Sunday Times has new revelations on you know who....NOT letter related!

4leto · 01-10-2011 09:35PM

Listen people he did ask the Irish people to move past this, so we should (not)

Anything more or worse about this man does not surprise he is a deeply flawed and delusional man.

Which makes us a deeply flawed and delusional electorate if the polls are to be believed.

I really wish he would just go away.

Nodin · 01-10-2011 09:37PM

cml387 wrote: »

I hate conspiracy theories but I'm beginning to wonder whether there is someone in a certain middle eastern country stirring the sh!t here.

....you do realise he's not the only one with pro-Palestinian views in the race...?

ArtSmart · 01-10-2011 09:37PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Then why avoid two candidates on religious grounds

well let's take Dana's stance on the confession seal. She believes in freedom of religious belief (Catholic in this particular case) supersedes the recommendations on child protection.

She clearly stated that her motivations was to 'protect religious freedom' on the late late.

personally I feel a person's personal world view, must come second to the common good.

so religious beliefs, if they supersede the demands of the state are not good for this particular job, ie president.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 09:38PM

cml387 wrote: »

Not much except that they would have "sorted" one of their more vocal enemies.

But the state has previously expressed its support for a palestinian state. The state has made its position clear on that already. Besides the presidents role is little more than a ceremonial role with little tangible power.

lynski · 01-10-2011 09:38PM

woodoo wrote: »

I agree

I'm at the stage where i don't give a damn what the papers bring out. We all have things we are not proud of in the past. We move on and change.

We are not looking to elect a saint.

hear hear. at least he could give a speech to stir the hearts and engage the mind.cant be said of too many of the candidates. oh and he is not a murderer

Biggins · 01-10-2011 09:40PM

orourkeda wrote: »

I haven't seen it all yet so cant make a judgement on that broadcast yet.

Let me explain then.

Dana for example was interviewed one on one with Tubs.
She stated QUITE clearly that she would NOT sign anything into the constitution that she thought would go against what she believed!
She later in the group debate said words to this effect again - adding she said she would be defending the constitution the way it is now - she would not allow change!

Now remember this (JUST for example) when we at the next president election date, vote on two referendums.
Imagine then those two bills later being shoved in front of her for her to sign into law, the people of Ireland having voted for them, for the constitution to be updated - and she because of what she personally believes will not sign them - again, despite a majority of the Irish nation wishing such things to be law!

Now THATS when EXTREME religious natures have an effect on the future prospects of our nation - and as Dana made QUITE clear to all last night, she is willing or should I say NOT willing to sign anything that interfears with her strong religion.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 09:40PM

ArtSmart wrote: »

well let's take Dana's stance on the confession seal. She believes in freedom of religious belief (Catholic in this particular case) supersedes the recommendations on child protection.

She clearly stated that her motivations was to 'protect religious freedom' on the late late.

personally I feel a person's personal world view, must come second to the common good.

so religious beliefs, if they supersede the demands of the state are not good for this particular job, ie president.

Sean Gallagher who is also a catholic stated the exact opposite view.

Isn't it their stance on the issue more important than their religious baackground.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 09:45PM

Biggins wrote: »

Let me explain then.

Dana for example was intervied one on one with Tubs.
She stated QUITE clearly that she would NOT sign anything into the constitution that she thought would go against what she believed!
She later in the group debate said words to this effect again - adding she said she would be defending the constitution the way it is now - she would not allow change!

Now remember this when we at the next president election date and we vote on two referendums.
Imagine then those two bills later being shoved in fron ot her for her to sign into law, the people of Ireland having voted for them, for the constitution to be updated - and she because of what she personally believes will not sign them - again, despite a majority of the Irish nation wishing such things to be law!

Now THATS when EXTREME religious natures have an effect on the future prospects of our nation - and as Dana made QUITE clear to all last night, she is willing or should I say NOT willing to sign anything that interfears with her strong religion.

As I've mentioned above Sean Gallagher (who also happens to be catholic)had expressed a diametrically opposed stance on the issue of protecting child abusers who have confessed in confession so to speak. (for want of a better expression)

It's more to do with the candidates relevant stance on the issue rather than their religious beliefs that should be judged here.

Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 09:49PM

lynski wrote: »

hear hear. at least he could give a speech to stir the hearts and engage the mind.cant be said of too many of the candidates. oh and he is not a murderer

Who cares whether or not he can make a speech?

Biggins · 01-10-2011 09:51PM

orourkeda wrote: »

As I've mentioned above Sean Gallagher (who also happens to be catholic)had expressed a diametrically opposed stance on the issue of protecting child abusers who have confessed in confession so to speak. (for want of a better expression)

It's more to do with the candidates relevant stance on the issue rather than their religious beliefs that should be judged here.

Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

I would say that so far all but two would be willing to sign into law, anything that would update our constitution, despite their own personal strong feelings.
They would allow democratic right more so to take precedence.
That to me, was made quite clear last night by most.

lynski · 01-10-2011 09:52PM

orourkeda wrote: »

A
Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

same as who? dana or sean?
you obviously did not watch too closely as Dana was alone in saying she would place her personal opinions or her religion's diktats ahead of the law of the land.
Norris btw had no problem in answering the question.

cml387 · 01-10-2011 09:53PM

Biggins wrote: »

Let me explain then.

Dana for example was intervied one on one with Tubs.
She stated QUITE clearly that she would NOT sign anything into the constitution that she thought would go against what she believed!
She later in the group debate said words to this effect again - adding she said she would be defending the constitution the way it is now - she would not allow change!

Now remember this (JUST for example) when we at the next president election date, vote on two referendums.
Imagine then those two bills later being shoved in front of her for her to sign into law, the people of Ireland having voted for them, for the constitution to be updated - and she because of what she personally believes will not sign them - again, despite a majority of the Irish nation wishing such things to be law!

Now THATS when EXTREME religious natures have an effect on the future prospects of our nation - and as Dana made QUITE clear to all last night, she is willing or should I say NOT willing to sign anything that interfears with her strong religion.

Not something that any of the media made any issue of. I was absolutely amazed that Ms Scallon was allowed to get away with the nonsense she was spouting last night.

Bannasidhe · 01-10-2011 09:55PM

orourkeda wrote: »

As I've mentioned above Sean Gallagher (who also happens to be catholic)had expressed a diametrically opposed stance on the issue of protecting child abusers who have confessed in confession so to speak. (for want of a better expression)

It's more to do with the candidates relevant stance on the issue rather than their religious beliefs that should be judged here.

Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

But will all of the other candidates (Norris included - he is a committed Christian) refuse to accept a change to the Constitution or legislative Act that is in opposition to their personal religious beliefs?

If there is a referendum on Gay Marriage and the majority vote in favour - will Dana refuse to sign? Or abortion (it could happen!)? Would she have refused to sign the act allowing divorce?

The President must be the representative of all the people - RC, COI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist and Agnostic - so must keep their religious beliefs separate from their official duties.

lynski · 01-10-2011 09:55PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Who cares whether or not he can make a speech?

well for me it is a large part of the job description; being able to make speeches is pretty much a huge part of the job, being charismatic, interested in people, highlighting issues, being unafraid to challenge the government of the day when needed are all aspects too, but day in day out the president travels the country and the world making speeches.

Biggins · 01-10-2011 09:56PM

cml387 wrote: »

Not something that any of the media made any issue of. I was absolutely amazed that Ms Scallon was allowed to get away with the nonsense she was spouting last night.

Well as she stated this at 10pm at night onwards - the paper presses would have been long gone to print.
The presses roll from about 4.30pm onwards for the next days publication/sales.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 09:57PM

lynski wrote: »

same as who? dana or sean?
you obviously did not watch too closely as Dana was alone in saying she would place her personal opinions or her religion's diktats ahead of the law of the land.
Norris btw had no problem in answering the question.

6 of the 7 candidates are catholics. My point was that it is hghly improbable that these 6 candidates will hold the same view on important issues simply because they are part of the catholic religion. Rather than focus on the fact that they are catholic shouldn't an effort be made to determine their stances on the relevant topics.

Sean Gallagher also gave a straight answer.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 09:58PM

Biggins wrote: »

Well as she stated this at 10pm at night onwards - the paper presses would have been long gone to print.
The presses roll from about 4.30pm onwards for the next days publication/sales.

But the sundays have had plenty of time to analyse the debate.

Biggins · 01-10-2011 10:00PM

orourkeda wrote: »

But the sundays have had plenty of time to analyse the debate.

Aye, the editors comments and other Sunday writers could be interesting.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 10:06PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But will all of the other candidates (Norris included - he is a committed Christian) refuse to accept a change to the Constitution or legislative Act that is in opposition to their personal religious beliefs?

If there is a referendum on Gay Marriage and the majority vote in favour - will Dana refuse to sign? Or abortion (it could happen!)? Would she have refused to sign the act allowing divorce?

The President must be the representative of all the people - RC, COI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist and Agnostic - so must keep their religious beliefs separate from their official duties.

Surely we should make an infomed determination on the full extent of a candidates stance on these issues. Religious belief isnt the be all and end all but it is a factor nonetheless.

Mary McAleese is a catholic who is opposed to divorce and abortion and divorce. It didnt impair her ability to do her job.Perhaps Dana is different but if enough people have an issue with this then she wont get elected and I dont expect that she will.

The arguments are all based on the assumption that those constitutional reforms would be passed in a referendum which is another issue entirely and the further assumption that Dana is elected.

orourkeda · 01-10-2011 10:06PM

Biggins wrote: »

Aye, the editors comments and other Sunday writers could be interesting.

It was always going to be the case.

Bannasidhe · 01-10-2011 10:34PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Surely we should make an infomed determination on the full extent of a candidates stance on these issues. Religious belief isnt the be all and end all but it is a factor nonetheless.

Mary McAleese is a catholic who is opposed to divorce and abortion and divorce. It didnt impair her ability to do her job.Perhaps Dana is different but if enough people have an issue with this then she wont get elected and I dont expect that she will.

The arguments are all based on the assumption that those constitutional reforms would be passed in a referendum which is another issue entirely and the further assumption that Dana is elected.

Dana stated publicly during her campaign she would refuse to sign anything that was in opposition to her religious views - so what exactly does she think the role of the President is - Guardian of the Constitution or Guardian of Public Morals?

Regardless of her chances of election - it is important.

Biggins · 02-10-2011 01:47AM

Just to let ye all know - The so called The Times (England) story is up.
Won't repeat word for word (copyright issues) but basically they have dug up an old story that Ezra Nawi assisted a sick man that was dying (in pain filled terminal stages) of AIDS, to take his own life.

Norris stated in a speech to the Seanad (on June 3, 1993) apparently:

“I am aware of situations where assistance in suicide was not only honourable but was also a morally desirable act,” he said. “It is one I would not have the courage to perform, but I know people who have.”

The Times once again is just focusing on Norris and no one else.
After all there is no one else in this presidents race that has questions to answer!

Wolfe Tone · 02-10-2011 01:51AM

What a sh!t story.

You should have made up something more interesting Biggins

Pro assisted suicide might get some traction though

Gummy Panda · 02-10-2011 01:56AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dana stated publicly during her campaign she would refuse to sign anything that was in opposition to her religious views - so what exactly does she think the role of the President is - Guardian of the Constitution or Guardian of Public Morals?

Regardless of her chances of election - it is important.

I assume if she did refuse to sign she would be made leave her role considering the role of the president is just verify that the proposed law isn't against the constitution

Biggins · 02-10-2011 01:57AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What a sh!t story.

You should have made up something more interesting Biggins

Pro assisted suicide might get some traction though

Well The Times attempt last week apparently didn't stop Norris getting enough nominations from the County Councils (with their VERY amazingly timed sting about letters just at what most would consider the exact right time to do the most damage) so I guess they are now digging up old stories to try and stop his campaign!

nice_very · 02-10-2011 02:10AM

so................. who does "the media" want as our next president? obviously not DN or MMG (2 of the front runners, following recent polls)

also, why are the media allowed to hound and analyse everything about these 2 candidates, and barely anything said about the rest?

Biggins · 02-10-2011 02:12AM

nice_very wrote: »

...why are the media allowed to hound and analyse everything about these 2 candidates, and barely anything said about the rest?

Now THATS a good question!!!

BQQ · 02-10-2011 02:16AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If there is a referendum on Gay Marriage and the majority vote in favour - will Dana refuse to sign? Or abortion (it could happen!)? Would she have refused to sign the act allowing divorce?

I don't think it's fair to single out Dana. Everyone has strong personal views. Just because hers stem from a religious belief doesn't make her any different from the others.

For example, if the majority wanted to make homosexuality illegal, would Norris refuse to sign it?

mikom · 02-10-2011 02:18AM

More smearing of Norris.
There is a certain circle of hell dedicated to some of these "article" writers.

If there is a hell.

sdanseo · 02-10-2011 02:18AM

My vote in this election is going to be narrowed down to a process of elimination.

Norris - Inpropeity many times over and a horriffic lack of judgement NO
McGuinness - Republican, seemingly reformed but with IRA past. Recently muted on here, quite correctly, you can move on from IRA but not from thinking statutory rape is OK. - MAYBE
Dana - Religious nutjob who really does come across as deluded - NOT A HOPE
Mary Davis - been on more "state boards" than if the government had its own forum on here - NO
Michael D - squeaky clean, but also squeaky in general. Leprechaun for president, a bad thing? - MAYBE
Sean Gallagher - Supports FF. - NO & CLOSE THE DOOR AFTER YOU
Gay Mitchell - Religious nutjob, FGer and likes cheap jibes. - NO

Sunday Times has new revelations on you know who....NOT letter related!

Comments