Love the fact that Tony Abbott is really sticking it to Tassie's tree huggers with his comments on forestry. I can almost hear the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from the Apple Isle. And I live in Perth!
Listening to local ABC talk back this morn (Geoff Hutchison) I heard some wife of a cabinet maker fulminating about the PM's desire to plunder and pillage the old growth forests. She purported to speak on behalf of those who work with wood. Said that they were appalled that he was using their craft to justify his policies.
As she ranted I thought: Well, if hubbie felt that way, why wasn't he calling? Sounds like there might be a whole new left-leaning demographic out there that no one's defined yet -- the carpenter's wives.
Anyhoo, I think the PM made some good points in his speech to timber workers, including this one:
"When I look out tonight at an audience of people who work with timber, who work in forests, I don't see people who are environmental vandals; I see people who are the ultimate conservationists," he said.
So true. Of course loggers want to conserve the forests. Without them they have no bloody industry.
Greens, on the other hand, are so consumed with infantile Gaia-worship that they often endorse policies that are extremely bad for the environment. Take their opposition to controlled burn offs, which has repeatedly resulted in catastrophic fires that caused massive destruction of forests as well as the death of countless animals and scores of humans.
But it's hardly surprising that greenies would be so out of touch with nature. Unlike timber workers they have little or no real contact with it. Instead they sit slurping lattes and suckling bongs in the inner urban areas of Australia's biggest cities.
And just on the issue of vandalism and the environment: I hope that this push to free up the forests will be accompanied by a more hard-line approach to the deep green howler monkeys who have caused so much criminal damage of property and machinery over the years.
Would be great if the freeing up of every acre of green was matched with the locking up of a greenie. Thus would nature balance itself ...
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Was the Ben Walsh Facebook post about refusing Serco a hoax?
Lefties have been all asquitter on Twitter about a Facebook post from a coupla days back. It purported to be by some guy called Ben Walsh.
In it he said that he worked for one of Victoria's biggest fencing companies. Apparently an order from Serco for fencing mesh came in. Ben twigged the material would be used in a detention centre. He objected to the sale and told his boss, who agreed with his stand. So Ben called Serco back and refused the sale. Some time later the Serco bloke rang again pleading for them to reconsider because he'd been given similar treatment elsewhere.
You can read it here: Post by Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC).
Lefty cartoonist First Dog on the Moon used the text in a strip that was shared on Twitter and retweeted by Scott Ludlam and others.
Not surprisingly some lefty tweeps have taken the post as dinkum and touted Ben as a hero for his actions. Others were not completely convinced but hoped it was real.
I'm pretty sure it's a hoax, and felt that way when I first read it last night. Firstly, most people just wouldn't take that stand at work. They'd be out of a job quick smart.
It wouldn't happen at one business let alone several, regardless of the political beliefs of employees (and employers for that matter). Business is about sales, not politics.
Anyway, there's no real popular groundswell of support for the green-left position on asylum seekers. If anything it's the opposite.
Also, I couldn't find the original post, or this Ben Walsh character on the social network.
I think maybe he's real and wished it to happen then wrote it as if it did. Then he freaked out when it went viral and increased his privacy settings. Or it was an outright hoax to start with.
The whole post is about having the courage of your convictions, right? So if it were dinkum he'd be glad about the exposure and jump at the chance to publicly proclaim its validity wouldn't he?
Another case of the Left being duped, I reckon ...
UPDATE: Tweet claims it was a hoax with pic of new Ben Walsh post in which he admits to deception. But that's clearly a hoax itself.
UPDATE: This tweet linking to an image of a post infers that Ben Walsh is a real guy, Ben Smith.
In it he said that he worked for one of Victoria's biggest fencing companies. Apparently an order from Serco for fencing mesh came in. Ben twigged the material would be used in a detention centre. He objected to the sale and told his boss, who agreed with his stand. So Ben called Serco back and refused the sale. Some time later the Serco bloke rang again pleading for them to reconsider because he'd been given similar treatment elsewhere.
You can read it here: Post by Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC).
Lefty cartoonist First Dog on the Moon used the text in a strip that was shared on Twitter and retweeted by Scott Ludlam and others.
We all need to be a little like Ingrid the Grapefruit RT @SenatorLudlam:and @firstdogonmoon has done it again pic.twitter.com/F8lXHJDgLK #auspol
— Peter Tonoli (@peter_tonoli) February 26, 2014
Some tweeps have pondered whether the cartoon came first and the FB post was mocked up afterwards. But it seems likely the FB post was inspiration for the cartoon and not the other way around.Not surprisingly some lefty tweeps have taken the post as dinkum and touted Ben as a hero for his actions. Others were not completely convinced but hoped it was real.
I'm pretty sure it's a hoax, and felt that way when I first read it last night. Firstly, most people just wouldn't take that stand at work. They'd be out of a job quick smart.
It wouldn't happen at one business let alone several, regardless of the political beliefs of employees (and employers for that matter). Business is about sales, not politics.
Anyway, there's no real popular groundswell of support for the green-left position on asylum seekers. If anything it's the opposite.
Also, I couldn't find the original post, or this Ben Walsh character on the social network.
I think maybe he's real and wished it to happen then wrote it as if it did. Then he freaked out when it went viral and increased his privacy settings. Or it was an outright hoax to start with.
The whole post is about having the courage of your convictions, right? So if it were dinkum he'd be glad about the exposure and jump at the chance to publicly proclaim its validity wouldn't he?
Another case of the Left being duped, I reckon ...
UPDATE: Tweet claims it was a hoax with pic of new Ben Walsh post in which he admits to deception. But that's clearly a hoax itself.
labor troll Ben Walsh confesses about faking a major post is this the new Labor we expect to see #pmlive #auspol pic.twitter.com/zh01qUsuIH
— Miney (@BigMiney) February 26, 2014
Duelling dupers? Or all concocted by this one guy?UPDATE: This tweet linking to an image of a post infers that Ben Walsh is a real guy, Ben Smith.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Did trolls kill Charlotte Dawson?
It goes without saying that the death of Charlotte Dawson was a sad event. Suicide is always depressing. Of course when something like this happens lots of people look for something, someone, or some group to blame. Not surprisingly social media trolls have been seen as the major culprits here.
I don't think there's any doubt that the massive amount of abuse she copped online was a contributing factor in her death. But can you say they killed her, as many people on Twitter and elsewhere have been claiming?
No way. She killed herself. If you believe that adults are responsible for their own actions then you have to accept that it was she who made the final decision to end her own life.
Yes, there were many factors that brought her to that point. And we can argue about the extent to which one or more of them contributed to her death. But if you say that she had no power whatsoever in this equation and it was all due to the actions of others you're just deluding yourself.
I'm no shrink but it's pretty obvious from recent coverage of the tragedy that several factors were at play. There was Dawson's ongoing struggle with depression. There was the fact that almost everyone in the country knew about her parlous emotional state for years thanks to ongoing mainstream media attention. More specifically there was the recent stress of a 60 Minutes report about former partner Scott Miller and his drug problems. This clearly dredged up many deeply painful memories for her. There was the fact that her career was floundering. And there were the trolls.
It seems to me that "blaming the media" for her death would be just as rational as blaming trolls. The way they cynically exploit the suffering of well known individuals such as Dawson and Miller for ratings while simultaneously wringing their hands about it just makes you wanna puke. The fact that these reports are done with the full cooperation of the vulnerable individuals concerned is not an ameliorating factor. Maybe such troubled souls are doing it for the cash or the attention, or both. This just makes the whole thing even more creepily predatory in my opinion.
As well as compounding her humiliation, the ongoing media coverage of Dawson's struggle with mental illness made her even more of a target for trolling. We've all heard the term "don't feed the trolls". Well, a lot of that food was being supplied by the shows that made piles of filthy lucre from "documenting" her battles with them.
The same can be said of a lot of this hand-wringing in the wake of her death as well as the campaign by nanny-statists to make her into a martyr and increase censorship of social media. Rather than landing a powerful blow against trolls in general, all these things will embolden them further.
It's pretty clear that trolls genuinely wished her dead. So by arguing that their harassment of her was the main cause of her demise, you're basically saying: "You won trolls." (Actually, I read several tweets that used almost those exact words.) All that'll do is ensure that they'll redouble their efforts to emotionally destroy their next target.
Much better to just ignore these pathetic people in my opinion. Don't give them the power they don't have by telling them that their putrid online harassment actually succeeded.
I don't think there's any doubt that the massive amount of abuse she copped online was a contributing factor in her death. But can you say they killed her, as many people on Twitter and elsewhere have been claiming?
No way. She killed herself. If you believe that adults are responsible for their own actions then you have to accept that it was she who made the final decision to end her own life.
Yes, there were many factors that brought her to that point. And we can argue about the extent to which one or more of them contributed to her death. But if you say that she had no power whatsoever in this equation and it was all due to the actions of others you're just deluding yourself.
I'm no shrink but it's pretty obvious from recent coverage of the tragedy that several factors were at play. There was Dawson's ongoing struggle with depression. There was the fact that almost everyone in the country knew about her parlous emotional state for years thanks to ongoing mainstream media attention. More specifically there was the recent stress of a 60 Minutes report about former partner Scott Miller and his drug problems. This clearly dredged up many deeply painful memories for her. There was the fact that her career was floundering. And there were the trolls.
It seems to me that "blaming the media" for her death would be just as rational as blaming trolls. The way they cynically exploit the suffering of well known individuals such as Dawson and Miller for ratings while simultaneously wringing their hands about it just makes you wanna puke. The fact that these reports are done with the full cooperation of the vulnerable individuals concerned is not an ameliorating factor. Maybe such troubled souls are doing it for the cash or the attention, or both. This just makes the whole thing even more creepily predatory in my opinion.
As well as compounding her humiliation, the ongoing media coverage of Dawson's struggle with mental illness made her even more of a target for trolling. We've all heard the term "don't feed the trolls". Well, a lot of that food was being supplied by the shows that made piles of filthy lucre from "documenting" her battles with them.
The same can be said of a lot of this hand-wringing in the wake of her death as well as the campaign by nanny-statists to make her into a martyr and increase censorship of social media. Rather than landing a powerful blow against trolls in general, all these things will embolden them further.
It's pretty clear that trolls genuinely wished her dead. So by arguing that their harassment of her was the main cause of her demise, you're basically saying: "You won trolls." (Actually, I read several tweets that used almost those exact words.) All that'll do is ensure that they'll redouble their efforts to emotionally destroy their next target.
Much better to just ignore these pathetic people in my opinion. Don't give them the power they don't have by telling them that their putrid online harassment actually succeeded.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Jamila Rizvi, David Koch and the Sunrise sexism scandal
The infantile sanctimony of today's victim feminists knows no bounds. It just astonishes me what these smug, spoiled little princesses actually take offense at, and how. Then there's the jaw-dropping arrogance with which they appoint themselves as the official representatives of all chickdom, often over the protestations of the actual women involved in the allegedly misogynist outrages they weep, wail and gnash their teeth over.
Take this mind-numbingly puerile squawk-fest from cynical former Labor hackette Jamila Rizvi. See, David Koch, the somewhat daggy host of Sunrise, made a slightly naughty quip about reflective shoes while spunky co-host Sam Armytage yucked it up around a stripper pole. Any sensible, emotionally mature adult would have found it utterly benign. But not Rizvi, who is clearly on high alert for absolutely any situation that she can twist into that old fave of the twisted sisterhood: eeevil, sleazy white guy monsters powerless female underling.
Talk about a cynical meeja beat-up. (I'm almost tempted to invoke that ol' tabloid standby, "Storm in a D Cup!". But that would be too cruel.)
Anyhoo, David Koch fired back on air after Rizvi's online gargle. And Armytage herself said she wasn't humiliated by her co-host's japery. (Wonder how Rizvi's tiny, doctrinaire mind processed that rebuke ... Probably saw it as Armytage "participating in her own oppression".)
Now, after that Sunrise segment aired some social media snark, some of it vile and nasty, was hurled back at Rizvi and Mia Freedman, publisher of the vapid online mag in which Rizvi's rant appeared. The pair then reported that they had received "rape and death threats" as a result of Kochie's "aggressive" response.
Knowing the Left's propensity for exaggeration, I must say I'm a tad skeptical about whether these responses were so severe as to actually deserve that characterization. No other details regarding them have been released (at least as far as I know). So it sounds like just more hyperventilatin' hyperbowl from a coupla pinko prima donnas determined to wring as much sympathy from their gullible acolytes as possible.
The whole episode is as silly as it is cynical ... Still, you gotta admire Freedman and Rizvi's mastery of the dark arts of mainstream meeja manipulation. They created a sexism scandal out of thin air, used it to slime a hate figure, cast themselves as victims, and used that (fictional) status to slime him all over again!
Undeniably impressive, if you're into that sort of thing.
Take this mind-numbingly puerile squawk-fest from cynical former Labor hackette Jamila Rizvi. See, David Koch, the somewhat daggy host of Sunrise, made a slightly naughty quip about reflective shoes while spunky co-host Sam Armytage yucked it up around a stripper pole. Any sensible, emotionally mature adult would have found it utterly benign. But not Rizvi, who is clearly on high alert for absolutely any situation that she can twist into that old fave of the twisted sisterhood: eeevil, sleazy white guy monsters powerless female underling.
Talk about a cynical meeja beat-up. (I'm almost tempted to invoke that ol' tabloid standby, "Storm in a D Cup!". But that would be too cruel.)
Anyhoo, David Koch fired back on air after Rizvi's online gargle. And Armytage herself said she wasn't humiliated by her co-host's japery. (Wonder how Rizvi's tiny, doctrinaire mind processed that rebuke ... Probably saw it as Armytage "participating in her own oppression".)
Now, after that Sunrise segment aired some social media snark, some of it vile and nasty, was hurled back at Rizvi and Mia Freedman, publisher of the vapid online mag in which Rizvi's rant appeared. The pair then reported that they had received "rape and death threats" as a result of Kochie's "aggressive" response.
Knowing the Left's propensity for exaggeration, I must say I'm a tad skeptical about whether these responses were so severe as to actually deserve that characterization. No other details regarding them have been released (at least as far as I know). So it sounds like just more hyperventilatin' hyperbowl from a coupla pinko prima donnas determined to wring as much sympathy from their gullible acolytes as possible.
The whole episode is as silly as it is cynical ... Still, you gotta admire Freedman and Rizvi's mastery of the dark arts of mainstream meeja manipulation. They created a sexism scandal out of thin air, used it to slime a hate figure, cast themselves as victims, and used that (fictional) status to slime him all over again!
Undeniably impressive, if you're into that sort of thing.
Monday, January 13, 2014
The hounding of "Corgi Barnyardi" on Twitter and elsewhere
Not surprised at all about the megalitres of puerile bile being directed at Senator Cory Bernardi over his book The Conservative Revolution. Needless to say, that ol' leftist double standard is in play here -- and to perhaps the most extreme extent so far.
They wouldn't like it at all if the same tactics they're using on the man they're calling "Corgi" and "Barnyardi" were employed against some of their, er, sacred cows. Many of the attacks, particularly on Twitter, are sexually tinged -- and some can even be described as rape fantasies. Imagine the outrage from the Left if, say, Penny Wong were mocked in this manner:
These social media muckdates clearly reveal a lot more about the sad, stunted psyches of those making them than they do about Bernardi himself. Sure, it's all just witless abuse from morally and culturally retarded twits. But much as the composition of gibbon droppings can tell us interesting things about the habits, diet, and behaviour of said apes, it's possible to glean some not invaluable insights into the tiny minds of these leftist howler monkeys from the content of their putrid online smearings.
For example, you have to wonder about their true attitude to minority sexual practices. I mean, if they're trying to imply that Bernardi is actually a gay man who hasn't admitted it to himself yet, and his book is an elaborate attempt to deny that reality, why are they so vicious? Hell, why even attack him at all? Shouldn't they be gently and sincerely encouraging him to come to that realization so that he can finally come out of the closet and proudly participate in the next Mardi Gras?
Or are those "satirical" photoshops only meant to humiliate him because gay sex is something he finds utterly revolting. In this case they're using gay imagery as a weapon of degradation. Doesn't sit well with their protestations of pride, now does it?
In both scenarios one thing comes across loud and clear. It's gutter stuff; hardly dignified. And it's hard to respect people with no dignity. If respect is something that Bernardi-hating gay rights activists and their fellow travellers want, they are certainly going about it the wrong way.
Speaking of which: If you want to win an argument then you should both know what your opponent's actually is, as well as have a counter to it. If you only ignore what he's saying and just try to demonize him, all you're doing is kicking own goals. That's why the score so far in this match is Conservative Senator: Ten; Leftist Trollective: A Big Fat Zero.
So listen up cool cats: Anyone who isn't a primitive, cowardly quarterwit will be absolutely disgusted by your reaction to his book. Which is why so many people (many of whom wouldn't have given it a second thought if you hadn't launched such a massive and sustained assault) are now buying it. Unlike you lot, they're actually curious about what it contains, and seek to educate themselves.
Keep at it kids. The more you slime him, the stronger he grows.
They wouldn't like it at all if the same tactics they're using on the man they're calling "Corgi" and "Barnyardi" were employed against some of their, er, sacred cows. Many of the attacks, particularly on Twitter, are sexually tinged -- and some can even be described as rape fantasies. Imagine the outrage from the Left if, say, Penny Wong were mocked in this manner:
#auspol pic.twitter.com/4dgzL6eLck
— Not James Scullin (@JamesScullin) January 11, 2014
If this were the case, the very same sneering hipsters now chuckling at their iPhones would be squawking up a storm all over the net.These social media muckdates clearly reveal a lot more about the sad, stunted psyches of those making them than they do about Bernardi himself. Sure, it's all just witless abuse from morally and culturally retarded twits. But much as the composition of gibbon droppings can tell us interesting things about the habits, diet, and behaviour of said apes, it's possible to glean some not invaluable insights into the tiny minds of these leftist howler monkeys from the content of their putrid online smearings.
For example, you have to wonder about their true attitude to minority sexual practices. I mean, if they're trying to imply that Bernardi is actually a gay man who hasn't admitted it to himself yet, and his book is an elaborate attempt to deny that reality, why are they so vicious? Hell, why even attack him at all? Shouldn't they be gently and sincerely encouraging him to come to that realization so that he can finally come out of the closet and proudly participate in the next Mardi Gras?
Or are those "satirical" photoshops only meant to humiliate him because gay sex is something he finds utterly revolting. In this case they're using gay imagery as a weapon of degradation. Doesn't sit well with their protestations of pride, now does it?
In both scenarios one thing comes across loud and clear. It's gutter stuff; hardly dignified. And it's hard to respect people with no dignity. If respect is something that Bernardi-hating gay rights activists and their fellow travellers want, they are certainly going about it the wrong way.
Speaking of which: If you want to win an argument then you should both know what your opponent's actually is, as well as have a counter to it. If you only ignore what he's saying and just try to demonize him, all you're doing is kicking own goals. That's why the score so far in this match is Conservative Senator: Ten; Leftist Trollective: A Big Fat Zero.
So listen up cool cats: Anyone who isn't a primitive, cowardly quarterwit will be absolutely disgusted by your reaction to his book. Which is why so many people (many of whom wouldn't have given it a second thought if you hadn't launched such a massive and sustained assault) are now buying it. Unlike you lot, they're actually curious about what it contains, and seek to educate themselves.
Keep at it kids. The more you slime him, the stronger he grows.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Councillor Norman Hewer in silly "racism" furore
Amazing how quickly people resort to claims of racism. Take this little ruckus over a Facebook page post made from a Wanneroo councillor's account. The post, which appears to have been written by the bloke's wife, read:
"On Jan 26, my countrymen and I will be flying our natioal (sic) flag with pride. If you feel this is going to offend you please feel free to pack up your s**t and F*** OFF."
The post provoked much criticism of Cr Norman Hewer, most of it along the lines that it was inappropriate, and racist.
Inappropriate, yes -- particularly if you consider the source. But racist?
Nowhere in that quote is there any mention of race. Of course the hand wringers would say there doesn't need to be any explicit reference; it's clearly what the writer of the post was thinking about.
But such accusations reveal another thing entirely, in my opinion. They show that those making them are often far more obsessed with race than those they condemn.
Not surprisingly, many such people subscribe to the fashionable view that Australia Day itself as a sinister celebration of the invasion of a nation. But that's how these "black armbanders" choose to characterize it, not how those who are proud of the day actually see it.
I wonder who made that accusation of the Facebook post anyway. Were they Anglos themselves? Probably ...
The racism! ranters really think they're mind readers, don't they? If they're as brilliant at divining the hidden thoughts of others they should be working for law enforcement, preventing crimes before they happen, a la the psychics in Minority Report ...
The fact that something so insignificant qualifies as news illustrates a coupla things: firstly, how forensically journos trawl social media for any little faux pas they can beat up into a story. It also confirms that merely expressing patriotic sentiment is widely considered racist these days. What a stupendously petty state of affairs.
"On Jan 26, my countrymen and I will be flying our natioal (sic) flag with pride. If you feel this is going to offend you please feel free to pack up your s**t and F*** OFF."
The post provoked much criticism of Cr Norman Hewer, most of it along the lines that it was inappropriate, and racist.
Inappropriate, yes -- particularly if you consider the source. But racist?
Nowhere in that quote is there any mention of race. Of course the hand wringers would say there doesn't need to be any explicit reference; it's clearly what the writer of the post was thinking about.
But such accusations reveal another thing entirely, in my opinion. They show that those making them are often far more obsessed with race than those they condemn.
Not surprisingly, many such people subscribe to the fashionable view that Australia Day itself as a sinister celebration of the invasion of a nation. But that's how these "black armbanders" choose to characterize it, not how those who are proud of the day actually see it.
I wonder who made that accusation of the Facebook post anyway. Were they Anglos themselves? Probably ...
The racism! ranters really think they're mind readers, don't they? If they're as brilliant at divining the hidden thoughts of others they should be working for law enforcement, preventing crimes before they happen, a la the psychics in Minority Report ...
The fact that something so insignificant qualifies as news illustrates a coupla things: firstly, how forensically journos trawl social media for any little faux pas they can beat up into a story. It also confirms that merely expressing patriotic sentiment is widely considered racist these days. What a stupendously petty state of affairs.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Van Badham vs Tim Blair
Gawd. I've seen a lot of infantile, egocentric behaviour from the censorious squawkers of Artsville. But one recent reaction has really taken the bloody cake. It comes from nascent socialist squealebrity Van Badham.
Appalled and offended that she's been mocked by Tim Blair for a grotesquely self-indulgent anti-Abbott rant in which she included details about her late father's unseemly behaviour while he was unemployed, she tweeted this to one of her fellow sneering hipsters.
It could also be said that using your dad's death to score cheap points against your main political hate figure constitutes an insult to his memory. We've all got dead relatives and loved ones. But only the most shameless and selfish use their deaths to slime those they detest -- and so soon after their passing. (It's not unlike Bolt-obsessed bloviator Mike Carlton and others like him using the death of Nelson Mandela to slime conservatives.)
Then there's the sheer irony of the potty-mouthed termagant demanding that everyone bow in sympathy to her fine feelings and respect her in her grief. Just take a look at the petulant princess's Twitter stream and you'll see what I mean. You'll be picking your jaw up off the floor.
She's gotta be one of the most abusive lefties on the site -- and that's saying something. She goes out of her way to provoke and offend people, verballing them at every opportunity.
Is it because she's as batshit insane as she appears to be, or is it just a cynical ploy? Maybe even a bit of both ...
She's certainly cottoned onto the fact that to carve a niche in the the leftoid media too much vile abuse is just never enough. As well as endless adulation from absolute idiots, there are well-paying meeja gigs and grants galore to be had if you can out-crazy your fellow feminist moonbats. To the "victim" the spoils!
Vanessa Badham is what I call a blushing violent. Vicious, aggressive, happy to make the most vile and knowingly false accusations when it suits. Then at other times when it suits she hides behind her gender, and plays victim. It's an amazingly cynical tactic. And sooo typical of the primitive, vindictive, cowardly Left.
My advice to the spoiled brat: Listen, baby cakes, if you don't wanna be mocked because you're still grieving then don't put that sensitive info into the public realm -- let alone for the purpose of a mean-spirited sliming.
Frankly petal, your feelings aren't that important. You show no respect for the feelings of others, so why should they respect yours? You were askin' for it.
Appalled and offended that she's been mocked by Tim Blair for a grotesquely self-indulgent anti-Abbott rant in which she included details about her late father's unseemly behaviour while he was unemployed, she tweeted this to one of her fellow sneering hipsters.
OMG! The insult to my *dead father* actually was published by THE DAILY TELEGRAPH. My god! What is this?! pic.twitter.com/odHnuZtGK1
— Van Badham (@vanbadham) December 20, 2013
It's called a fair crack, Vanessa. It could also be said that using your dad's death to score cheap points against your main political hate figure constitutes an insult to his memory. We've all got dead relatives and loved ones. But only the most shameless and selfish use their deaths to slime those they detest -- and so soon after their passing. (It's not unlike Bolt-obsessed bloviator Mike Carlton and others like him using the death of Nelson Mandela to slime conservatives.)
Then there's the sheer irony of the potty-mouthed termagant demanding that everyone bow in sympathy to her fine feelings and respect her in her grief. Just take a look at the petulant princess's Twitter stream and you'll see what I mean. You'll be picking your jaw up off the floor.
She's gotta be one of the most abusive lefties on the site -- and that's saying something. She goes out of her way to provoke and offend people, verballing them at every opportunity.
Is it because she's as batshit insane as she appears to be, or is it just a cynical ploy? Maybe even a bit of both ...
She's certainly cottoned onto the fact that to carve a niche in the the leftoid media too much vile abuse is just never enough. As well as endless adulation from absolute idiots, there are well-paying meeja gigs and grants galore to be had if you can out-crazy your fellow feminist moonbats. To the "victim" the spoils!
Vanessa Badham is what I call a blushing violent. Vicious, aggressive, happy to make the most vile and knowingly false accusations when it suits. Then at other times when it suits she hides behind her gender, and plays victim. It's an amazingly cynical tactic. And sooo typical of the primitive, vindictive, cowardly Left.
My advice to the spoiled brat: Listen, baby cakes, if you don't wanna be mocked because you're still grieving then don't put that sensitive info into the public realm -- let alone for the purpose of a mean-spirited sliming.
Frankly petal, your feelings aren't that important. You show no respect for the feelings of others, so why should they respect yours? You were askin' for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)