Ian O'Doherty

kupus

I like him as well. I've read his articles now for a long time and
At first I thought he was a bit maxim fhm, type of a journalist. But he does hit the nail on the head, and he pretty much sums up what I think and writes it better than I ever could.

Ps where has Kevin Myers gone, I didn't like half of his stuff, but I liked that he at least encouraged debate about what he wrote.

Old Jakey

A cranky auld bollocks but I like him. And anyone who can wind up the right-on pc crowd is alright in my book.

FloatingVoter

He's from the Eamon Dunphy school of contrarianism. Most of his targets are obvious and easy ones. And just because you're nodding along with his train of thought this week doesn't mean you won't be offended the next. Trick is, don't take him seriously.
As for that Wiki page, I've seen better on the back of toilet doors - he probably did write it himself to save anyone else the bother.
Actually, he probably started this ****ing thread.

Heroditas

kupus wrote: »

Ps where has Kevin Myers gone, I didn't like half of his stuff, but I liked that he at least encouraged debate about what he wrote.

He writes occasionally in the Sunday Times

FloatingVoter

Heroditas wrote: »

He writes occasionally in the Sunday Times

Yup, today it's something about how Orangemen make great GAA players. You can't fault the man - if he was 20 years younger, he'd be collecting ASBOs for trolling.

RobertKK

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

What makes this man tick (or is it thick?)? He seems to be one of these types who are controversial for the sake of being controversial. He has caused uproar with his comments about among others gays, drug users, Muslims, Steve Staunton and Barack Obama.

His latest article in the Indo about the latter shows us precisely his mixed up thinking. He first off recommends us to watch some British Mad Max ripoff from the 1980s and then somehow descends into a tirade about how 'bad' a president Obama is. He seems to have forgotten about GW Bush and the disaster that was the Iraq war. He is the typical rightwing, atheist, journo type who can see no wrong in the actions of rightwing US presidents, rightwing Israeli regimes and so on but is very quick to condemn anything other than these.

Very little of what he spouts makes sense and he only seems to make sense on minor issues like his opposition to the ban of alcohol sales on Good Friday. Most of his stuff on big issues seems to be the typical black and white 'I love the Tea Party and Israel, I hate Islam and Socialism' argument.

I would not like to see what kind of rightwing capitalist billionaire mad man Doherty would prefer as US president. Trump no doubt! Obama has left the US a better place than he found it. While not perfect, I think Obama was overall a decent president who was left a mess to clean up by his predecessor, who was THE worst president America ever had.

Doherty also takes swipes at Jimmy Carter. Carter was dealt a crisis engineered in part by his rivals in 1979. There are people in America and Iran who know the true story of why Carter was not re-elected and why Reagan was elected. Oliver North took the rap for those higher up in these devious deals. Carter was a decent president who did his best and has proven himself on the world stage ever since. Reagan developed into a good president too but his first term was shaky. He was a different and much more moderate man in his later years as president. Neither Carter, Reagan or Obama would make the mess that Bush Jr made that is certain: either would Bush's father for that matter. They all KNEW when to stop and how far to take things!

Obama is a worse president than Bush.
Obama is weak and Outin knows this and does wehat he wants,
Obama has used drone strikes far more than Bush ever did and has killed far more innocent people with this method of kiling, including hundreds of children.
Obama has been ineffective, relations have been re-opened with Cuba but that was due to the Pope intervening and making it happen.
Under Obama, we saw the Arab soring which his regime supported, all it has led to is instability, Libya worse than before and Syria even worse than Libya with terrorists controlling lands from near the borders of Turkey across Syria and into Iraq.
No middle east peace plans with Obama.

Obama will go down as one of the weakest presidents in US history, the rest of the world just ignores him, just look at the UN last week with Putin launching a full out attack on the US foreign policy while in the US and just a room away from Obama and before they met where he apparently told Obama the same.
Obama laughed at Romney in the last election when Romney said Russia were the biggest geopolitical issue, since then Russia has annexed a part of a neighbouring country, and now is openly attacking the people in Syria that the US supports.
Bush was not a good president president, but Russia didn't walk all over the US when Bush was in power.

20Cent

Dislike what O'Doherty writes, not because he's "right wing" or a "libertarian" but because it's badly written and badly researched.

Tony EH

Just a deeply unpleasant character with some column inches. That's all.

custard gannet

Nodin wrote: »

He actually is an ignorant over-aggressive sneering prick.

Are these only admirable qualities if they are used with a left wing neo liberal slant? It's just that most of your own posts come across in a similar manner towards working class Irish taxpayers.


He's a bit of a ranter but he's alright, certainly for someone working for the thinking man's Beano that is the Indo. If he is upsetting the usual "you can't say that anymore" crowd of vermin with his musings then more power to the guy.

nullzero

Ian O'Doherty and his controversial opinions that he has for money.

custard gannet

RobertKK wrote: »

Obama is a worse president than Bush.

Obama had steered the economy back near its pre recession state.

Obama is weak and Outin knows this and does wehat he wants,

Yes, because George W would have been stupid enough to threaten to nuke Russia over ownership of a small slither of land in the south and east of Ukraine.

Obama has used drone strikes far more than Bush ever did and has killed far more innocent people with this method of kiling, including hundreds of children.

What is your problem with drone strikes? They are used to kill individuals who are living in lawless territory. These people shouldn't be taking their kids along with them and attending weddings I'm afraid.

Under Obama, we saw the Arab soring which his regime supported, all it has led to is instability, Libya worse than before and Syria even worse than Libya with terrorists controlling lands from near the borders of Turkey across Syria and into Iraq.
No middle east peace plans with Obama.

I'll give you this one, his handling of the Syrian crisis was catastrophic. The West needs to swallow its pride, admit it backed the wrong horse and give Assad all the help he needs.

Bush was not a good president president, but Russia didn't walk all over the US when Bush was in power.

Russia was still reeling from the Yeltsin era when Bush was in power. They could barely afford their law in little old Chechnya at the start, never mind throwing their international weight around- the US even had bases in ex Soviet states at one stage.

NachoBusiness

Tony EH wrote: »

Just a deeply unpleasant character with some column inches. That's all.

Ah now here. What's his penis size have to do with anything.

crybaby

custard gannet wrote: »

Are these only admirable qualities if they are used with a left wing neo liberal slant? It's just that most of your own posts come across in a similar manner towards working class Irish taxpayers

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

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

Boring username

So, three pages in and so far we've had:

• vague threats of violence
• accusations of alcoholism
• insinuation of cocaine use
• jibes that he might be of remedial or special needs
• various other character assassinations

And all because he arranges words in an order you dislike. Have I stumbled into 4Chan by accident?
Wait, let me guess-it's ok in this case because moral superiority or something like that....... :rolleyes:
Some of you would want to have a serious chat with yourselves.

Agricola

I read that Obama article and what I got from it was that IoD thinks he is a lesser president because he isnt a posturing macho arse like Putin. The President of Murica obviously needs to front up to Russian playacting, because ya know, there isnt enough trouble and strife in the world.

I agree with him on many topics but then he comes out with rubbish like that and you wonder is it all just hot air to keep himself in a job.

RayM

He likes puppies* so he can't be all bad.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/ian-odoherty-seriously-when-will-people-learn-that-a-dogs-not-just-for-christmas-26611895.html

*as long as they're not black, probably.

Strazdas

speedboatchase wrote: »

I like him. His views are generally libertarian and since the majority of people in Ireland don't subscribe to his views, he's seen as a 'contrarian' or 'trying to be controversial' by some. He's not, he just sees things differently from the majority of Irish columnists who spout the same opinions as one another.

I agree that it's very healthy that he goes against the left wing and liberal consensus of the Irish media (ie. anti US, pro Arab etc). Wouldn't agree with some of his more right wing views but he does shoot down a lot of Irish sacred cows (I think only yesterday he had a go at that horrible new Eircom ad and the people who made it).

Thomas998

The majority of things he takes issue with are legitimate, in my view. Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East has been awful. That's not an opinion, it's a simple fact. Ian O'Doherty's denunciation of BLM thugs was also very welcome. And so forth, really.

In what is almost a blanket left-wing and liberal Irish media, O'Doherty is the only one who actually speaks the truth. If you disagree with him, you don't have to read his articles - his is the only column in the paper that could be described as right-wing. But he's refreshingly blunt in a media that's been coated in the art of offending no-one by saying nothing.

On a side note - it's rather disgusting that you have to make slurs about alcohol and the like when you disagree with someone's views. If his ideas are so bad, then it should be easy to demolish them, and you certainly shouldn't have to resort to underhanded digs in an attempt to reduce his credibility. It's pathetic.

I hope that when you read this post and it offends you, you don't begin to imply I have an alcohol problem.

Rabo Karabekian

One of the reasons I dislike O'Doherty is that he is writing to fit an agenda (the supposedly contrarian viewpoint that actually highlights some easy hits that, for a paper like the Indo, are saying exactly what the majority of his audience thinks).

Thomas998 wrote: »

The majority of things he takes issue with are legitimate, in my view. Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East has been awful. That's not an opinion, it's a simple fact.

This is a perfect example of all that's wrong with O'Doherty. He is critical of Obama's Middle East policy (and rightly so: it's a fairly disastrous and seriously misguided one) but still writes pieces praising Bush, who not only had a worse Middle East policy, but is responsible for a lot of the chaos that's endemic in the region at the moment. Indeed, as far as I recall, O'Doherty was a big supporter of that war.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

suicide_circus wrote: »

His Wikipedia article contains the following sentence;

"Ian O'Doherty has angrily denied that he has a drinking problem."

speedboatchase wrote: »

I realise that libel can be fun when posting under an alias in an internet forum, but how would him having a drinking problem be relevant to any discussions of his work?

Also, whether or not it's true, what kind of message are trying to send by bringing it up - that people with drinking problems are inferior and should be mocked?

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Anyone can edit a wiki page, with untrue information.
For the record Ian is a breath of fresh air amongst the hand wringing, we can't insult anyone media that we have today. He is very much correct on what he publishes in his columns. And I love how he gets the usual posters on here upset!

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.

RDM_83 again

crybaby wrote: »

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

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

Non-EU migration has a negative economic effect on the bottom 5% of the current inhabitants is a quick example, so the poorer working class suffer.

Tony EH

Thomas998 wrote: »

On a side note - it's rather disgusting that you have to make slurs about alcohol and the like when you disagree with someone's views.

Oh please...like the man in question is above such angles himself. :pac:

Tony EH

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

This is a perfect example of all that's wrong with O'Doherty. He is critical of Obama's Middle East policy (and rightly so: it's a fairly disastrous and seriously misguided one) but still writes pieces praising Bush, who not only had a worse Middle East policy, but is responsible for a lot of the chaos that's endemic in the region at the moment. Indeed, as far as I recall, O'Doherty was a big supporter of that war.

Agreed. Completely subjective opinion, doused in an unhealthy and mindless adherence to a narrow political "focus".

Obama may be a bad President, but compared to Bush he's light years ahead.

FFS...such short memories some people have.

kupus

Boring username wrote: »

So, three pages in and so far we've had:

• vague threats of violence
• accusations of alcoholism
• insinuation of cocaine use
• jibes that he might be of remedial or special needs
• various other character assassinations

And all because he arranges words in an order you dislike. Have I stumbled into 4Chan by accident?
Wait, let me guess-it's ok in this case because moral superiority or something like that....... :rolleyes:
Some of you would want to have a serious chat with yourselves.

THats how everything the left dont like is treated, deny, deflect and finally defame.

im actually glad people are waking up to their tactics and how leftofacism works.

kupus

Thomas998 wrote: »

The majority of things he takes issue with are legitimate, in my view. Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East has been awful. That's not an opinion, it's a simple fact. Ian O'Doherty's denunciation of BLM thugs was also very welcome. And so forth, really.

In what is almost a blanket left-wing and liberal Irish media, O'Doherty is the only one who actually speaks the truth. If you disagree with him, you don't have to read his articles - his is the only column in the paper that could be described as right-wing. But he's refreshingly blunt in a media that's been coated in the art of offending no-one by saying nothing.

On a side note - it's rather disgusting that you have to make slurs about alcohol and the like when you disagree with someone's views. If his ideas are so bad, then it should be easy to demolish them, and you certainly shouldn't have to resort to underhanded digs in an attempt to reduce his credibility. It's pathetic.

I hope that when you read this post and it offends you, you don't begin to imply I have an alcohol problem.

I wouldnt hold the view that he is right wing, he may have some leanings just like i have....
im pro choice, pro marriage, pro immigrants pro a lot of friggin things the biggest being pro cop the fcuk on.

Snake Plisken

Nodin wrote: »

He actually is an ignorant over-aggressive sneering prick. .

So he comes across a bit like yourself then!

sabat

Boring username wrote: »

• insinuation of cocaine use

He's written about his toot habit in the past.

BuilderPlumber

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed. Completely subjective opinion, doused in an unhealthy and mindless adherence to a narrow political "focus".

Obama may be a bad President, but compared to Bush he's light years ahead.

FFS...such short memories some people have.

Obama is a typical US president no different to Clinton. I think he did the best he could with the hand that was dealt to him. Bush was a total disaster and his decision to invade Iraq was the greatest mistake ever made in modern times by a US president.

IoD is one of these types who seem to be willing to criticise all that is wrong in the left side of things but sees nothing wrong with the right. His views on certain communities border on fascist.

BuilderPlumber

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

One of the reasons I dislike O'Doherty is that he is writing to fit an agenda (the supposedly contrarian viewpoint that actually highlights some easy hits that, for a paper like the Indo, are saying exactly what the majority of his audience thinks).



This is a perfect example of all that's wrong with O'Doherty. He is critical of Obama's Middle East policy (and rightly so: it's a fairly disastrous and seriously misguided one) but still writes pieces praising Bush, who not only had a worse Middle East policy, but is responsible for a lot of the chaos that's endemic in the region at the moment. Indeed, as far as I recall, O'Doherty was a big supporter of that war.

You can be sure IoD was one of the biggest supporters of the Iraq war. Obamas Middle East policy is all about trying (rather unsuccessfully) to clean up the mess Bush created. It is easy to judge Obama's attempts as a failure but the seeds were planted ever before he became president.

Bush was much less intelligent than Obama and was a head of a neo-con regime that was pro-war 100%. Obama has improved relations with both Cuba and Iran. If we want these countries to be normal, we have to bring them in from the cold. A more moderate government has come to power in Iran. Ahmadinejad was a knee-jerk reaction to Bush and set previous attempts at improving thing backwards.

If the likes of IoD had his way, the US and Israel would be going to war with all these countries.

BuilderPlumber

Thomas998 wrote: »

The majority of things he takes issue with are legitimate, in my view. Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East has been awful. That's not an opinion, it's a simple fact. Ian O'Doherty's denunciation of BLM thugs was also very welcome. And so forth, really.

In what is almost a blanket left-wing and liberal Irish media, O'Doherty is the only one who actually speaks the truth. If you disagree with him, you don't have to read his articles - his is the only column in the paper that could be described as right-wing. But he's refreshingly blunt in a media that's been coated in the art of offending no-one by saying nothing.

On a side note - it's rather disgusting that you have to make slurs about alcohol and the like when you disagree with someone's views. If his ideas are so bad, then it should be easy to demolish them, and you certainly shouldn't have to resort to underhanded digs in an attempt to reduce his credibility. It's pathetic.

I hope that when you read this post and it offends you, you don't begin to imply I have an alcohol problem.

IoD is totally biased. It is true for sure that there are evil people that IoD criticises and rightly so but he is not speaking the truth when it comes to seeing nothing wrong in the invasion of Iraq.

IoD is the type who abuses free speech and interprets this right as the right to offend as he put it. This smacks of a journo who thinks he is greater than god. He is not the only one of his type either by the way: the Irish media is actually full of right-wing hardliners. Ruth Dudley Edwards, Eoghan 'Big Bow Wow' Harris, John Waters, etc. are other examples of ones that come to mind. They all are pro-Israel, pro-Bush/Republican Party, anti-Obama, anti-Iran, anti-Russia, anti-IRA, etc. Sometimes, they do get things right but more often than not, their blunt racist undertones shine through.

There are countries where there is no press freedom at all. But I think in countries like this, it is the opposite problem. The press have too much power and have become a sort of a dictatorship of their own. The press should fit into the workings of a civilised country and racism hiding behind free speech is not civilised.