nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Disappointed in David Norris

MakeEmLaugh

Very disappointed in what David Norris said yesterday. He described those who participated in the 1916 Rising as 'traitors'.

"If one looks at 1916, I believe Yeats was correct in his first impression of some of these people when he said that they were vainglorious. Indeed, they were... They were afraid that history would write them out. They were seen by the British as traitors to the Empire but they were traitors to their own cause because Eoin MacNeill, the commander-in-chief, had cancelled the Rising and yet they ignored that... It is really quite ridiculous."

Not that I'm disappointed because those are his views. If those are his views, I completely respect his right to have them.*

What I don't respect, however, is transparent inconsistency and dishonest.

In 2011, while running for President or Ireland, Norris said the following.

"I never said the men of 1916 were terrorists. That's not true, it's a slur, and it's not fair on me. Terrorists are people who use civilian casualties to advance a political end. The men of 1916 produced the proclamation, addressed equally -- in an age when women didn't have the vote -- to 'Irishmen and Irishwomen', that's wonderful!"

Cleary, Norris was lying when he said this. He didn't believe it. He said it to advance his own political status.

I voted Norris #1 in the last presidential election, and while I don't regret that decision, I don't think I'd vote him #1 if he ran again.

*Nor is it that I necessarily disagree with Norris' comments - I'm not one of those who defend 1916 as a unavoidable step in laying the foundations of the Irish state.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

wazky

He's a west brit, what else would you expect.

Tabnabs

wazky wrote: »

He's a west brit, what else would you expect.

Post #2, right on cue... :rolleyes:

Valetta

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Very disappointed in what David Norris said yesterday. He described those who participated in the 1916 Rising as 'traitors'.

"If one looks at 1916, I believe Yeats was correct in his first impression of some of these people when he said that they were vainglorious. Indeed, they were... They were afraid that history would write them out. They were seen by the British as traitors to the Empire but they were traitors to their own cause because Eoin MacNeill, the commander-in-chief, had cancelled the Rising and yet they ignored that... It is really quite ridiculous."

Not that I'm disappointed because those are his views. If those are his views, I completely respect his right to have them.

What I don't respect, however, is transparent inconsistency and dishonest.

In 2011, while running for President or Ireland, Norris said the following.

"I never said the men of 1916 were terrorists. That's not true, it's a slur, and it's not fair on me. Terrorists are people who use civilian casualties to advance a political end. The men of 1916 produced the proclamation, addressed equally -- in an age when women didn't have the vote -- to 'Irishmen and Irishwomen', that's wonderful!"

Cleary, Norris was lying when he said this. He didn't believe it. He said it to advance his own political status.

I voted Norris #1 in the last presidential election, and while I don't regret that decision, I don't think I'd vote him #1 if he ran again.

You know you can be a traitor to your own cause without being a terrorist?

I fail to see the inconsistency in his two statements.

wazky

Tabnabs wrote: »

Post #2, right on cue... :rolleyes:

Oh, the highly outraged and overtly PC, right on cue.

Banjo String

Why does Norris sound as if he has plums in his mouth?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Banjo String wrote: »

Why does Norris sound as if he has plums in his mouth?

Ghosts are caused by David Norris killing people quicker than Death can process them...

Or something.

Kermit.de.frog

He talks about "this house" being of such great democratic tradition. He must not be aware that the Dáil ultimately came about through violence.

Roger Hassenforder

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He talks about "this house" being of such great democratic tradition. He must not be aware that the Dáil ultimately came about through violence.

eh... no
Those elected in the 1918 Westminster elections didn't take up their seats in Westminster, instead formed a parliament in Dublin.
The **** hit the fan afterwards...

artanevilla

The Seanad has no democratic tradition. The people don't get a say in who sits there. It has an elitist tradition and Norris is the biggest elitist of them all.

Czarcasm

Banjo String wrote: »

Why does Norris sound as if he has plums in his mouth?

He could well have plums in his mouth, probably storing the nuts under his tongue...

>_>

Roger Hassenforder

artanevilla wrote: »

The Seanad has no democratic tradition. The people don't get a say in who sits there. It has an elitist tradition and Norris is the biggest elitist of them all.

some people do!
Graduates of the NUI for one

Shakespeare's Sister

I don't know that I agree with him but David Norris has always struck me as a man who has no issue with being Irish, the opposite in fact.
He's from relatively "aristocratic" stock but so what - doesn't take away from the fact that he's a decent person and it doesn't make him any less of an Irishman. The "west Brit" slur is unnecessary.

wazky

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I don't know that I agree with him but David Norris has always struck me as a man who has no issue with being Irish, the opposite in fact.
He's from relatively "aristocratic" stock but so what - doesn't take away from the fact that he's a decent person and it doesn't make him any less of an Irishman. The "west Brit" slur is unnecessary.

He's a pompous little fart with a fancy accent who has won over people with his "wit" and by playing the gay card way over the top, no issues with homosexuals but don't try use it to your advantage in a political sense.

Valetta

wazky wrote: »

He's a pompous little fart with a fancy accent who has won over people with his "wit" and by playing the gay card way over the top, no issues with homosexuals but don't try use it to your advantage in a political sense.

In your opinion, I presume ?

You forgot to add that bit.

P_1

Well speaking in purely military terms they did disobey an order from high command...

Deank

wazky wrote: »

Oh, the highly outraged and overtly PC, right on cue.

Sssshhh, you can you not hear the rumble of them approaching en masse.

Politicians meh. All ****.

Davarus Walrus

I can't see why we are celebrating a campaign that was a disaster and achieved almost nothing. Surely 2021 is a much more worthy year to commemorate.

Valetta

P_1 wrote: »

Well speaking in purely military terms they did disobey an order from high command...

Speaking in military clichéd terms they shot themselves in the foot. -:)

mikemac1

Politican backtracks and can't give a straight answer :eek:

What were you expecting OP?

Son Of A Vidic

Banjo String wrote: »

Why does Norris sound as if he has plums in his mouth?

Because he usually has plums in his mouth.

Balmed Out

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

I can't see why we are celebrating a campaign that was a disaster and achieved almost nothing. Surely 2021 is a much more worthy year to commemorate.

True surely the civil war is long enough gone and with something close to peace up north we can celebrate the war of independence rather then the rising which hadn't the support of the people, was disastrously implemented and a failure except for the inadvertent change to public opinion.

No fan of Norris due to the letter scandal and didn't watch the video but there's nothing inconsistent in the quoted text.

Shakespeare's Sister

wazky wrote: »

He's a pompous little fart with a fancy accent who has won over people with his "wit" and by playing the gay card way over the top, no issues with homosexuals but don't try use it to your advantage in a political sense.

I'm not talking about the stuff that wins him over with the right-on crowd, I simply think he's a genuinely decent skin and I don't think he's just trying to inflame with this view, I reckon he's genuine but open to reasonable debate.

Guill

two mutually exclusive comments, how is that that a contradiction?

Hitchens

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I'm not talking about the stuff that wins him over with the right-on crowd, I simply think he's a genuinely decent skin and I don't think he's just trying to inflame with this view, I reckon he's genuine but open to reasonable debate.

Eamon Dunphy fan, eh? :pac:

Balmed Out

Guill wrote: »

two mutually exclusive comments, how is that that a contradiction?

presume you mean not a contradiction?
How are both statements mutually exclusive? One can belief they betrayed their own cause by jumping the gun, that the proclamation had merit and that they weren't terrorist's. I don't see any contradiction.

You don't need to look at these things in black and white, you can be an Irish nationalist and not a signed up member to the 1916 fan club.

Karl Stein

People believe Home Rule would have led naturally to independence. That's wrong. Ireland would have become a dependency of England with the rise of the British welfare state and lack of economic/industrial development here.

Ireland becoming a dependency of England would not have quelled the Irish desire to be free of British Rule - if anything it would have remained an open wound. Without 1916 'Ireland the dependency' would have been a bit like the north in the 70's and 80's with a constant low-level insurgency against British rule.

Thank goodness for the 1916 rising.

tomwaterford

Karl Stein wrote: »

People believe Home Rule would have led naturally to independence. That's wrong. Ireland would have become a dependency of England with the rise of the British welfare state and lack of independent industrial development here.

Ireland becoming a dependency of England would not have quelled the Irish desire to be free of British Rule - if anything it would have remained an open wound. Without 1916 'Ireland the dependency' would have been a bit like the north in the 70's and 80's with a constant low-level insurgency against British rule.

indeed....its often said that by the mid 1920s...Ireland would have been a net benefiary of being joined with britin...not a net contributor

this being said....it look better everyday that Ireland gots its partial independence....as the way the government and people bend over backwards not to upset Europe (as Ireland are net benefisaries of eu membership) could give an alternative view to the low-insurgency warfare that could be imagined

either way he is a hard man to trust Norris after the way he backed that film producer in what were highly dubious at best circumstances at the time

Slot Machine

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Because he usually has plums in his mouth.

Ahaha! That's because he's gay, right? Because gay men suck on testicles, right? I get it! Nice joke! Nice!

Hitchens

Slot Machine wrote: »

Ahaha! That's because he's gay, right? Because gay men suck on testicles, right? I get it! Nice joke! Nice!

:eek::eek:!!!!!!

Nodin

Slot Machine wrote: »

Ahaha! That's because he's gay, right? Because gay men suck on testicles, right? I get it! Nice joke! Nice!

.....you're getting that one wrong, tbh.