High Noon with George Hook.

DeadHand

[Deleted User] wrote: »

According to Brenda not voting for a woman candidate is sexist pure and simple

It's equally wrong and stupid to vote for someone because they are a woman as it is to not vote for them because they are a woman.

Glebee

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Ha Ha micheal Graham just had a subtle side shot at Denis O brien about the clintons and Haiti

A great dig from Michael Graham, Hook just moved on asap...lol

Vorenus400

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Brenda Power up next to give the view of the women, jesus wept. maybe they will have David Norris up after giving the view of all Dubs.

RTE Morning Ireland was interesting this morning.

I was listening away, rubbing my eyes, and I knew there was something odd about the show, then it occurred to me: everyone's a woman.

Keelin Shanley was presenting from Dublin, Rachel English was presenting from NYC, Caitríona Perry was reporting from Washinton I think, there was a female reporter from CNN and some other female guests.

RTE were so convinced this was going to be an historic day for women, they'd obviously planned this deliberately.

I'm not complaining by the way, they're all competent broadcasters, especially Rachel English. It just goes to show the extent of the certainty most of us had about a woman being President today. I think Hillary Clinton was such a role model to many women who don't engage in this online bubble of Crooked Hillary, that I feel a bit sorry for those women today, even though I'm not Hillary's biggest fan.

DeadHand

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think Hillary Clinton was such a role model to many women who don't engage in this online bubble of Crooked Hillary, that I feel a bit sorry for those women today, even though I'm not Hillary's biggest fan.

A cynical, self-enriching liar instrumental in turning much of the Middle East into an Islamist nightmare.

Universally despised in her own country, she somehow contrived to lose an election against probably the most unsuitable presidential candidate in U.S. history.

She consistently put her ambition before truth and decency, yet her legacy will still be one of failure and, given the oceans of Libyan and Syrian blood she has on her hands, it is impossible to feel sorry for her.

A wretched, grasping human being and no role model to anyone; male or female.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

DeadHand wrote:

She consistently put her ambition before truth and decency, yet her legacy will still be one of failure and, given the oceans of Libyan and Syrian blood she has on her hands, it is impossible to feel sorry for her.

Well f'n said

aphex™

Exactly and she filled her shoes with gold from wall street. But, we should ignore all that and vote for her because she's a woman. Makes sense.

Anyways back on topic must tune in today if George is on a high after Trump's win.

DeadHand

DeadHand wrote: »

A cynical, self-enriching liar instrumental in turning much of the Middle East into an Islamist nightmare.

the oceans of Libyan and Syrian blood she has on her hands, it is impossible to feel sorry for her.

The Secretary of State does not set policy or strategy. The Secretary of State's job is to advise the President and to implement his policies in the way he chooses.

They aren't called secretaries for nothing.

Her period as Secretary was one of the least interventionist periods in US foreign policy for decades.

Universally despised in her own country

Universally despised?

Universally despised won the popular vote, genius. 60 million Americans voted for "universally despised in her own country"

Vorenus400

I would love to hear George's version of how he went from very pro Hillary to his now anti Hillary stance. In the run up to the election he supported most of trumps policies while falling short of saying he supports trump. he said he wouldnt vote for hillary and never mentioned the 3rd party candidates. Since the win he has rowed back and said he doesnt support trump.

Why arent people calling him on this. I know you could just put it down to him looking for attention and being contrarian. But no one in media has said that George was literally pro trump on most of his policies.

Vorenus400

I would love to hear George's version of how he went from very pro Hillary to his now anti Hillary stance. In the run up to the election he supported most of trumps policies while falling short of saying he supports trump. he said he wouldnt vote for hillary and never mentioned the 3rd party candidates. Since the win he has rowed back and said he doesnt support trump.

Why arent people calling him on this. I know you could just put it down to him looking for attention and being contrarian. But no one in media has said that George was literally pro trump on most of his policies.

Muff Richardson

Vorenus400 wrote: »

I would love to hear George's version of how he went from very pro Hillary to his now anti Hillary stance. In the run up to the election he supported most of trumps policies while falling short of saying he supports trump. he said he wouldnt vote for hillary and never mentioned the 3rd party candidates. Since the win he has rowed back and said he doesnt support trump.

Why arent people calling him on this. I know you could just put it down to him looking for attention and being contrarian. But no one in media has said that George was literally pro trump on most of his policies.

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Why arent people calling him on this. I know you could just put it down to him looking for attention and being contrarian. But no one in media has said that George was literally pro trump on most of his policies.

i think you answered this yourself, because it is just attention seeking. Nobody in their right mind takes him at face value, I reckon he could easily announce something as outrageous as reinstating Auschwitz as a fully functioning gas chamber and he'd get nothing more than a few texts calling him a bumbling old buffoon which he loves reading. A few years back he was getting a kick out of and sunk as low as talking about how he couldn't get the fat lad up and couldn't blow his beans etc. ye had that stuck up ciara kelly geebag giving it all that "oooooh my gawd loike George! we soooooo don't need to know that....and I'm, loike...ye know a doctor and stuff?"....other than Ciara, nobody gave a toss.

out of desperation to be taken seriously as some kind of commentator he tries to latch on to some current issue and become the self proclaimed spokesman for it, it was concussion in sport and CBT for a while, now he's all over immunisation or vaccines (or something like that, stand to be corrected)

basically he's slowly but surely being more and more ignored and he's becoming increasingly desperate to get that attention, nothing more than a radio broadcasting troll.

DeadHand

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Secretary of State does not set policy or strategy. The Secretary of State's job is to advise the President and to implement his policies in the way he chooses.

They aren't called secretaries for nothing.

Her period as Secretary was one of the least interventionist periods in US foreign policy for decades.



Universally despised?

Universally despised won the popular vote, genius. 60 million Americans voted for "universally despised in her own country

Oh, my. You are sore. Tough week?

Spin it how you want, Hilary is a proven hawk and was a leading light in an administration that consistently backed the wrong dog in almost every fight they involved themselves in. The result is a world more dangerous, miserable and unstable now that they are leaving power than it was when they first assumed it.

It was perfectly apt to see Seddique Mateen, avowed Islamist and father of the perpetrator of the Orlando massacre, smiling broadly and applauding enthusiastically at one of Hilary's campaign rallies. From removing Gaddafi to make the creation of a second Islamic paradise possible, to arming the Islamic State (under the pretense of arming the largely imaginary "Free Syrian Army") to their unconditional support for Saudi Arabia- Hilary and her administration have done much to advance the cause of global Islamism.

Hilary is quite the "role model" to the proud Dad Seddique also, it seems. And with good reason.

As to your pedantry, it's clear she is the most broadly despised presidential candidate in U.S. history given she lost to the most unsuitably one.

The fact she secured whatever million votes is no indicator of popularity. The system in America is such that a cat could secure a massive amount of votes as long as it ran under one of the two main parties.

Many who did vote for her did so out of a "lesser of two evils" philosophy and with serious reservations.

Bernie Saunders would have beaten Trump. Hell, I believe most other Democratic politicians in the U.S. would have beaten Trump had they been set against him. But, as ever, her own greed and lust for power came before all else- even keeping a howling buffoon out of the White House.

Hilary is so reviled that the cartoonish Trump is one of the few people she could conceivably defeat in an election and she still bloody lost convincingly.

But no, she's not a man and thus is a "role model" for women. Despite all the people murdered by her disastrous policies, despite the lies, despite the corruption. Someone forgot to tell women this- a significant majority of white women voted against her.

Incidentally, the enormous butthurt we are seeing from the smug Leftists of the boards is precious to behold. They continue to bully, sneer and belittle (see the bitter, aggressive post I'm replying to) but their world view is being roundly rejected by ordinary people.

ThisRegard

You rattle on about how she's universally despised and roundly rejected yet in your own post point out she got more votes(as it stands) than Trump?

DeadHand

ThisRegard wrote: »

You rattle on about how she's universally despised and roundly rejected yet in your own post point out she got more votes(as it stands) than Trump?

I'm only replying out of courtesy here because you addressed me but I have no idea what your post means or how to engage it.

It refers to points I never made and I can't discern whether it's some kind of question or a statement.

I'm sorry, it may be me.

Harry Angstrom

Vorenus400 wrote: »

I would love to hear George's version of how he went from very pro Hillary to his now anti Hillary stance. In the run up to the election he supported most of trumps policies while falling short of saying he supports trump. he said he wouldnt vote for hillary and never mentioned the 3rd party candidates. Since the win he has rowed back and said he doesnt support trump.

Why arent people calling him on this. I know you could just put it down to him looking for attention and being contrarian. But no one in media has said that George was literally pro trump on most of his policies.

I think George's support for Trump waned a little when Pamela Anderson launched a polemic against him a few weeks ago (Trump that is, not George). Very fickle is our Georgie.

Vorenus400

Muff Richardson wrote: »

desperation to be taken seriously as some kind of commentator he tries to latch on to some current issue and become the self proclaimed spokesman for it, it was concussion in sport and CBT for a while, now he's all over immunisation or vaccines (or something like that, stand to be corrected)

basically he's slowly but surely being more and more ignored and he's becoming increasingly desperate to get that attention, nothing more than a radio broadcasting troll.

Yeah you are right. its just horrible to listen to him scraping the barrel every week. I was sure there would have been some big outcry over the vaccines. Ignoring him probably is the best way to silence him.

At least giving him his speaking platform has shut up some of the "george Hook tells it as it is" or "newstalk is complete pc liberal leftist propaganda "

Grolschevik

His "first-ten-minute rant" today was priceless.

To paraphrase: "Here's something that could happen. There are no indications that it actually will happen, but it is technically possible that it could happen. I don't trust the people who get to make the decision on whether it will or will not happen. But if it happens, I'll be outraged. In fact, I'm outraged anyway."

About two-thirds of the way through, he seemed to notice that he was blustering about a mere possibility, and he flagged a bit.

(It was about the fact that (1) a convicted murderer was technically due for a parole review and (2) that our society has moved beyond a "throw away the key" penal philosophy).

Cazale

Giving off about an advert not shown on Irish tv for a shop that isn't in Ireland.

Cazale

Giving off about an advert not shown on Irish tv for a shop that isn't in Ireland.

DeadHand

DeadHand wrote: »

As to your pedantry, it's clear she is the most broadly despised presidential candidate in U.S. history given she lost to the most unsuitably one.

She won the popular vote against the man whom I believe is more despised, even than Hillary, who is indeed widely despised.

The electoral college is not a measure of popularity. It is effectively a system where the vote of a white man in his turnip field has a greater weight than an entire apartment block in Brooklyn.

If that's what you think is a system that translates into national popularity, it isn't possible to explain this to you.

Maybe you'll listen to Trump himself, though, who called the electoral college system "a disaster for democracy".

For once I agree with him.

Trump is President-elect, and deserves his office. But your assertion that he is more popular than Hillary Clinton does not hold water. The majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton.

DeadHand

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

She won the popular vote against the man whom I believe is more despised, even than Hillary, who is indeed widely despised.

The electoral college is not a measure of popularity. It is effectively a system where the vote of a white man in his turnip field has a greater weight than an entire apartment block in Brooklyn.

If that's what you think is a system that translates into national popularity, it isn't possible to explain this to you.

Maybe you'll listen to Trump himself, though, who called the electoral college system "a disaster for democracy".

For once I agree with him.

Trump is President-elect, and deserves his office. But your assertion that he is more popular than Hillary Clinton does not hold water. The majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton.

Would you complain about the electoral system had Hilary been elected? Doubtful.

I also do not recall you or any of your comrades complaining as bitterly when the undemocratic vagaries of the British electoral system meant that UKIP could translate 5 million votes into only 2 seats.

Yet, now you're all suddenly champions of democracy striding out in righteous indignation about the unfairness of it all.

It seems the game is only broken when your side loses.

Similarly, had Hilary won and Trumps rabble taken to the streets afterward, the media and Leftist commentators would be falling over themselves to make Nazi comparisons and speak grimly of the danger and evil of it all.

The snowflakes are out in the streets now protesting against democracy and freedom of choice without a word of criticism levelled against them no matter how violent they become.

Hypocrisy is and ever was the defining characteristic of the Left.

Both candidates were deeply unpopular because they are both obnoxious human beings.

I maintain Hilary was even less popular than Trump because, the nature of the system and the individuals meant she got many more votes with reservations or lesser of two evils votes. Millions who disliked her to varying degrees voted for her in fear of the alternative. In contrast, people who genuinely liked Trump formed the bulk of his base.

America was losing anyway, but the world is a good deal safer with a Donald Trump at the helm surrounded by sharp minds than it would be with the hawkish Hilary there surrounded by the same minds who helped her ruin large swathes of it in the first place.

ThisRegard

If Clinton was less popular how did the nature of the system mean she got more popular votes?

Nody

Mod:
While the vote has been decisive (to say the least) further discussion on the outcome, the reasons etc. should go in the politics forum; this is Radio and the focus here is on the radio show and the daily topics at hand.

Grolschevik

I guess Hook's promoted himself to Europe's foremost authority on Donald Trump after his random contrarianism came true.

PeterTheNinth

Surely Mark Daly referring to the illegal Irish as "undocumented Irish" and the Mexicans as illegal immigrants is racist in itself. He's another one who's fairly transparent, just on the most popular causes and make them your own, and see how far it pushes you up the party ranks.

Grolschevik

Deedsie wrote: »

He was right, pretty sure he called Brexit too... would you prefer he just tow the line and agree with everyone else's opinion. I'm disappointed with both results but it's good that at least one Irish broadcaster actually gave his actual opinion.

I was more talking about the air of authority he has adopted, pontificating on what Trump will or won't do.

jooksavage

Listening to this for the first time in weeks. The topic is geriatric care and Hook is trying his "old people gits no respects / young people are selfish" routine and, fair play, his guest, a geriatric consultant, is having none of it.

Vorenus400

jooksavage wrote: »

Listening to this for the first time in weeks. The topic is geriatric care and Hook is trying his "old people gits no respects / young people are selfish" routine and, fair play, his guest, a geriatric consultant, is having none of it.

That is the pattern with most of his specialist guests. The health spots are the worst. he also doesnt ask questions. he gives a statement and asks the guest to confirm or deny it. They usually have to deny it

jooksavage

Vorenus400 wrote: »

That is the pattern with most of his specialist guests. The health spots are the worst. he also doesnt ask questions. he gives a statement and asks the guest to confirm or deny it. They usually have to deny it

Every interview ends up getting funneled towards Hook's own very narrow range of interests: concussion in rugby, foreigners/Muslims, young people being dicks to old people, the EU being dicks to everyone, The Good Wife, Buddy Holly, feminists, his rectal health, and political-correctness-gone-mad (even though some of his examples are just political-correctness-gone-normal).

degsie

jooksavage wrote: »

Every interview ends up getting funneled towards Hook's own very narrow range of interests: concussion in rugby, foreigners/Muslims, young people being dicks to old people, the EU being dicks to everyone, The Good Wife, Buddy Holly, feminists, his rectal health, and political-correctness-gone-mad (even though some of his examples are just political-correctness-gone-normal).

How did you miss Pamela Anderson

Apparently George got a letter from some crank today claiming that an unnamed school has banned the phrase "Happy Christmas", and asks students to send "Happy Holidays" cards.

Who falls for this shite?

Why not name the school, if it's true? Here's why. Because the researchers would try to confirm the claim, and it would turn out to be exaggerated, or entirely invented.

Obviously it suits the anti-foreigner crowd to invent this nonsense, and yet you won't find anyone here suggesting or endorsing this 'rule'.