Eh it is still Fianna Fail's aim too... but does that mean they have failed also?
McGuinness and Co. signed up for the Good Friday Agreement which allows for a united Ireland, if the people want it.
Martin McGuiness for President?
- Thread starter Liamos
- Start date
Eh it is still Fianna Fail's aim too... but does that mean they have failed also?
McGuinness and Co. signed up for the Good Friday Agreement which allows for a united Ireland, if the people want it.
FG/L sought to block Norris by playing the moral card.
Now they are faced with a credible challenger in the form of McGuinness.
Only Norris has a chance of definitely blocking McGuinness from the presidency.
Norris may be blocked from getting on the ballot by perfidious Fine Gael and Labour shills.
If thsi happens don't be too surprised to see McGuinness benefit from the support of a protest vote.
I'm sure someone called me a "boy" when I was fifteen.
They didn't make that mistake twice.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,924
You said yesterday that he had already been slandered by 'pro-Unionists' (whatever they are???? - please do illuminate us). Has he sued them yet?
Are you the only man in Ireland who doesn't know that Fine Gael are viewed as the most pro-Unionist party?
I was making the point that by preventing Norris run, they'd have played well into the hands of Sinn Féin - not their preferred choice.
Old news now that Norris is running.
Now FG have to play the "we're the best of the worst" card, but Michael D. Higgins has already spiked their ground by supporting Norris publicly (not that it achieved anything, given the late call after Carlow and South Dublin, and the numbers in Dublin City).
As for Norris suesing them - I'll keep you appraised.
They might realize the predicament they and their party shills are in if he fails to win the presidency.
If he intends to continue in public Life he really should sue - but he's a nice guy. Lucky for them.
ONQ.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,924
I didn't consider myself a "boy" when I was fifteen, working abroad in the summer to support my secondary school education expenses.
I find the suggestion that fifteen year olds are "boys" condescending.
Current thinking in Israel (where the incident happened) Germany and Switzerland show a different approach. These are countries not renowned for licentious ways. Even the Vatican permits sex at 14, in line with Italy.
As for framing laws that mean fifteen year olds are "too young to consent" that's just the puritan adults taking the easy way out - again! Criminalizing sex is not working - the average age of sexual experience is around 14 and there is ample evidence of that in Ireland. Teens with kids have enough problems without being sent to prison for doing what comes naturally. Giving them other achievable goals and proper sex education and breaking the cycle of young pregnancy and unemployment should be the focus, not branding them for life!
Its as effective as waging a war on drugs without addressing the causes of drug use or who is promoting them, and seeking ways to manage it instead of criminalizing it. Criminalizing drug use is not working.
Its as effective as declaring a war on Terror, without first acknowledging that state sponsored terror is getting its just rewards - we've seen it here for 30 years. Fighting terrorism, as opposed to engaging in dialogue, doesn't prevent it, it recruits more terrorists - Ireland is proof of that.
These are all examples of fundamentalist first principle thinking with no feedback loop - their practitioners are more intent on asserting the moral superiority of their position as opposed to addressing the problem.
I've met naive and childish people in there twenties but that doesn't mean they are not considered adults. Adolescent/youth/teen etc. called it what you want, the 15 year old was under the legal age of consent at the time and that is the fact.
This isnt to do with current thinking. Sixteen was the legal age at the time. Ezra Yizhak was forty three years old the time was committed. This is not comparable to two young adults of similiar age.
If this had been a 43 year old priest and a consenting alter boy of similiar age, the gallows would be called for. Yet we question the morality of defending this crime, and it was a crime, we are labelled homophobic.
I'm glad God Norris got on the ticket, mainly to stop the whingeing about him not being on it. Also because it may help block McGuinness.
While I'm generally FG friendly (& btw would not consider myself a unionist in any sense!), I cant warm to Mitchell (bad choice by FG) so it's Michael D all the way. I think he'll be transfer friendly in the way McGuinness and Norris probably wont be, so I could see it coming down to Michael D Vs Mitchell. Dunno why Gallagher, Mary whats her name?? or even Dana are bothering.
While I'm generally FG friendly (& btw would not consider myself a unionist in any sense!), I cant warm to Mitchell (bad choice by FG) so it's Michael D all the way. I think he'll be transfer friendly in the way McGuinness and Norris probably wont be, so I could see it coming down to Michael D Vs Mitchell. Dunno why Gallagher, Mary whats her name?? or even Dana are bothering.
Don't rate Mitchell either. The FG leader wanted Pat Cox instead.
I would have prefered Finlay to Higgins myself.
I wonder if FF made a boo boo by not nominating Brian Crowley. He may not have won but with the field been so large he might have got a reasonable first preference vote.
I would have prefered Finlay to Higgins myself.
I wonder if FF made a boo boo by not nominating Brian Crowley. He may not have won but with the field been so large he might have got a reasonable first preference vote.
Definitely agree with you there. Micheal's "yes we're guilty, come kick us" is encouraging people to kick them, intentional self-marginalisation was something I never thought I'd see from a political party, least of all FF. No wonder their rank and file are despairing.
I think Brian Crowley would have gotten my #1, as a Euro politician he would be fairly immune to the "ye ruined the country" stuff, and making a good fist of Euro relations is obviously a big deal for the foreseeable future (not enough for me to endorse Mitchell though!), plus I've always been impressed by him on a personal level. As a general point I dont think party political should have a big role to play, after all its an individual above politics once they are elected.
Lets face it the bar isnt at its highest on this occasion, and anti-FF factor or not it wouldnt have been a bad opportunity for Brian, if Michael had thrown off the sackcloth & ashes.
A million people in Northern Ireland are strongly against union with the Republic - and many in the so-called nationalist community in the North are not that strongly in favour of it at present.
I even doubt if there's a vast majority in the Republic in favour of a United Ireland (except as some distant "well-one-day-it-may-be a -good-idea").
And yet the whole raison-d'etre of IRA-Sein Feinn is the "struggle" for a United Ireland.
Plus they combine this nationalism with a type of socialism that makes Higgins look conservative.
Many unionists will be delighted if a SF-IRA candidate is deemed a suitable leader of their nation by the voters in the south. 2016 with McG as President will be the best of times for hard-line unionists -and pretty uncomfortable for very moderate ones like me.
I even doubt if there's a vast majority in the Republic in favour of a United Ireland (except as some distant "well-one-day-it-may-be a -good-idea").
And yet the whole raison-d'etre of IRA-Sein Feinn is the "struggle" for a United Ireland.
Plus they combine this nationalism with a type of socialism that makes Higgins look conservative.
Many unionists will be delighted if a SF-IRA candidate is deemed a suitable leader of their nation by the voters in the south. 2016 with McG as President will be the best of times for hard-line unionists -and pretty uncomfortable for very moderate ones like me.
I agree and would expect the same thing from English people wanting NI to stay in the UK. It seems ironic that the two countries that these parties want to become part of aren't really bothered having them!
ONQ, who are these "FG shills"?
Shill - One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle
I wouldn't have voted for Norris before the letter/rape case incident.
I'm not traditionally an FG supporter and I'm not pro-unionist (or anti-unionist for that matter).
I haven't read any comments here or in the media where Norris has been defamed. I don't think he'd sue because he’s a nice guy and also because he's not stupid and he knows that there's no case.
I also don’t buy how Norris will keep McGuiness out. Who would vote for a socially ultra-conservative, economically communist candidate and also support an ultra-liberal homosexual candidate?
Shill - One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle
I wouldn't have voted for Norris before the letter/rape case incident.
I'm not traditionally an FG supporter and I'm not pro-unionist (or anti-unionist for that matter).
I haven't read any comments here or in the media where Norris has been defamed. I don't think he'd sue because he’s a nice guy and also because he's not stupid and he knows that there's no case.
I also don’t buy how Norris will keep McGuiness out. Who would vote for a socially ultra-conservative, economically communist candidate and also support an ultra-liberal homosexual candidate?
yes to your first question
as to your second point, it's a shame they had to kill 1800 people to get to that stage. However it confirms that the original aim of the IRA failed and failed miserably