spEak You're bRanes

Thanks to Jo. The original comment has disappeared and left only foul smelling footprints all over the internet, but forward-thinking Jo has helpfully pasted it over for us (hint, hint). The original article about Rebekah Brooks getting fired, is here, but like the majority of things in Comment is Free, it’s a depressingly obvious piece of self-indulgent tripe written by a confirmed moron. So get on over there and read it, because it’s right up there in terms of CiF quality.

@Savale

“Are you a Daily Mail columnist?

If so watch out – we’ll be onto your lot next!”

What a horrible bilesome comment.

What’s going on here? A strong woman made a couple of mistakes. I’m sure that Rebekah would admit this.

She shouldn’t have hacked Milly Dowlers phone, but I’m sure it was done for the right reasons. Besides which, remember this girl was already dead ok? Tragic but true.

It that the sole community who are coming out in support of Rebekah are the gay community. Just like when Princess Diana was victim of a wtich hunt. We now know that Diana was a beautiful person, some dayn we’ll know the same about Rebekah I’m sure.
JaneKnowels

Yep. She’s a saint, alright. A big, ginger saint. And strong, too – strong enough to rip the sack from a man’s oysters if he even thought about crossing her. I hope Rusbridger’s got his chastity belt at the ready.

She’s incredible, really – she started off shagging Grant from Eastenders and ended up playing polo with David Cameron,* presumably using George Osborne as the stick and Grant’s left clanker as the ball. And I’m sure that just like Princess Diana, everyone is very keen to see Rebekah closely involved with about 10,000,000 landmines, and would pay quite a lot of money to see her in the middle of a minefield in Afghanistan.**

At least now we know they’ve expanded the definitition of saintly behaviour. Before JaneKnowels started this degenerate harpy’s canonisation process, I was convinced it was either a lifetime’s selfless dedication to the poor, starving and downtrodden, or it was spending your life giving sex advice when the nearest you’d got to sex was wanking into the Archbishop of Liverpool’s mitre while he was prostrating himself somewhere very holy.

So in the list of acts that will get you giving God a Dirty Sanchez for all eternity, we can now include the very necessary and absolutely defensible act of illegally accessing a dead girl’s voicemail so you can get some inside information on her family, and then using that to get an interview that sells more copies of the News of the World. After all, to deny Rupert the opportunity to buy another small municipality to stuff into Wendi Deng’s knickers would be practically criminal. There’s right reasons for everything, and making sure the scrotal-headed one’s garbage empire has its shares knocked up a billionth of a penny is the rightest of right reasons.

And it’s okay. Milly Dowler was dead. And that means nobody got hurt at all, and Rebekah Brooks will ascend into heaven on a cloud of cinnamon scented farts for everything she’s done for humanity.***

Amen, JaneKnowels…

…you massive lump of cock-cheese.

* I don’t know if this is true, but I’m taking my lead from a fucking saint, alright?
** Or dying a painful, lingering death in an underpass.
*** And if you don’t like cinnamon, they’ll smell like justice for the victims of paedophiles, just for you.

Good news. There’s still a 60% chance you won’t get cancer. Thanks to Charlie.

More people get cancer because their parents survive cancer due to advanced medicine. So the cancer causing genes are being passed on more than ever. And the medicine/care for these cancer patients is escalating costs massively. We are hindering the Darwin Principle. If we stop cancer victims having offspring or ensure the offspring don’t have the cancer genes, this would be better for our future!
Neo

Well, I applaud Neo’s courageous stance. We’re so pathetically sentimental about the sanctity of human life that this sort of brutal rationalism feels like a breath of fresh air. I mean, we human beings are just creatures like any other, aren’t we? Mere mammals. Just one of a whole bunch of organisms pissing and shitting all over the place. Nothing special.

Except, in a way, we’re actually much worse than all the other animals. Because they have no choice but to keep it raw, whereas we have our highly developed intelligence, and thousands of years of civilisation, culture and ethics. We really have no excuse for leaving turds like Neo bobbing about on the surface of the gene pool.

In fact, it’s only thanks to our wishy-washy insistence on attaching equal value to all human life that such a wonky, broken mistake – someone so dangerously antisocial that he uses his own good health as a cosh with which to beat the sick – should be allowed to limp across the landscape of our species’ development without angry crowds of pitchfork-toting yokels following in his zigzagging wake. There’s an irony in this so beautiful that it gives me pleasure. Real, pure, untainted joy. Yes, I’m actually a happier man for Neo’s existence. And that is why I’ll always be better than him.

Now, which of you fuckheads let him out of the lab?

Thanks to Neil, who pointed out John and his unique views on sex crime.

I am not a paedophile. I abhor the thought of Adults engaging in any sexual activity with minors. But I reckon that if more youngsters had a view of external Genitalia of both sexes of the human race There would be greater understanding & less sex crime.
JOHN

Here’s some advice, John: it’s been long established that starting your statement with “I am not a _____” is a dead giveaway, so if you really want to convince us all that you should be able to flash your wing dang doodle at kids, then take a tip from this chode and at least try and dress up your language a bit. Otherwise the intentions behind your reasoned argument about kids getting more involved with penises on a regular basis and there being less sex crime as a result sounds a bit… well, a bit like you’re trying to reason your way into committing a sex crime.

Prevention is better than cure, John, but your penis is neither of those things.

We have Justin to thank for FirstAdvisor. Thanks Justin.

Justin says that “Pretty much anything FirstAdvisor has to say” marks him out for being a grade A tagnut. Actually, I added the tagnut bit, but you can have a go at completing Justin’s sentence for him as well. Pretty much anything derogatory toward FirstAdvisor is going to be right. Favourites around here right now are “anal polyp”, “rotting elephant period” and “just some kind of cunt.”

I probably shouldn’t say cunt. After all, there’s enough undereducated, idiotic misogyny worthy of a 1950s sitcom going around without me contributing to it. Isn’t there.

The whole idea of females working outside the typical occupations of teaching, nursing, agriculture, clerking, retail, and so on is wildly impractical and unrealistic. The percentage of exceptional females in a field of typical males just isn’t high enough to make any significant influence in any national economy. The major importance of females is as consumers, mindlessly keeping the economy rolling along by buying worthless garbage like makeup and 10 pairs of shoes.
FirstAdvisor

So we take some exceptional females – albeit a massively high percentage of them – put them in a field with some typical males and then the economy grows? I’m confused. Why are they in a field? I know people are trying to ‘grow’ the economy, but I don’t think they mean it in the agricultural sense. Besides, how is exceptional females standing around in a field supposed to help? Is it the agricultural skills? Does it keep them away from shoes and makeup? Is that the plan? We’re going to take exceptional females and surround them with men in a field so they stop thiking about shoes and makeup and concentrate on agricultural skills? But don’t shoes and makeup grow the economy? Oh, wait, no. We put the exceptional ones in a field with some men, plough some shit up, earn some money that way, and then the typical females stand in a street with exceptional males and Bob’s your uncle, something wonderful happens, like they use the money from the exceptional females working in the field to buy shoes while the exceptional males stand around with clipboards and do some research proving that once and for all, you’re some kind of cunt.

Sorry, I think I called him a cunt again. Whoops. I meant, of course, some kind of cunt.

Libyan mothers crying? Only for the cameras. Muslims are incapable of human feelings (being zombie-creatures, human corpses animated by demons from Hell), neither for their little terrorist-larvae nor anything else. It is your humanity which is suspect, since you seem to believe Muslims share it. Are you going to call me a Kraut now, bigot?Your comments are very dull and boring. Nearly everyone on the forum is far smarter and more educated than you are. You write like a 70-year-old farmer.As I have already explained, if you had the IQ to understand the concept, no American is going to tell the truth to a stranger over the phone who knows their full family name and home address, when the American is asked his opinion of Jews. Anyone with an IQ of 70, the legal retardate level, would know this without being told, because he would be born and raised in the US, surrounded by Jews all his life. The American would know to keep his mouth shut about what he honestly thought, and just tell the pollster whatever the pollster wanted to hear. The Gallup poll is pure propaganda, worse than worthless as factual evidence, and everyone in the world knows it. Except you, apparently, because of your low IQ. It’s not surprising that you don’t even know what the word ‘bigot’ means, or that you are one.
FirstAdvisor

You couldn’t make it up. Well, you could, but people would point at you and say things like “You’re making it up!” and wouldn’t ever believe that Rudolf Hoess survived a hanging.

I don’t think we need men with clipboards to conclude this research successfully.

Big up to Simon.

About ten years ago, the only people who read The Economist were people who were willing to splash out a fiver for the privilege, and the only people who wrote to The Economist were people in business and completely batshit people who really wanted the editors to know about their latest crackpot theory on something they’d studied hard for a really long time in the previous issue of The Economist. Often they were the same people, but at least most of them weren’t published.

Now, thanks to the miracle of the technological age, we get to read them all. And thanks to the miracle of this blog, so do you – because misery loves company, and I hate everyone.

It’s interesting to note that you don’t actually have to read the article in order to get the general gist of this prick’s argument. In fact, it helps if you don’t read the article, because at least then you’ll approach it from the same perspective as he does, i.e. knowing fuck all about it.

Samkaie, say hello to the nice people.

I wonder what matters more in this, highly capitalistic society, profit or the joy of sex discrimination?

If I were an employer, I would have paid my employees based on the returns they earn for me, regardless of their sexual orientation. Heck, I would have hired a bunch of gays(I don’t mean to be offensive)if they earned me more money than any other class.

Arguing less payments, promotions based on one’s sexuality is equivalent to a baby “whining” for what it wants.
Nonetheless, courts seem to be more “tolerable and patient” than parents .

It’s obvious, women have all types of problems at work. And as the world has it, men are more productive(on average) than women.

More women are hired in the prostitution/massage/etc. industry because they’re wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more productive than men.
Men on the other hand, are hired as strategists, technicians etc., because that’s where they outdo their female counterparts.

It’s pointless to argue and “whine” about not getting paid well/etc., when you’re not doing well.
I really doubt Walmart would refuse promoting a woman who would earn the company an equivalent amount to that of 10 men collectively.

Nonetheless, after having improved women rights, they just seem to be wanting evermore.

You get treated the way you treat others, you get paid the way you earn for others.
Samkaie

Awesome. It’s good to know that Samkaie doesn’t mean to be offensive – he just is. He can’t help it, just like women can’t help being less productive and much stupider, and just like gay people can’t help being fundamentally different from ordinary, inoffensive, heterosexual people like Samkaie. But if you gays out there can take some solace from being a different class of person, then it’s that if Samkaie owned a business, he’d totally hire you if you were better than straight people. And he’d probably make you very proud of working for him, bringing visitors around the office to show everyone just how hard-working and productive all his gays are, all the time while completely failing to offend anyone because he doesn’t mean it. Hell, he’d probably put glory holes in the men’s bogs, just for you – if it’d help you be productive, that is.

Good news for women, too! Even though you may not be the genius strategists that men are, and even though you’ll never run first world economies and multi-billion dollar business interests, at least you’re great at wanking men off. That’s an area in which most men are sorely lacking in experience, so it’s good to know that as soon as your boss hears about Samkaie’s research and fires you for being lazy and having periods and vaginas and stuff like that, at least you’ll be able to get a job giving massages with happy endings.

And you’d be so productive at that, you could probably get through ten sweaty, sad losers like Samkaie in about 20 minutes.

Think of the tips, girls. Pun not intended.