for a priest child rapist he would be out of the senate never mind running for the presidency.

Liam Byrne · 11-09-2011 11:37AM

Yahew wrote: »

No, the kind of people who vote for David Norris are and were the kind of people who never voted for FF.

You've lost me. I've never voted FF. I won't be voting for Norris.

Please qualify your statement properly.

"A is not part of B" does not mean that "B therefore must be part of A"

I am, however, utterly convinced that the trite anti-FF comments brought into off-topic threads like this one, are made by the very kind of people who voted FF until 2010.

Again, any chance of letting us know what you mean? Whether or not you are utterly convinced of something is pretty irrelevant given the chance that you could be wrong, which is pretty high given that the first paragraph was a little askew with the facts.

Biggins · 11-09-2011 11:41AM

touts wrote: »

The boy was underage and therefore a child. The sex was illegal and therefore rape. It was not two teenagers having sex it was a middle aged man who identified, groomed and raped a vunerable teenage boy. The child rapist was at one point Norris' partner. Norris used his position as Senator to help get a light sentence. Those are the facts and no one not even Norris or the child rapist deny these things happen. If he had pleaded for mercy for a priest child rapist he would be out of the senate never mind running for the presidency.

I don't think anyone has tried to deny what happened.
JUST for clarity on some points...

The male however was a teenager - not a young child.
As such the sentence was NOT for rape as far as I know. That's a separate legal charge and anyone misusing that charge does do those that have been sadly raped, a disservice.

Also NO ONE was a pedophilia. The term refers to one who engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child - thats around 13 and under.

If we are going to point out why Norris shouldn't run - lets be accurate.

touts · 11-09-2011 11:52AM

Biggins wrote: »

I don't think anyone has tried to deny what happened.
JUST for clarity on some points...

The male however was a teenager - not a young child.
As such the sentence was NOT for rape as far as I know. That's a separate legal charge and anyone misusing that charge does do those that have been sadly raped, a disservice.

Also NO ONE was a pedophilia. The term refers to one who engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child - thats around 13 and under.

If we are going to point out why Norris shouldn't run - lets be accurate.

It was Statutory rape and that is still rape. A middle aged man grooming a young boy into thinking they want to have sex with him is no different to a man drugging a woman and carrying her back to his place for sex. If you cant give consent (either because you are too young or too drugged) then it is rape.

Biggins · 11-09-2011 11:59AM

touts wrote: »

It was Statutory rape and that is still rape. A middle aged man grooming a young boy into thinking they want to have sex with him is no different to a man drugging a woman and carrying her back to his place for sex. If you cant give consent (either because you are too young or too drugged) then it is rape.

Thank you - a bit of accuracy possibly - Statutory - a legal class of its own to be sure, while still rape.
Was Ezra Yitzhak Nawi tried for grooming? Was he convicted for grooming?
Did Ezra Yitzhak Nawi drug the teenager? Was he charged and convicted of these things you allege?
PLEASE show us links to back this up - otherwise thru your emotional responses to why Norris shouldn't run, your far from accurate with some details and in fact trying to add things that don't exist nor ever happened.
...and while Ezra Yitzhak Nawi engaged with the teen, as far as the court knows, I believe that it was the same teen that was doing the chasing - not the other way around.
I think its that partial aspect that some asked (not just Norris) to be taken into account.

Liam Byrne · 11-09-2011 12:05PM

Biggins wrote: »

...and while Ezra Yitzhak Nawi engaged with the teen, as far as the court knows, I believe that it was the same teen that was doing the chasing - not the other way around.
I think its that partial aspect that some asked (not just Norris) to be taken into account.

That doesn't excuse anything Biggins.

If a teen pleads with me to buy them a drink, or a teenage girl begs me to have sex with her, I would still be 100% in the wrong.

Biggins · 11-09-2011 12:06PM

To be clear, what Mr Nawi did was wrong. Completely.
Norris should NOT have interfered in the case - for a number of reasons.
I just wish that if we are going to list reasons why one should not support Norris, we do so with accuracy and not stoop to the poor level of the worst of the rag tabloids with inaccuracy - and some other things thrown in that have nothing to do with the case.

Biggins · 11-09-2011 12:09PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That doesn't excuse anything Biggins.

If a teen pleads with me to buy them a drink, or a teenage girl begs me to have sex with her, I would still be 100% in the wrong.

No if's or buts there, Liam.
What was done was wrong, however I just wish posters would stick to the facts and not inject additional non-events or inaccuracies - possibly through lack of knowledge or research.

One of the worst things you can do to an opponent is make claims against them that are inaccurate.
You do your own perhaps good intentions, bad effect and give the party/person you oppose to make gains in pointing out their oppositions falsehoods and inaccuracies.

1 in 3 want Norris to run

Comments