May 132008
 

A man ahead of his time, is how those right-wing ideologues far from these shores undoubtedly think of Timmy Blair. It seems that Timmy may well have taken faint praise too much to heart. Evidence his ‘blog’ entry dated Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9.50pm


blurred.jpg

Yesterday’s running of the Canberra Catchphrase Cup saw an overwhelming favourite bolt from the gates, only to be smashed down by a well-trained, perfectly conditioned challenger – who in turn faced a true champion’s comeback. Not to overstate things, it was like watching Phar Lap race Seabiscuit at Mount Panorama, ridden by Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.
When Wayne Swan rose to deliver the Budget last night, it was universally accepted Working Families would easily score a winning number of Catchphrase Cup mentions. With form, talent and a whole subsection of the speech dedicated to him, Working Families could not be beaten.

Yesterday? Last night?? Timmy, methinks you’re not only out of phase with real journalism, you’re out of phase with reality. For the record, old fella, Wayne Swan delivered his first budget TONIGHT. Tuesday, May 13, 2008. Not YESTERDAY, Monday May 12, 2008.
Poor lad. Chemo can tend to have detrimental after effects, so I’m told. Apparently Timmy didn’t undergo chemo, so his excuses are down to simple fuckwittedness.

  22 Responses to “Blaired Out Of Time”

  1. Christ man, you’re having a shot at his chemo?
    You shameful little grub.

  2. Christ man, you’re having a shot at his chemo?
    You shameful little grub.

  3. Merely stating the facts.
    fact one – Blair fucked up, royally
    fact two – chemo does have detrimental after-effects
    If you choose to link the two, then on you’re own head be it. I don’t believe what I wrote does that.

  4. Merely stating the facts.
    fact one – Blair fucked up, royally
    fact two – chemo does have detrimental after-effects
    If you choose to link the two, then on you’re own head be it. I don’t believe what I wrote does that.

  5. I think that The Master’s comment, re Randolph Churchill’s tumour, applies here, “they removed the only bit of him that wasn’t maligant”.
    Oh well, at least it shows that someone, even if only one of Timmeh’s flying monkeys, reads your site.

  6. I think that The Master’s comment, re Randolph Churchill’s tumour, applies here, “they removed the only bit of him that wasn’t maligant”.
    Oh well, at least it shows that someone, even if only one of Timmeh’s flying monkeys, reads your site.

  7. Sorry, “malignant” not “maligant”. Like his winged avengers.

  8. Sorry, “malignant” not “maligant”. Like his winged avengers.

  9. meh!…..it’s all a part of the ‘sphere, I figure. Besides, turn-a-bout is fair play in my book.

  10. meh!…..it’s all a part of the ‘sphere, I figure. Besides, turn-a-bout is fair play in my book.

  11. Dude I am a lefty and I love a bit of snark, but this is over the top. Mocking someone’s serious illness is poor, poor form.

  12. Dude I am a lefty and I love a bit of snark, but this is over the top. Mocking someone’s serious illness is poor, poor form.

  13. Pleased to disappoint

  14. Pleased to disappoint

  15. Apart from showing yourself to be vile, Blair never had chemo so you are also a liar.
    You owe him a public apology and a retraction.

  16. Apart from showing yourself to be vile, Blair never had chemo so you are also a liar.
    You owe him a public apology and a retraction.

  17. I ‘owe’ Blair as much angst as I can deliver. As for apology……I will when he does. Hell will definitely freeze over first.

  18. I ‘owe’ Blair as much angst as I can deliver. As for apology……I will when he does. Hell will definitely freeze over first.

  19. You suffer a pathetic, pathological obsession with Blair and use – as you yourself confessed at Troppo and here – every opportunity to sully his name, this time stooping as low as making fun of his cancer.
    You get called on your low blow, and your lie about chemo by various people, and here you are still trying to justify yourself, in any way you can.
    Moreover, while publically chest-puffing, you had the audacity to send me a private email suggesting that I owe you an apology.
    Such splendiforous courage!
    As if we needed reminding, given your public behaviour, it was evident on the other Troppo thread, where you whinged about giving money for aid to Burma, that you don’t look for opportunities to do good, but excuses to do wrong, and to do nothing.
    Stephen is right; you are a grub.

  20. You suffer a pathetic, pathological obsession with Blair and use – as you yourself confessed at Troppo and here – every opportunity to sully his name, this time stooping as low as making fun of his cancer.
    You get called on your low blow, and your lie about chemo by various people, and here you are still trying to justify yourself, in any way you can.
    Moreover, while publically chest-puffing, you had the audacity to send me a private email suggesting that I owe you an apology.
    Such splendiforous courage!
    As if we needed reminding, given your public behaviour, it was evident on the other Troppo thread, where you whinged about giving money for aid to Burma, that you don’t look for opportunities to do good, but excuses to do wrong, and to do nothing.
    Stephen is right; you are a grub.

  21. You want an email posted here? Fine!
    I didn’t claim that Blair had chemo, I simply made a statement. You’re the one drawing the conclusion. Erroneously. Perhaps you ought to be apologising to me?
    All spot on accurate. You are the one, ‘Saint’ old son, who needs to issue an apology to me, given the totally inaccurate claims you’re making. There is only one reason I chose to email you, ‘Saint’, that being to give you a platform for your personal bile other than my bandwidth and server space. I refer you to my comment policy.
    You, as with the rest of the ‘sphere, have absolutely no knowledge of the history between Blair & myself, yet you seek to claim some virtual moral high-ground by stooping to the same levels he uses. Fascinating, or to use your superlative, ‘splendiferous courage’.
    “Publically chest-puffing”? I simply called a buffoon for what he is, given the evidence available.
    As to my comment regarding the Burma appeal, I clearly stated my thoughts on the matter, also clearly stating that I cannot afford to throw money at a cause, where that money is not guaranteed to actually reach those who need it most. As I stated, there are other avenues.
    I suffer no “pathetic, pathological obsession with Blair” as you seek to claim. That’s your statement, not mine. What I wrote was that I will never let a chance go by to show the fool up for what he really is. A poor excuse for a journalist, a lesser example of a human being given he continually plays off sarcasm and cynicism, and a very poor writer, to boot. As for snarking at his cancer, it seems to me that people such as yourself are drawing that conclusion. I don’t believe I wrote any such thing. I drew a parallel between chemotherapy and it’s known after-effects. YOU drew the conclusion that I was poking fun at Blairs cancer.
    Get a life old fella. Whinging at me because I don’t fit your ideological world view or go out of my way to mirror you & yours is only shining a light on just why I find you & yours so amusing.

  22. You want an email posted here? Fine!
    I didn’t claim that Blair had chemo, I simply made a statement. You’re the one drawing the conclusion. Erroneously. Perhaps you ought to be apologising to me?
    All spot on accurate. You are the one, ‘Saint’ old son, who needs to issue an apology to me, given the totally inaccurate claims you’re making. There is only one reason I chose to email you, ‘Saint’, that being to give you a platform for your personal bile other than my bandwidth and server space. I refer you to my comment policy.
    You, as with the rest of the ‘sphere, have absolutely no knowledge of the history between Blair & myself, yet you seek to claim some virtual moral high-ground by stooping to the same levels he uses. Fascinating, or to use your superlative, ‘splendiferous courage’.
    “Publically chest-puffing”? I simply called a buffoon for what he is, given the evidence available.
    As to my comment regarding the Burma appeal, I clearly stated my thoughts on the matter, also clearly stating that I cannot afford to throw money at a cause, where that money is not guaranteed to actually reach those who need it most. As I stated, there are other avenues.
    I suffer no “pathetic, pathological obsession with Blair” as you seek to claim. That’s your statement, not mine. What I wrote was that I will never let a chance go by to show the fool up for what he really is. A poor excuse for a journalist, a lesser example of a human being given he continually plays off sarcasm and cynicism, and a very poor writer, to boot. As for snarking at his cancer, it seems to me that people such as yourself are drawing that conclusion. I don’t believe I wrote any such thing. I drew a parallel between chemotherapy and it’s known after-effects. YOU drew the conclusion that I was poking fun at Blairs cancer.
    Get a life old fella. Whinging at me because I don’t fit your ideological world view or go out of my way to mirror you & yours is only shining a light on just why I find you & yours so amusing.