quintana76 wrote: » I dont think Hook is taken as seriously as Moncrieff etc. He gets away with his views as he can dismissed as on old buffer. A rugby club bore. There's a bit of ' he would say that, wouldn't he' Then again, any contrast to the concensus is always welcome.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Paper never refused ink but audiences have quite regularly rejected a newspaper. Magill is a classic example of a trailblazing innovative publication, which ventilated opinion of the 'radical' left as well as the conservatives, and it simply didn't sell. Vincent Browne is in the process of resurrecting it, but I suspect that particular Lazarus is bound to his grave. Yes, I agree with you to an extent; that is why I say the media, and its obvious biases, do indeed 'frame' the news, and nudge public opinion in one particular direction. But where I disagree with you is in your apparent perception of the Irish audience as being, basically, a passive vessel, willing to take on whatever is put upon them. I think a lot of people have reservations about the current, 'liberal' and monotonic nature of the Irish media landscape, myself included. But whilst it our media *clearly* doesn't reflect the attitudes & opinions of the audience, it isn't too far off. Certainly, it doesn't seem to deviate enough from public opinion for there to be commercial space for a new, viable media outlet. I suspect we both come from very different ideological outlooks, but clearly neither of us are entirely happy with the current media landscape in this country. But I accept that my opinions are not the opinions of the majority, and in this changing Ireland, conservatives must begin to accept that their opinions do not enjoy the mainstream support they once did. I have never heard a single radio host, or even an interviewee, say they are supportive of 'open borders'; that is to say, free and universal access to migration. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I listen to radio for most of the day, and I've never heard this. Do you have any specific examples? I found Moncrieff hard to bear at first, and i agree that he does seem to sneer at opinions that he doesn't share. It can be frustrating to listen to. Even though I wouldn't share his political outlook, I find his opinions worthwhile insofar as they challenge my own opinions. But yes, it would be worthwhile if he was a little less overbearing with the mic, and allowed more of a two-way exchange of ideas. Then again, you could say they same thing of George Hook...
quintana76 wrote: » TYRANT. See my last message as there are comments added to your block of text. Didn't show up as separate. Don't know what I did wrong.
tags as follows: At the end of the part you want to comment on, close the quote with
Every section must begin with [noparse] and end with [/noparse] e.g. [noparse] A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: Things ATNM! said. [/noparse] gives you: A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: Things ATNM! said.
and end with
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: Things ATNM! said.
hullaballoo wrote: » You have to separate the text out by adding [noparse][/noparse] At the beginning of the next part you want to comment on, open the quote with Every section must begin with [noparse][/noparse] e.g. [noparse][/noparse] gives you: Thank for the help.
Every section must begin with [noparse][/noparse] e.g. [noparse][/noparse] gives you:
jooksavage wrote: » Why wouldn't he be taken as seriously as Moncrieff? Does he "get away with his views" because he's a harmless old fool or because his views actually speak to your own politics on some level? I don't know. But why is Moncrieff being held to a different standard? Thousands of words are expended here condemining Moncrieff's liberal bias whereas Hook's agenda-peddling gets welcomed as a "contrast to the census" (presumably including the time he started wondering aloud if vaccinations were bad armed with nothing more than anecdotal junk science).
quintana76 wrote: » What I am saying is that his detractors can and do use the 'old buffer' cliché to write off his views as irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not.
Richard Hillman wrote: » Today's opening monologue 1. A police shooting in America. He had to get in his amazement that the victim wasn't black. 2. Scoffing over Christians in Alabama supporting Trump. 3. A Clip of Gordon Ramsey not liking Hawaiian Pizza. Ended with Moncrieff going a bit deranged and saying something along the lines of Ramsey is a closed minded conservative that needs a kick up the arse. Completely and utterly unnecessary.
quintana76 wrote: » No mention of the rapes at a festival in Schorndorf by Afghans during the same weekend.
https://www.thelocal.de/20170717/police-shocked-by-violence-as-youth-riot-at-small-town-fair
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4703386/Riots-German-festival-Iraqi-sexually-harassing-women.html
quintana76 wrote: » Sadly post-modernist thinking has twisted society to such as extent that it leads to this caller hating his own identity.
quintana76 wrote: » I wonder what's Sean's views. I strongly suspect I know.
nicedryturf wrote: » Someone call the wambulance for white people
quintana76 wrote: » Just saying! Bit weird someone disliking their own identity so much. I was only expressing a political theory that is very popular on American campus's concerning the white male, not white people.
nicedryturf wrote: » So the texter went out on a limb to presume a Nazi rally comprised mostly of white males? And you found this offensive because.... turns out it was mostly attended by black gay jewish women?
quintana76 wrote: » No. I highlighted it because it was a stupid and unnecessary comment. Who else is it going to be? Tibetans, Vietnamese, Solomon Islanders? Maybe gay pastifarian nuns.
nicedryturf wrote: » Bit superfluous alright. But not as silly as getting bent out of shape because some random texter has failed to demonstrate tearful pride for their own race. That's the kind of stuff that inevitably leads to hysterical claims of white genocide.
kunst nugget wrote: » In his opening monologue today, he brought up the fact that Harry Styles has four nipples. I bet he only brought it up to embarrass him because Harry is a WHITE MALE! And then he did a bit about Sharon Shannon getting cows grooving to her music. Of course, if it was a WHITE MALE who was playing he wouldn't brought it up.
quintana76 wrote: » Good way of parodying how ridiculous a level that the debate has sunk to in the (so called) culture wars
davef1000 wrote: » What in tarnation has happened to this thread.
Ol' Donie wrote: » The same thing that has happened to several threads round here recently.
quintana76 wrote: » Someone hasn't been listening.
quintana76 wrote: » I blame Sean.
kunst nugget wrote: » Why? Has he been contributing to the thread?
quintana76 wrote: » He is with us all, in spirit. The great man is our inspiration. He is the godhead.
