Yeah, yeah, yeah

Brazil’s Rousseff slams impeachment drive as ‘sexist’

Ya’ can’t be a crook because you’ve a vagina. Sure.

8 thoughts on “Yeah, yeah, yeah”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    Having followed this story in the Economist and a few other places it does seem to be a political move. There’s no evidence that she was involved in the Petrobras corruption, although some close to her and her party appear to have been involved.

    There is plenty of evidence that’s she’s incompetent, but if that test was used we’d have spinning doors on every political position.

  2. There’s no evidence that she was involved in the Petrobras corruption, although some close to her and her party appear to have been involved.

    That’s the Credit Lyonnaise conundrum: either the top bods were in on it, which makes them corrupt; or unaware, which makes them staggeringly incompetent. Either way, they should be shown the door.

  3. Aah, she’s running the “Julia Gillard” defence I see. Might work to give her a totally unearned reputation as “brave” like Gillard, but I doubt the Rousseff is really quite as much a crook as Gillard.

  4. Isn’t this largely about massaging the numbers?

    In that case the resemblance with George Osborne is striking though in his case he is one rather than has one.

  5. Women do commit crimes but only when made to do them by evil manipulative men who probably trafficked them first.

  6. Meanwhile, in Hysterialand:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36104879

    It is now more clear than ever that these terrible measures are not only harming individuals and taking an economic toll on the states, but are also causing serious damage to our nation’s reputation, and the perceived safety of LGBT people who travel here.

    No, don’t worry, he isn’t talking about death camps but a law requiring people to use the bathroom appropriate to their gender.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in North Dorset – “Having followed this story in the Economist and a few other places it does seem to be a political move. There’s no evidence that she was involved in the Petrobras corruption, although some close to her and her party appear to have been involved.”

    The Economist is certainly wrong these days. While she might not be guilty of corruption, although she almost certainly is, she is guilty of conspiring with Lulu to pervert the course of justice. That is undeniable. It also makes Lula look corrupt – which would be very disappointing if true as he did a good job for a Leftist. But if he is, she is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *