BLOGS: Bolt's brain-dead buddies ...

After following Andrew Bolt's blog commenters for some months, it's clear to me that a prerequisite for commenting on minority ethnic or religious groups is failing an IQ test. There are some seriously stupid people leaving comments on Bolt's blog. Why does he entertain them? Is he hoping to feel more sensible by surrounding himself with stupid people?

Bolt's least favourite minority group is ... well ... it's hard to say. I've never read him say anything nice about Somalis, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and/or Muslims. So in a typical post about nasty Muslims allegedly accusing Christians of being racist, Bolt allows the following beauties to pass his moderation test:

A ‘phobia” is having an irrational fear of something.
When you look around the globe and see that the majority of atrocities involve muslims and someone else, having a fear of muslims is entirely “rational”.

So Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc are NOT Islamophobic!
Even in predominantly muslim countries like Pakistan, there are daily atrocities of muslims killing other muslims. Look at the ethnic cleansing of black african muslims who aren’t on the same scale as other muslims.
Islam IS the PROBLEM.
geoff from the west (Reply) Sun 05 Apr 09 (03:43pm)

Those wretched Muslim suicide bombers controlling the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam. And what about the FARC Islamic militia? Islam is the problem. Not violence. Not terror. Not extremism. Believing in one God and praying 5 times a day (something many Muslims don't do) is the problem.

But here's my favourite. Nothing like an injection of some good old-fashioned bestiality.

Koran justified beheadings, suicide explosive murderers and clerical rules for fornication with livestock.....but Who Cares?

You have a PR problem, dhimmi.
TT (Reply) Sun 05 Apr 09 (04:04pm)

Is this TT fellow accusing Muslims of being a bunch of Kiwis? Anyway, as it's the season for economic meltdowns, try this for sensible economic analysis:

Nick Charles replied to winston
Sun 05 Apr 09 (08:52pm)

There are no impoverished Western countries, you dork. That’s because they were all founded on Christian principles. They’re only becoming poor - both spiritually and economically - now they’re post-Christian. But they at least still have strong armies, that’s why they don’t get invaded (except via multicultural immigration).

No, brainstrust, Muslims invade weak impoverished countries such as Somalia and Ethiopia. Recent enough for you? ...

You really need to get out more ...

Yes, we need to get out more. As in outside the Milky Way and onto whichever planet Nick Charles is living in. Christian countries all rich? I could start by asking what on earth is a Christian country, but let's assume Nick refers to countries the majority of whose occupants see themselves as belonging to a Christian denomination.

The last time I checked, Central and South America were not regarded as part of the Third World. Neither were the Philippines, East Timor, Haiti, Iceland, Ethiopia, Armenia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Croatia or Georgia. Israel has a very strong currency, but it isn't exactly a Christian country.

But why are we even talking about this stuff anyway? Who cares about whether following a particular religion brings prosperity or not? What kind of imbecilic forum would host such an imbecilic discussion?

Why, Andrew Bolt's online forum, of course.



Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious