Ian O'Doherty

Cienciano

Back years ago when I used to read the paper I always enjoyed his column. Even if I disagreed, which I did 50% of the time, it was always entertaining.

Martial9

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That's just the type of tactic IOD uses quite often - accuse people with differing views of being emotional, shrill and hysterical etc etc etc. It's quite an interesting tactic in that it doesn't deal with the substantive issues and it can often be subtly (and sometimes not so subtle) about shaming and dehumanising people.

Will you get off the cross. He is a contrarian, a young Myers, a shock jock. That is what he is paid to do. Just ignore his writings if they upset you so much.

StewartGriffin

Martial9 wrote: »

Will you get off the cross. He is a contrarian, a young Myers, a shock jock. That is what he is paid to do. Just ignore his writings if they upset you so much.

Yep. Totally agree. He wakes up in the morning and worries about who cares he exists, and he will do anything he can to be noticed, like that sad kid in the schoolyard.

As for Joey, as usual he just wants to raise his own agenda, (YAWN!!!)

DeadHand

PopePalpatine wrote: »

He'd be the sort to complain about that photo of Aylan Kurdi's body being "emotionally manipulative".

Because it was emotionally manipulative.

Here was a boy who was not fleeing a war zone and was killed by the illegal, economically motivated actions of his father. A dead child like the thousands of other children that died that day all over the world.

Yet, this image was held up as proof that we all should feel guilty for tragic events on a different continent that were not our fault- so guilty in fact that we should abandon our borders and bend over for a mass invasion from the third world that will tear Europe to pieces socially.

Unless you immediately wept, tore at your hipster beard and pretended you were willing to give up your parent's spare bedroom for a strange Arab you were condemned as heartless.

RobertKK

I don't know why people get so worked up that someone else has an opinion.

FactCheck

He strikes me as the sort of person who would be absolutely thrilled to have a whole thread talking about him.

philstar

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know why people get so worked up that someone else has an opinion.

well if the opinion isn't pro palestinian, pro sinn fein, pro refugee, pro nationalist

then some irish people get very worked up

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He condemns women for discussing their abortions

He started his piece last Saturday week about a friend of his that he'd asked to speak to about her abortion for an article.

ColeTrain

hinault wrote: »

he was one of the weakest students in his school year.

Folk should bear that in mind when reading the drivel he writes and the drivel he spouts.

How much do you bench, bra.

arayess

20Cent wrote: »

How about journalists that print stories about things we don't know. Like actually investigate something. Look at the NAMA corruption story only made the news because of Jamie "fleg" Bryson and Mick Wallace. Where are our investigative reporters?
Instead its lowest common denominator click bait like O'Doherty.

you know I like IO'd rants but i agree with you 100% on this,.
Journalism is in the gutter at the min

too much pontificating and social commentary clickbait and not enough investigation. Nothing like getting the keyword warriors upset over abortion or gayess while nama and political skullduggery sneaks off like a ship in the night.

It's almost like we (as a people) are being purposely dumbed down.

PopePalpatine

DeadHand wrote: »

Because it was emotionally manipulative.

Here was a boy who was not fleeing a war zone and was killed by the illegal, economically motivated actions of his father. A dead child like the thousands of other children that died that day all over the world that day.

Yet, this image was held up as proof that we all should feel guilty for tragic events on a different continent that were not our fault- so guilty in fact that we should abandon our borders and bend over for a mass invasion from the third world that will tear Europe to pieces socially.

He had his teeth pulled out by Da'esh, and his father was taking him to Europe to get them replaced.

Unless you immediately wept, tore at your hipster beard and pretended you were willing to give up your parent's spare bedroom for a strange Arab you were condemned as heartless.

I guess like your hero O'Doherty those people condemning your kind were calling it as they saw it.

speedboatchase

arayess wrote: »

you know I like IO'd rants but i agree with you 100% on this,.
Journalism is in the gutter at the min

too much pontificating and social commentary clickbait and not enough investigation. Nothing like getting the keyword warriors upset over abortion or gayess while nama and political skullduggery sneaks off like a ship in the night.

It's almost like we (as a people) are being purposely dumbed down.

That's isn't what's happening. We as the public get the journalism we deserve. When people fall for clickbait headlines (and they do, a lot), only post 'viral' or 'shareable' content on social media, and refuse to pay for newspapers or online subscriptions, there is a. no economic incentive for expensive, lengthy investigative journalism and b. no real need to even break stories when you can just hire graduates as unpaid interns to copy and paste from those who do. We've got to this point because people stop paying for content and have no desire to vote with their wallets for better standards.

As for IOD, he has an alternative viewpoints, attacks many sacred cows in Irish life, and provokes debate. For those reasons the Indo are getting their money's worth.

speedboatchase

PopePalpatine wrote: »

He had his teeth pulled out by Da'esh, and his father was taking him to Europe to get them replaced.

Not true. The Guardian said he had been living in Turkey for three years (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/father-drowned-boy-aylan-kurdi-return-syria?CMP=share_btn_tw) and had previously lived in Damascus, the seat of Assad's power. The story you mentioned was a meme started by this Facebook poster, who is some random Syrian blogger: https://www.facebook.com/kenanrahmani?fref=nf

kupus

arayess wrote: »

you know I like IO'd rants but i agree with you 100% on this,.
Journalism is in the gutter at the min

too much pontificating and social commentary clickbait and not enough investigation. Nothing like getting the keyword warriors upset over abortion or gayess while nama and political skullduggery sneaks off like a ship in the night.

It's almost like we (as a people) are being purposely dumbed down.

Journalism was always in the gutter,
just cos its times or indo, it makes no difference, they all follow their own agenda.
Christ when I was back during the bertie reelection and his court case, i was asking people wtf are they voting him back for, he is a liar, fraud, nutjob, i won the money on the horses. making a laughing stock of you. yes you cos you are the idiots that voted him in AGAIN.
Indo were hand in hand backing him to the hilt.

so Journalists know which side their bread is buttered on, and if they want to continue to have a career they wont rock the boat that much.

Nama one of the biggest property portfolios in the world headlined by people who spent their lives in civil service in a lil country at the arse end of europe and trying to swim with the sharks.....please!
It was a disaster from day one.
big fish in small ponds do not translate into big fish in big ponds. they may try but their ineptitude comes to the front very quick and get swallowed.

right back on point.... newspapers have their own agendas and you should realise that not everything is gospel what you read in the paper. read other sources even the ones you dont like..then form your own opinion.

Muahahaha

Hatless wrote: »

I think it's not his views, which he's entitled to even though I wouldn't always agree, but his approach - totally seems to be trying to get a rise.

He's the non-thinking mans Kevin Myres

BuilderPlumber

philstar wrote: »

well if the opinion isn't pro palestinian, pro sinn fein, pro refugee, pro nationalist

then some irish people get very worked up

It is not this that bugs me about journos like IoD. Any proper journo should be able to condemn ALL wrong. It is selective if they give out about the excesses of the Provos, Hamas, ISIS, etc. while praising the excesses of Bush, Blair, Netanyahu, etc. ALL these things should be condemned but writers like IoD are spouting propaganda for the latter set of cowboys.

The other thing that bugs me about IoD is that he comes across as being a racist and a bully as well as being your typical ultra capitalist warmonger. He has adopted collective opinions for entire categories of people and does not differentiate terrorists from other members of a race or creed for example.

Opinionated atheists like him think they have all the answers. It is easy to put pen to paper. Let IoD be president of America for a week and see how he would get on. I'm sure, he'd be worse than Bush and have us in a world war in minutes.

BuilderPlumber

kupus wrote: »

Journalism was always in the gutter,
just cos its times or indo, it makes no difference, they all follow their own agenda.

So-called journalism indeed is in the gutter and has been for a long, long time. It is worse now than ever. They can get away with things other professions cannot. Imagine if an Irish politician was saying the things IoD says. He'd be considered an embarrassment and a joke and would end up nowhere.

These types who are being controversial for the sake of it and who think they have a godgiven right to offend and then go out and try deliberately to offend everyone are the lowest of the low and don't impress me at all. They are bullies pure and simple. IoD's fascism should not be given spaces on a paper and it says a lot about Irish journalism if this gutter trash fascism is what they need to sell their rags.

Cuban Pete

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know why people get so worked up that someone else has an opinion.

Same reason AH has a fit when the Guardian prints an article.

Nodin

speedboatchase wrote: »

Not true. The Guardian said he had been living in Turkey for three years (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/father-drowned-boy-aylan-kurdi-return-syria?CMP=share_btn_tw) and had previously lived in Damascus, the seat of Assad's power. The story you mentioned was a meme started by this Facebook poster, who is some random Syrian blogger: https://www.facebook.com/kenanrahmani?fref=nf

Sez who?

"According to Canadian journalist Terry Glavin, who spoke to the aunt in Vancouver, Alan's father Abdullah had been kidnapped during the Islamic State siege Kobane earlier this year and had all of his teeth pulled out. "

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34142695

Earthhorse

NachoBusiness wrote: »

He always comes across to me like some coked off his tits southside spoon you'd meet in the kitchen of some party you have no idea how you wound up at.

Northsider infers southsiders are spoons!

I did no such thing.

Correct. The writer implies, the reader infers.

Letree

DeadHand wrote: »

Unless you immediately wept, tore at your hipster beard and pretended you were willing to give up your parent's spare bedroom for a strange Arab you were condemned as heartless.

So true

BuilderPlumber

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know why people get so worked up that someone else has an opinion.

Because some opinions are just outright dangerous. Dangerous ideologies like those of the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, al Qaeda/Taliban/Islamic State, and so on all started out as the opinions of some misguided idiot.

With regard to IoD: I actually do not think the man even has his own opinions. He is spouting the dangerous ideologies of corrupt American and Israeli rightwing politicians like the Bush admin and Netanyahu. Heaven forbid, if Trump gets elected, IoD will be praising him as the greatest president ever!!

DeadHand

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Because some opinions are just outright dangerous. Dangerous ideologies like those of the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, al Qaeda/Taliban/Islamic State, and so on all started out as the opinions of some misguided idiot.

With regard to IoD: I actually do not think the man even has his own opinions. He is spouting the dangerous ideologies of corrupt American and Israeli rightwing politicians like the Bush admin and Netanyahu. Heaven forbid, if Trump gets elected, IoD will be praising him as the greatest president ever!!

There we have it, Ian O'Doherty is "dangerous" and will quite likely seize power at the head of a fascist movement and spawn global terrorist networks with his mild right of centre views and relatively obscure newspaper articles unless silenced.

The hysteria in here is hilarious. The Leftys are urinating themselves at the mere existence of a mildly successful journalist who dares not conform to the prevailing dogma of the day. Venomous, personal attacks because he will not tow the line.

He's dangerous. He's a Nazi. He's illiterate. He's an alcoholic. He dehumises people. He should be censored.

No one is less tolerant of alternate opinion than the supposed "tolerance" crowd.

Cienciano

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Actually, they provided a source, if you'd bothered to check.

And it's rather funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4tgWDHwmn8

Ian O'Doherty is a terrible writer and seems like a very childish irrational person most of the time. Probably not the result of a drink problem, just of him being a fool.

Really comes across as a tosser in that video. I mean, he makes his living writing articles designed to wind people up. But the minute someone make an off the cuff remark to him he takes offence and has a strop like a 3 year old. I mentioned before that I liked his articles, but judging him from that video, he's a bellend

20Cent

DeadHand wrote: »

There we have it, Ian O'Doherty is "dangerous" and will quite likely seize power at the head of a fascist movement and spawn global terrorist networks with his mild right of centre views and relatively obscure newspaper articles unless silenced.

The hysteria in here is hilarious. The Leftys are urinating themselves at the mere existence of a mildly successful journalist who dares not conform to the prevailing dogma of the day. Venomous, personal attacks because he will not tow the line.

He's dangerous. He's a Nazi. He's illiterate. He's an alcoholic. He dehumises people. He should be censored.

No one is less tolerant of alternate opinion than the supposed "tolerance" crowd.

Don't see anyone saying he should be silenced just that he's a bellend.

Disagreement doesn't mean censorship.

BuilderPlumber

DeadHand wrote: »

There we have it, Ian O'Doherty is "dangerous" and will quite likely seize power at the head of a fascist movement and spawn global terrorist networks with his mild right of centre views and relatively obscure newspaper articles unless silenced.

The hysteria in here is hilarious. The Leftys are urinating themselves at the mere existence of a mildly successful journalist who dares not conform to the prevailing dogma of the day. Venomous, personal attacks because he will not tow the line.

He's dangerous. He's a Nazi. He's illiterate. He's an alcoholic. He dehumises people. He should be censored.

No one is less tolerant of alternate opinion than the supposed "tolerance" crowd.

It has always been the case that some ideology is used to label collectively a group of people who disagree with certain issues. People protested against the Vietnam war were all labelled communists, commies, leftists, etc. Yes, there were some of that persuasion, some right wing people too and loads of no persuasion BUT who were intelligent enough to recognise that this war was killing loads of innocent people and was being waged on a weak country by a superpower.

The same label is used to describe those who opposed the Iraq war. Once more, intelligent left, right, centre and no persuasion people all saw something that was wrong and unnecessary and all could see where it would lead.

I am one of the NON-PERSUASION people. I am not left wing or right wing. I will neither endorse the views of O'Doherty or Ruth Dudley Edwards anymore than I will the views on An Phoblacht. Both are examples of propaganda that glorifies ONE SIDE and conveniently ignores the wrongs of their own side. I have criticised the actions of anyone who is doing wrong. For example:

*America should reform its foreign policies and stop waging wars on weak nations and creating enemies for itself.
*Israel should have a more moderate government, and do a deal with the Palestinians.
*The Palestinians would be better off too if they had a more moderate government and do a deal to make peace.
*The peace process in South Africa was the correct way to go.
*Iran should ditch laws that curb freedom of dress and what to eat and drink.
*Iran is right to have taken a more moderate approach and America was right to engage with it. If the other point I made about Iran is made possible, it will be made possible by not only Iran but by the West too.
*Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Taliban, etc. are horrible regimes and I actually AGREE with O'Doherty's views on these. But he should not equate the people of these areas with these vile organisations.
*Saudi Arabia should be recognised as the most intolerant state that totally denies people's rights to eat, drink, dress, socialise, read, watch, listen, etc. as they please. Their treatment of women, religious minorities and its 99% Islamic population too is totally discriminatory and serves the purposes of a corrupt royal family.
*The IRA did a lot of evil in Northern Ireland. So too did the loyalist groups.
*Bush and LBJ are both equally guilty of poor judgement when it came to wars: both the Republican and Democratic parties have engaged in poor foreign policies throughout the years.
*North Korea is a bad regime in the view of anyone with one iota of intelligence.

In other words, wrong is wrong. If IoD and others of his type were condemning ALL wrong, it would be grand and I would respect him. No one can sit back and ignore the awful things done by the West in Vietnam, Iraq, etc. Leftwing Provo type propaganda is just as bad: It can see no wrong with North Korea, stays silent on how women are treated by certain Islamic regimes, makes excuses for al Qaeda/ISIS, and praises its own as some sort of saints. Mirror images of each other.

Nodin

Cienciano wrote: »

Really comes across as a tosser in that video. I mean, he makes his living writing articles designed to wind people up. But the minute someone make an off the cuff remark to him he takes offence and has a strop like a 3 year old. I mentioned before that I liked his articles, but judging him from that video, he's a bellend

You should hear him on the radio betimes - far worse than that.

Boring username

Cienciano wrote: »

Really comes across as a tosser in that video. I mean, he makes his living writing articles designed to wind people up. But the minute someone make an off the cuff remark to him he takes offence and has a strop like a 3 year old. I mentioned before that I liked his articles, but judging him from that video, he's a bellend

Does he really come across as a tosser though? I just see a fella defending himself against a dirty remark when he wanted to enjoy himself kicking a ball around. I got the impression that the producer of the documentary may have set up the remark in order to get a reaction, hence the 'I'm not here for your entertainment' comment by O Doherty.
Although he shouldn't have walked off the pitch, I agree with you there. Just flatten the fcuker who said it in the next 50/50 challenge :pac:

Tony EH

Cienciano wrote: »

Really comes across as a tosser in that video. I mean, he makes his living writing articles designed to wind people up. But the minute someone make an off the cuff remark to him he takes offence and has a strop like a 3 year old. I mentioned before that I liked his articles, but judging him from that video, he's a bellend

He actually comes across as, simply, stupid in that video.

Aidric

Cienciano wrote: »

Really comes across as a tosser in that video. I mean, he makes his living writing articles designed to wind people up. But the minute someone make an off the cuff remark to him he takes offence and has a strop like a 3 year old. I mentioned before that I liked his articles, but judging him from that video, he's a bellend

I wouldn't write someone off for a short video, maybe taken out of context.

However, if his modus operandi is to write flaming articles which he doesn't have to defend then he is no better than all the other clickbait smothering the net. I can't recall the guy having spent much time on tv and radio defending his opinions.

Cienciano

Aidric wrote: »

I wouldn't write someone off for a short video, maybe taken out of context.

However, if his modus operandi is to write flaming articles which he doesn't have to defend then he is no better than all the other clickbait smothering the net. I can't recall the guy having spent much time on tv and radio defending his opinions.

Around 2005 I used to listen to Ray Darcy. Ian O'Doherty used to come on, basically to wind up Ray and his listeners. Really worked on Ray which was funny

Aidric

Cienciano wrote: »

Around 2005 I used to listen to Ray Darcy. Ian O'Doherty used to come on, basically to wind up Ray and his listeners. Really worked on Ray which was funny

The cynic in me says Ray would be a soft target. Darcy is just waiting to be outraged so represents fertile ground for O Doherty.

Put him up against a serious political interviewer and then I might judge him accordingly.

StewartGriffin

20Cent wrote: »

How about journalists that print stories about things we don't know. Like actually investigate something. Look at the NAMA corruption story only made the news because of Jamie "fleg" Bryson and Mick Wallace. Where are our investigative reporters?
Instead its lowest common denominator click bait like O'Doherty.

Good question. Very few have the courage to stand against a powerful individual or institution, yet once a person is taken down they swarm over the corpse like buzzards. E.g. Charlie Haughey, they knew exactly what was going on for years but didn't go on a moral crusade until he was down and out.

Junkyard Tom

DeadHand wrote: »

The Leftys are urinating themselves at the mere existence of a mildly successful journalist who dares not conform to the prevailing dogma of the day.

The prevailing dogma of the day is delivered via a mainstream press owned by billionaires and a mainstream media that routinely prostitutes itself to power.

The recent media hysterics in the UK because of the democratic election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader is testament to the above. The hint of a democratic challenge to economic and political orthodoxy is viewed as a grave threat.

Thomas998

Or maybe it's just because Corbyn is a complete lunatic.

DeadHand

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

daThe recent media hysterics in the UK because of the democratic election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader is testament to the above. The hint of a democratic challenge to economic and political orthodoxy is viewed as a grave threat.

The man has a has a militant vegan as his shadow Minster for agriculture. He is a lunatic. In appointing him and losing Scotland to the nationalists the Labour Party has removed itself as a viable alternative.

The world is a better place for it. The Labour Party has done untold damage at home (untrammelled immigration) and abroad (the Iraqi war).

Junkyard Tom

Thomas998 wrote: »

Corbyn is a complete lunatic.

DeadHand wrote: »

He is a lunatic.

Yep, you're one of them. There's no rational discussion to be had here.

Media hysterics and its dim-witted consumers like those who believe what The Sun writes are a far greater threat to society than some PC obsessed college student.

Bye the way, are all of the people who concur with Corbyn's policies and opinions lunatics?

Public support for Corbyn's policies/opinions is remarkably strong.

56% of people support (31% against) an increase on taxes on incomes of over one million GBP.

Support for renationalising the railways has cross-party support with even the Tories being split down the middle on the issue.

Two thirds of Brits want an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.

6 out of 10 Brits want to see rent controls on landlords.

60% of the public support a mandatory living wage.

Almost half of the UK public want to see tuition fees cut with only 31% against the idea.

43% were with Corbyn on opposing the Iraq war with 37% duped wartards in favour with even greater numbers aligning with Corbyn on the UK bombing of Syria.

Corbyn isn't the threat to orthodoxy - the public and democracy is the threat.

Thomas998

He wants to open negotiations with Hamas and Hezbollah.
He put a militant vegan, in her own words, in charge of Agriculture. One of her first statements was that her ultimate aim was to end the British population eating meat, before she was forced to row back.
He wants to withdraw from NATO.

Those are three of his policies that border on farcical. The man is hellbent on single-handedly crushing Britain as we know it. Any sane person is vehemently against the appointment of someone that amounts to a hard-left hippy.

Junkyard Tom

Thomas998 wrote: »

He wants to open negotiations with Hamas and Hezbollah.

So? The British were negotiating with the IRA for most of the troubles and that laid the foundations for the peace process.

Vegan

I'm not up to date on that so can't comment.

He wants to withdraw from NATO.

So?

Those are three of his policies that border on farcical.

Why are you ignoring the the positions that he holds that the majority of Britons support?

The man is hellbent on single-handedly crushing Britain as we know it. Any sane person is vehemently against the appointment of someone that amounts to a hard-left hippy.

Keep that hysterical bullshit for the Daily Mail comments section. I'm not interested in rolling in the mud with you.

Nodin

Thomas998 wrote: »

He wants to open negotiations with Hamas and Hezbollah.
He put a militant vegan, in her own words, in charge of Agriculture. One of her first statements was that her ultimate aim was to end the British population eating meat, before she was forced to row back.
He wants to withdraw from NATO.

Those are three of his policies that border on farcical. The man is hellbent on single-handedly crushing Britain as we know it. Any sane person is vehemently against the appointment of someone that amounts to a hard-left hippy.

God Good Man!!!!! Next the chap will want to abolish the Monarchy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RDM_83 again

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

43% were with Corbyn on opposing the Iraq war with 37% duped wartards in favour with even greater numbers aligning with Corbyn on the UK bombing of Syria.

Corbyn isn't the threat to orthodoxy - the public and democracy is the threat.

And this is the problem with corbyn and his supporters, I like a lot of his policies and I appreciate a lot of his world view. But the "leftist" rather than social democratic left idea that people that disagree you are always idiots and "wartards" holds it back from achieving its realistic aims.
Whats wrong with the idea of listening to the citizens views on all issues rather than saying X people support Y measure and that shows a progressive attitude but the fact that X people support Z and they are duped idiots?

Junkyard Tom

RDM_83 again wrote: »

But the "leftist" rather than social democratic left idea that people that disagree you are always idiots and "wartards" holds it back from achieving its realistic aims.

A large majority of Britons were steadfastly against the Iraq invasion. The largest protests in Britain's history were held and it was ignored by 'Tory Lite'. Are there still people around who believe the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Corbyn apologised for Labour's sins and that's a good start. Tony Blair in front of the International Criminal Court would be a good ending.

Whats wrong with the idea of listening to the citizens views on all issues rather than saying X people support Y measure and that shows a progressive attitude but the fact that X people support Z and they are duped idiots?

Nothing. Their ideas should be subject to discussion and ridicule if they're stupid enough. The establishment does not want an honest discussion about Corbyn's the public's concerns.

It's much much easier to dismiss someone as 'a lunatic' than engage them in discussion just as the British public's support for Corbyn's policies is ignored in the last few posts.

Azalea

Ian O'Doherty is just a wind-up artist. It's childish to admire him only because he's "annoying the lefties" - one doesn't have to be a "looney leftie" to take issue with his sh1t-stirring approach (not even his views but his approach) anyway.
It's not brave - it's extremely easy in the last 15 or so years to be an against-the-grain print commentator - it's almost become the norm.

RDM_83 again

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A large majority of Britons were steadfastly against the Iraq invasion. The largest protests in Britain's history were held and it was ignored by 'Tory Lite'. Are there still people around who believe the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Corbyn apologised for Labour's sins and that's a good start. Tony Blair in front of the International Criminal Court would be a good ending.



Nothing. Their ideas should be subject to discussion and ridicule if they're stupid enough. The establishment does not want an honest discussion about Corbyn's the public's concerns.

It's much much easier to dismiss someone as 'a lunatic' than engage them in discussion just as the British public's support for Corbyn's policies is ignored in the last few posts.

This is for the politics thread on it really its my fault for diverting it !

BuilderPlumber

Hatless wrote: »

Ian O'Doherty is just a wind-up artist. It's childish to admire him only because he's "annoying the lefties" - one doesn't have to be a "looney leftie" to take issue with his sh1t-stirring approach (not even his views but his approach) anyway.
It's not brave - it's extremely easy in the last 15 or so years to be an against-the-grain print commentator - it's almost become the norm.

IoD is annoying and rubs people up the wrong way. Someone who can still praise GW Bush and his neocon-dominated government and who STILL thinks invading Iraq was the right thing to do despite all the evidence to the contrary is not clued in.

It also seems that everyone who does not agree with the non-caring, warmongering attitude of journalists like IoD promote are lumped together as 'lefties' or even 'communists'!! Not true. They are people who can see through his agenda and can choose to agree or disagree with what he has to say.

What's wrong with people like IoD is that they are in a cocoon. He is at a very safe distance and he is totally out of touch with the real world. Like, he gets paid well for lounging around all day doing nothing and writing the odd article. He does not have to worry about things other people do and can just come up with simplistic hard rightwing solutions without thinking things through.

BuilderPlumber

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yep, you're one of them. There's no rational discussion to be had here.

Media hysterics and its dim-witted consumers like those who believe what The Sun writes are a far greater threat to society than some PC obsessed college student.

Bye the way, are all of the people who concur with Corbyn's policies and opinions lunatics?

Public support for Corbyn's policies/opinions is remarkably strong.

56% of people support (31% against) an increase on taxes on incomes of over one million GBP.

Support for renationalising the railways has cross-party support with even the Tories being split down the middle on the issue.

Two thirds of Brits want an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.

6 out of 10 Brits want to see rent controls on landlords.

60% of the public support a mandatory living wage.

Almost half of the UK public want to see tuition fees cut with only 31% against the idea.

43% were with Corbyn on opposing the Iraq war with 37% duped wartards in favour with even greater numbers aligning with Corbyn on the UK bombing of Syria.

Corbyn isn't the threat to orthodoxy - the public and democracy is the threat.

Again, this downing of Corbyn is typical of the rightwing fanatics like IoD. If Corbyn plans to engage with Hamas and Hezbollah, that's the right thing to do. It is a lot like engaging with the Provo IRA back in the day that lead to the peace process. Northern Ireland is a better country because of it and it is safe to visit Belfast today.

Corbyn has a lot to change and get his party away from the Blair image. The British people are sick of the adventurism the likes of Blair engaged in and the costly, unnecessary wars waged that have only made matters MUCH WORSE.

The fact is most people everywhere do not want a government that works for the rich, engages in wars and other adventurism and who get the poor to pay when it all goes wrong. That is not a leftie view, just the view of sensible people.

Stating that Israel is at present very poorly governed is also an opinion of the majority. I am not anti-Israel or either are a lot of people. Anti-Israeli government is what people are and the fact that corrupt warmongers like Netanyahu can influence the international community's response to issues is wrong. Israel deserves better and most Israelis know this.

Journos like IoD are full of it and are defending the priviliged elite that he himself is a member of. They are not part of the real world and are just spouting cliches for the rich warmongering adventurist regimes.

custard gannet

crybaby wrote: »

Please provide some examples of Nodin attacking working class Irish taxpayers.

A few weeks ago he dismissed the concerns of a poster who's asylum seeker rapist was granted leave to remain, and argued at length for his case to stay in another forum.

Such a lazy tactic of the right, accuse the left of not caring about the working class when actually all of the policies of the left are there to improve the lives of the working class. Next up you will be calling him a loony lefty or a member of the PC brigade or could he possible be part of that awful organization - the do-gooders

So what?

People are murdered because of leftist politics. Women and children, and occasionally men, get raped because of militant leftist politics. People commit suicide or end up unemployed or priced out of their profession because of leftist politics. Old people end up battered and beaten and robbed of their life savings because of leftist politics. Women in some towns in England find that they can't walk through certain parts of their home towns because of leftist politics. And certain posters on boards find all of the above events to be an amusing case of the means justifying the end.

Junkyard Tom

custard gannet wrote: »

People are murdered because of leftist politics. Women and children, and occasionally men, get raped because of militant leftist politics. People commit suicide or end up unemployed or priced out of their profession because of leftist politics. Old people end up battered and beaten and robbed of their life savings because of leftist politics. Women in some towns in England find that they can't walk through certain parts of their home towns because of leftist politics.

This, now this, this right here, is hysterical bullshit of the highest order.

custard gannet

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This, now this, this right here, is hysterical bullshit of the highest order.

I'll pre do Nodin's response.

It's a toss up between


0h n0ez! teh rapinGz!

and

Bollocks, tbh.


So, enlighten me.

When a jobless Romanian gypsy with no legitimate jobseeking reason to be in Ireland commits a sleight of hand offence on a pensioner, whose fault is it that they were here in the first place?

Whose fault is it that care workers in Britain who tried to raise the issue of Pakistani sex trafficking gangs were sent for sensitivity training?

Whose fault is it that if a gang of people from a certain community assault and rob a pensioner we never hear a description that relates to what their background may be as displayed by accent and appearance, yet news reports and Garda press releases have no problem describing suspects as having Dublin accents, or Cork accents, or Northern accents?

Whose fault is it that the aforementioned Eritrean rapist can't be deported?

We have a kid over in Egypt awaiting trial for protesting in support of a political Islamic fundamentalist movement. For no other reason than that he is non white the Irish government has been providing an utterly unprecedented amount of support and financial assistance to a guy whose father is an Islamist and whose sisters have repeatedly lied about the case. The media coverage of these aspects has been virtually non existent. There are a four figure number of largely white Irish nationals in prison across the world and not a single one has received the same level of government assistance and media support as this guy. It is, in itself, racist- we simply would not, under no circumstances, give anything remotely like this support to any other Irish citizen imprisoned abroad.

This is the root of the problem. Even 20 years ago being on the left was admirable- it was all about an equal society, helping people who need help, a fair deal for all. These days it is just a belief system that wants to give a free pass to every degenerate scumbag going at the expense of the working man.


While they would rather forget about it these days, the left had quite a soft spot for this crowd in the 70's, and I'd hazard a guess that privately quite a few of them still do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange#Government_funding

Junkyard Tom

custard gannet wrote: »

joining random dots to get 'leftist'

'Leftist' is nothing but a catch-all term that the lazy-minded like to attach their gripes about the world to.