Typhoid Mary everywhere you turn

It’s not the hypocrisy, it is that they know everything they say is false. They know they are not in danger and they know they are not endangering anyone else. They laugh at us, and think of us as fools. As things seem to be at the moment, if you are under the age of around 80, going out and about, or back to work, will endanger approximately 0.005% of the population. Places are opening up across the world, and pretty soon there will be the places where freedom has returned, and then there will be the places where it has not.

And then there is the media to report every word as honestly and as accurately as they possibly can. Here is an excerpt from PDT’s new media person if you want to see true professionalism in action. If you are in a hurry, this is the short-form version.

Here’s the whole thing. You can watch from the above excerpt which is right at the end of the press conference and then go back to the beginning.

I vaguely remember her from the campaign. In this role she will be formidable. She understands the issues, the politics and the message she needs to get across. What remains more amazing than anything is that the left can rely on their constituency to vote for them no matter what. They have burned #MeToo to the ground and virtually not a single person among the Democrats, so far as I have been able to tell, has seen this as a reason to change the way they vote.

This entry was posted in Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Typhoid Mary everywhere you turn

  1. Hay Stockard says:

    How good is she?
    Sick of our Public Service overlords getting paid when people are losing their jobs and businesses.
    Sick of Fat Cat politicians trying to outdo each other as authoritarian arseclowns.
    Sick of pantywaists buying the low rents Government quacks mewlings as gospel.
    Other than that so far so good.

  2. BrettW says:

    Had just watched the Tucker clip earlier.

    Cuomo of CNN is a classic. Walking outside with the virus whilst lecturing on the news about social distancing in parks etc. Not actually in his basement but at his out of town retreat.

    The hypocrisy is staggering.

    Plus no wonder Chicago is a mess with their current Mayor ignoring her own directives.

  3. BrettW says:

    Forgot ! Special mention to Canadian PM Trudeau for his hypocrisy also.

  4. Hay Stockard says:

    Brett W
    Lefties are quite profligate with lives other than their own.

  5. Iampeter says:

    It’s good that Tucker Carl-Marxon get’s airtime on what’s meant to be a right-wing/capitalist blog.

    Here is an excerpt from PDT’s new media person if you want to see true professionalism in action.

    Yea “true professionalism” is what all honest people associate with the Trump administration.

    I vaguely remember her from the campaign. In this role she will be formidable.

    Ah, the wonders of the sunk cost fallacy. Just gotta keep doubling down!

    What remains more amazing than anything is that the left can rely on their constituency to vote for them no matter what.

    Yea but…oh…you weren’t talking about Trump and his supporters, were you? Uh-oh.

  6. WolfmanOz says:

    I’m sure I’m not alone but when I see a post by Iampeter . . . I just quickly scroll past it !

  7. Terry says:

    @WolfmanOz

    ‘I’m sure I’m not alone but when I see a post by Iampeter . . . I just quickly scroll past it !’

    The instinct is to want to throw a couple of copper coins his way, out of pity. Unfortunately, they went out of circulation about the same time he had something worthwhile to contribute.

  8. the sting says:

    An iron fist in a velvet glove .

  9. wal1957 says:

    Poider lives in his own imaginary world where he/she/it is the ‘one who everyone should obey’ because he knows all.
    I hope he/she/it doesn’t have any kids!

  10. cuckoo says:

    I love it that you can hear one of the weasels whining, as she walks away from the podium, “You came prepared!” as an accusation. =”No fair, you hit back! I’m gonna tell my mom on you!”

  11. Tim Neilson says:

    Iampeter
    #3444560, posted on May 8, 2020 at 7:17 am

    Have you ever thought of saying something fact based and logically valid?

    Poor old Iamashiteater. Not only is his knowledge of politics 0.0000 [recurring to infinity] but that’s his level of knowledge of economics as well.

    Pro tip Iamashiteater: when trying to impress people by using a phrase like “sunk cost fallacy” it’s a good idea to make sure that there’s at least a 0.0000001% chance that it applies validly to the subject you’re using it about – because if there isn’t people might regard you as a conceited stupid ignorant poseur who should be regarded with jeering hooting ridicule and contempt.

  12. Leo G says:

    Pro tip Iamashiteater: when trying to impress people by using a phrase like “sunk cost fallacy” it’s a good idea to make sure that there’s at least a 0.0000001% chance that it applies validly to the subject you’re using it about

    The criticism is a bit unfair Tim, considering Lampeater is something of a “sunk cost fallacy” specialist. His ongoing bias is the result of a commitment to the troll persona.
    He’s really quite a sunk cost sensitive when you consider the lack of returns on his investment in the handle. It must constantly peter out his Iam.

  13. Tim Neilson says:

    Leo G
    #3444992, posted on May 8, 2020 at 1:00 pm

    Iamashiteater is certainly a sunk cost himself. And the words “Iamashiteater” and “fallacy”go together like salt and pepper.

  14. Iampeter says:

    Hey guys, come on now.
    After all you’re the socialists and nationalists who are on what’s meant to be a right wing and capitalist blog, all triggered by actual right wing and capitalist posts, so much so that you need to constantly hurl insults or scroll past them.

    I think maybe you guys have a lot of stuff you need to figure out and that it’s not really me you’re angry with.
    Just a thought…

  15. Tim Neilson says:

    I think maybe you guys have a lot of stuff you need to figure out and that it’s not really me you’re angry with.

    Not “angry with”. “Contemptuous of”.
    But yes, it’s not you (or at least not just you) – it’s your laughably shallow ignorant stupid and demonstrably false opinions.

  16. Iampeter says:

    But yes, it’s not you (or at least not just you) – it’s your laughably shallow ignorant stupid and demonstrably false opinions.

    Yes, yes. You just can’t ever demonstrate such a thing. Remember that time recently when you said you knew what Christianity was fundamentally about and then went off on a tangent about common law for some reason?
    Or that time you said you understood what the American Constitution does but just couldn’t explain it because it was all too complex, or something? But you were certain it doesn’t protect individual rights, that was the one thing you were able to say.
    Or that time you said you don’t endorse “join ownership such as nationhood,” which is weird because then it’s not clear what you’d even be arguing with me about if that was true…?

    Ah, good times! Yea, you’re a real aficionado!

  17. Tim Neilson says:

    Remember that time recently when you said you knew what Christianity was fundamentally about and then went off on a tangent about common law for some reason?

    I remember the time I pointed out Maitland’s conclusion that the common law was Christian and you beclowned yourself by asserting that that meant I was saying that Christianity was “about” the common law. [Remember how I had to school you? “A coin is metal doesn’t mean metal is a coin”?] I never said anything remotely to suggest that the common law was what Christianity was fundamentally about.

    Or that time you said you understood what the American Constitution does but just couldn’t explain it because it was all too complex, or something? But you were certain it doesn’t protect individual rights, that was the one thing you were able to say.

    I remember you insisting that there was “only one correct way” to describe the type of government established under the United States Constitution – your favourite “rights protecting government” trope. I pointed out that “type of government” could mean different things in different contexts. When I said that therefore your description was inadequate, and pointed out that James Madison had used at least two totally different such descriptions in the Federalist Papers, you went into a hysterical trouser-soiling meltdown and said (among other highly illogical claims) that Madison was wrong and you were right.

    Or that time you said you don’t endorse “join ownership such as nationhood,” which is weird because then it’s not clear what you’d even be arguing with me about if that was true…?

    Actually I said nothing of the sort. I just pointed out that my mention of it didn’t imply endorsement. I had contrasted private “ownership” in a formal legal sense with the sort of joint “ownership” that Australians might be said to have over e.g. Crown land comprised by Australia. Given the generality of “ownership” when used in such a non-technical sense it would have been stupid to yell “boo” or “hooray” about the whole of the vast category of phenomena to which the concept might be applied.

  18. Iampeter says:

    I remember the time I pointed out Maitland’s conclusion that the common law was Christian

    Right, which is neither correct nor relevant to what you were responding to in the thread LOL.

    I remember you insisting that there was “only one correct way” to describe the type of government established under the United States Constitution – your favourite “rights protecting government” trope.

    Because that’s what it is, which you don’t know.

    I pointed out that “type of government” could mean different things in different contexts.

    Which was neither in dispute nor relevant to what you were responding to in that thread LOL.

    I just pointed out that my mention of it didn’t imply endorsement.

    Right, which means mentioning it in the first place makes no sense. As usual it fails to address what you were responding to in that thread LOL.

    It’s almost like there’s a pattern. You have no idea what you’re talking about, but respond anyway with random tangents that are either also wrong and/or irrelevant to what’s being discussed anyway.

    Just like you have done again here with this last post. Like I said, real aficionado you!

    Can’t wait for the next response that misses the point of everything I said but continues to argue anyway LOL.

  19. Tim Neilson says:

    I remember the time I pointed out Maitland’s conclusion that the common law was Christian

    Right, which is neither correct nor relevant to what you were responding to in the thread LOL.

    So you know more about English constitutional and legal history than FW Maitland?
    Wow, you really are a polymath.
    Perhaps you’d like to run us through all the grounds that Maitland set out for his view in his Constitutional History of England and explain why he’s wrong.

    It was relevant. Simple logic – “all swans are white” can be disproved by the existence of one black swan. Your statement that Western civilisation is “opposed” to Christianity can be disproved by showing that a part of Western civilisation is Christian – which is clearly the case re common law and other Teutonic based legal systems.

    I remember you insisting that there was “only one correct way” to describe the type of government established under the United States Constitution – your favourite “rights protecting government” trope.

    Because that’s what it is, which you don’t know.

    I pointed out that “type of government” could mean different things in different contexts.

    Which was neither in dispute nor relevant to what you were responding to in that thread LOL.

    Contradiction alert! Contradiction alert! Iamashiteater both insists that there’s only one correct description of the type of government in the US Constitution and then admits that he hasn’t engaged with the proposition that “type of government” can mean different things in different contexts!

    I just pointed out that my mention of it didn’t imply endorsement.

    Right, which means mentioning it in the first place makes no sense. As usual it fails to address what you were responding to in that thread LOL.

    Logic fail alert ! Logic fail alert!

    Stating a proposition of fact needn’t require passing a value judgement on it. If I say that the UK system of government is a Constitutional monarchy, that statement is correct irrespective of whether I favour that kind of government or not.
    And it was highly relevant to the thread given your persistent dichotomy between private “ownership”of land in legal form, and other ways in which land may be owned.

  20. Iampeter says:

    As predicted you’ve responded by continuing to argue irrelevant points and so missing the point of the post you’re responding to. Again.

Comments are closed.