Ian O'Doherty

Letree · 06-10-2015 12:12am

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 · 06-10-2015 12:08pm

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 · 06-10-2015 9:32pm

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 · 06-10-2015 9:45pm

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 · 06-10-2015 10:52pm

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 · 07-10-2015 12:54am

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 · 07-10-2015 6:15am

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 · 09-10-2015 2:52pm

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 · 09-10-2015 8:46pm

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 · 09-10-2015 9:11pm

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 · 09-10-2015 9:15pm

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 · 09-10-2015 9:26pm

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 · 09-10-2015 9:27pm

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 · 09-10-2015 9:37pm

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 · 09-10-2015 9:43pm

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

DeadHand · 09-10-2015 9:56pm

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 · 09-10-2015 10:40pm

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 · 09-10-2015 11:19pm

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 · 09-10-2015 11:33pm

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 · 09-10-2015 11:35pm

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 · 09-10-2015 11:38pm

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 · 09-10-2015 11:52pm

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 · 10-10-2015 12:08am

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 · 10-10-2015 12:11am

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 · 10-10-2015 5:36pm

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 · 10-10-2015 5:56pm

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 · 10-10-2015 9:12pm

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 · 10-10-2015 9:38pm

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 · 10-10-2015 10:02pm

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 · 10-10-2015 11:04pm

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.

Ian O'Doherty

Comments