You'll forgive me for revisiting the topic of a very recent post but, honestly, there are reasons why reading Canada's wankers makes me want to dig out my frontal lobes with an ice pick.
Exhibit A today is one Aaron Unruh from the right-wing blog "The Politic", whose infantile whining is exceeded only by his teeth-gnashing dishonesty. Or maybe stupidity -- I always have trouble telling those two apart.
Let's begin at the beginning of Unruh's screed, shall we?
New Brunswick: The Liberals Steal One
See how that works? The Conservatives win elections, while the Liberals steal them. Only six words in, and Unruh is already knee-deep in assholitude and wading deeper by the sentence.
Congratulations to New Brunswick Liberal leader Shawn Graham who has eked out a miniscule win tonight.
Whoops, let me start over. The Conservatives have electoral victories, while the Liberals "eke out miniscule wins." A miniscule win being, I'm guessing, somehow not as valid as a massive, landslide kind of win, even if it is a majority, which the Conservatives didn't get in the last federal election. Oh, sorry, I probably shouldn't have mentioned that -- I'll bet that's still a sore spot with Aaron, given his childish petulance these days. But I digress. Onwards and upwards.
Even with a recent redistribution that blatantly favoured the Liberals, Graham failed to get more votes than Bernard Lord.
Translation: Whine, whine, whine, bitch, moan, statement of obvious fact that everyone already knows. And the capper:
Luckily, the electoral system came to Graham’s rescue and he won despite that most New Brunswickers voted for his opponent.
Translation: More snot-nosed bitching and moaning, followed by blatantly false claim. What's that, you say? Why, yes, Aaron is simply full of it, since the very article he links to shows the overall election results as Conservatives: 47.65%; Liberals: 47.00%. Which, as I'm sure even Pete Rempel might appreciate, means that most New Brunswickers emphatically did not vote for "[Graham's] opponent." So how could anyone write something so stunningly idiotic? Oh, the fun is just beginning.
Immediately below Aaron's original posting, we have the disclaimer:
Edited to deal with a silly objection.
It was? Where? It's annoying enough that Aaron disses the objection as "silly," even as he admits that he has edited his posting to deal with it. But what's the change?
Even the most cement-headed of bloggers generally accept that, if you modify your original posting in any significant way to change its inherent meaning, you have a moral or ethical obligation to point out what that change was. And yet, in Aaron's piece ... nothing. No overstrike. No deletion. No hint to the reader as to what's been quietly altered so he might not look like such a total dick. No hint, that is, until you get to "Balbulican"'s first comment:
“he won despite that most New Brunswickers voted against him.”
Gosh, not unlike that other dude…what was his name…Hacker? Herpes? Whorepurr?
Whoa, hold on there. Balbulican's quote most certainly does not match Aaron's current text, does it? In fact, one can safely say that the quote Balbulican is reproducing is actually, technically correct -- more people did vote against Graham than voted for him. So what? That's the way Canadian elections work. As Balbulican points out, it's exactly what happened with the CPoC in the last election.
And yet, we see that those are not the words in Aaron's piece at the moment. Is this what he quietly changed based on a "silly objection?" And changed, I should point out, to now be totally wrong.
"The Politic"s Aaron Unruh: Because there is clearly a shortage of right-wing stupidity north of 49 and, besides, even Pete Rempel needs someone to feel intellectually superior to.