Monday, September 19, 2016

An Oreo snack for lunch ...

Now the pond, it has to be said right up the front, is totally onside with the Oreo on this one ...

The pond still treasures very fond memories of voting in the nationwide plebiscite called by John Howard before he dared to change the Marriage Act back in 2004.

It was as classic an example of democracy in action as could be imagined ...

What could be more democratic?

Strange, the pond would have sworn blind it voted in that plebiscite. Perhaps it's like that well known phenomenon of the phantom limb or the phantom pain ...

Never mind, it's on with that promised Oreo treat ...

Really, she is splendidly barking mad, is she not? Is not an Oreo treat for lunch one of the finer, refined treats of a modern civilisation?

Alas then the Oreo turns to hapless Freedom Boy ...

The pond uses the word "hapless" advisedly because, as previously noted by the pond, Freedom Boy has oscillated wildly when it comes to the matter of the plebiscite, before understanding that his place in life was to grovel before fundamentalist right wingers ...

Alas, even as he was worming his way towards a plebiscite, Freedom Boy was still suggesting it was unnecessary, but perhaps the lesser of weevils ...

He really is thoroughly gormless ...

But how did Freedom Boy get into an Oreo piece and threaten to steal her thunder?

That's not right, not when we're in the middle of a prime-cut quality rant ...

What could be possibly added?

Really, she is splendidly barking mad, is she not? Is not an Oreo treat for lunch one of the finer, refined treats of a modern civilisation?

Now the pond believes that, taken in moderation, an Oreo or two does no harm, but we should point out that the ingredients include high fructose corn syrup, sugar, salt, and possibly high oleic palm oil ...

Please, snack in moderation ...

The pond regrets that if there's too much snacking on Oreos, it really might have to consider some kind of tax, henceforth to be known as the sugary Oreo snack tax ...

This might be the only way that we can put a halt to weight-est jokes about north Queensland's finest, and the role that sugar plays ...


  1. Need some Salt with that Oreo, DP?

    He has posted that article on LinkedIn, to an interesting reception.

    It appears from some of the comments that, shockingly, many people in Australia experience actual racism in their day to day lives.

    1. I liked this comment:

      Unfettered migration with high proportions of culturally incompatible migrants will exacerbate racism, particularly of those groups who struggle to integrate. Tolerance of the intolerant will only go so far.

      Highly perfect loon logic!

  2. These two references sum up the catastrophic results of the oh-so-reasonable applied politics of the benighted denizens that infest the reptilian "news"-paper.
    Remembering that at the time they ALL promoted what is described here.

    Class of 2017 So Sorry? by Peter Van Buren at TomDispatch

    Sanitizing The 21st Century's Worst War Crime by Rev William Albert at Counterpunch

    So much for "conservative" "reason", and its defense of the values of the Enlightenment.
    Not to mention the world-wide influence of the now everywhere warfare state is of course the blood-soaked dirty little unspoken secret of right-wing political correctness which now dominates the Western world (contrary to what all of the right-wing propaganda hacks pretend)

  3. Oy vey, DP, what a whiffle-waffle rant from the Oreole. Reading her emotive, hostile rave against all the things that "those Green-Lefties" do, I observe yet again how right wingnuts freak out utterly when they believe that somebody else is using their favourite tricks. Inarticulate, you say ? Oh yes.

    But, butt, DP, I have here a very serious question that I totally lack the expertise and/or knowledge to answer: John Winston may have inserted the "man and woman" clause into the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act, but where, either in legislation, or in the Constitution, is "man" and "woman" legally defined ?

    In short, I'm told that marriage is restricted to "a man and a woman", but where am I told how to decide just what a man and a woman comprise ? I imagine that the general idea might be that you are what your birth certificate says you are, but is that anywhere actually stated in either Constitutional or Legislative law ? Is it a precondition of a marriage license, for example ? I really would like to know - if there's anybody here who can definitively tell me.

    1. I'm afraid don't have the answer for you GrueBleen. I would just go with the vibe.

      But I can say that, back in the good ol' days, the word 'person' in the context of legislative prohibitions against indecent exposure, meant 'penis'.

      So I'm sure someone out there will declare that marriage between two consenting persons, by legal definition, excludes lesbians.

      Therefore, marriage equality is impossible. Or some such nonsense.

  4. I wonder if this is Peak-Oreo? All her finest qualities are on display in this article - smug, condescending, an arrogant know-it-all and a babbling conspiracy theorist to boot. Can she get any weirder and more obnoxious? Only time will tell - but it could be a long, strange trip.


Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.