Pete McCormick and 24,128 Stupid Australians

Screen Shot 2013-01-04 at 5.26.19 PM

Pete McCormick worked for the Australian Defence Force, and went to the ‘collage’ of hard knocks *snort*, so one would assume that he might have had some amount of integrity. But no. He posted this ridiculous hoax email to Facebook and so far there have been 24,128 braindead morons who would rather share propaganda on Facebook than do a quick spot of Google research.

Screen Shot 2013-01-04 at 5.25.36 PM Screen Shot 2013-01-04 at 5.29.15 PM

Screen Shot 2013-01-04 at 5.30.54 PM

This has been debunked a million and one times, even by us:

Refugees get more money than pensioners

Screen Shot 2013-01-04 at 5.30.04 PM

Does this look like a man who really gives a shit

about how people other than himself are doing?

26 thoughts on “Pete McCormick and 24,128 Stupid Australians

      • Disability Support Payment, is a Centrelink administerd payment. Depending on circumstances he may also be entitled to support from DVA, they aren’t exclusive payments. Just sayin as an ex CL staff member, not saying he’s not a moron

        • So he is getting a Disability Support Pension from Centrelink (Used to Be Social Security) and a Disabled Pension from DVA? Is this allowed getting two Pensions from two Dept’s?

  1. This is why education is so important. Pete has been let down by the system. Pete is lowest common denominator. Poor Pete does not have the wherewithall to link 2 brain cells together. Poor Pete lives in misery because of his stupidity. Poor Pete.

  2. But Pete does give a shite, when his next Newstart Allowance is coming to help pay for his beer, smokes.and News Ltd gutter rags.

  3. It is amazing how many people on the government tit, that keep peddling this stuff. Along with that other bogan staple “changing the name of Australia Day”

  4. His post: December 15, 2012. The hoax date: 2009/2010.

    This article is written like Mr. McCormick originated the hoax himself or was even the first to share it on Facebook. You can see he was outraged by the concept as IF it were true – as I’m sure any reasonable person might be IF it were true. So maybe he doesn’t have the online savvy to search for it on Snopes.com or the patience to read through swathes of documents on DFAT’s website.

    Is it not such a far-fetched concept that decent people might be duped into beleiving this shit when there are politicians (our potential leaders) still regurgitating this nonsense as public discourse? They should be the ones to have their photo’s on your website, not this guy.

    I don’t see any evidence of racial hatred, I don’t see any prejudice at all except falling for somebody else’s hoax.

    I do however see a LOT of prejudice by the (anonymous?) author of this article. This guy is the victim of a hoax but you’ve made him the perpetrator – why? Because he has tatts and a goatee? You’re not judging him by the colour(s) of his skin are you?

    Don’t bother educating, just shame people into compliance. Shame on YOU, TAB.

    • He disseminated it without checking its provenance. The Snopes and Hoaxslayer info has been around for a few years – at least since 2007.

      As he is a Centrelink client he could have checked it at its source for free.

      And how do we know? Because we researched that daft shit that was being bellowed across the Internet ourselves and used our findings to refute it many times.

      One moron I remember when presented with the facts replied that the hoax “felt” right. That’s the way the far right rolls.

      No excuses for Mr Creosote.

      Oh yeah and I remember something else. Someone tried to post something similar at Margot Kingston’s Webdiary. That was back around 2002-2003. It was promptly sat on by the regular contributors.

      So your point is?

  5. I disagree, he asked the question “W.T.F.” and expressed concern that his pension, or validity thereof as a citizen may be in doubt. That is all… remember, “dissemination” is by default on Facebook.

    For asking the question; perhaps his friends might have steered him on the right path… perhaps the general media (and not some obscure blog he’s you say he MUST be aware of) might run an article on it… But no.

    You defame him because he fell for a hoax and you claim a moral high ground that does not exist, a standard to which every person must be educated and informed the same as yourselves – an impossible standard of omnipotent non-ignorance.

    …now I understand it is frustrating – I am frustrated (can you tell?) – and, hey, If you want to hate on Bogans – go for it – i believe in free press/speech… but don’t pretend to have some moral high ground for defending asylum seekers if this article is just about hating on Bogans.

  6. Your article would have been better served if you kept his identity out of it… after all it really isn’t the point is it. The point is the hoax, again and again the hoax.

    Defamation for defamation’s sake erodes any good intentions this article (and website in general) might have had.

    That is all. Thanks for the forum.

    • We mask the identities of our people, victims and innocent parties only. It is assumed that if someone we feature wants to disseminate rubbish via public forums on the Internet that they stand behind what they disseminate.

      It is not defamation to republish what someone has chosen to publish online. You’d better get up to speed on the industry you work in.

      And be careful whom you accuse of defamation. We have at least two lawyers at our disposal.

  7. “And be careful whom you accuse of defamation. We have at least two lawyers at our disposal.”

    Godd. You’ll be needing them.

  8. Indeed, I work with Information Technology so the fact that you can uncover information about myself from my online footprint doesn’t concern me in the least. It is assumed. I stand by the intent of my remarks and do not hide in anonymity.

    Perhaps you are correct and “defame” may be the incorrect word I was looking for to describe specifically, your statement that; “one would assume that he might have had some amount of integrity. But no.”. Thereby inferring that he has no amount of (i.e. Is a man of no) integrity.

    My apologies. Disrepute, perhaps?

    Incidentally, if you think a magistrate is going to listen to your lawyers waste the courts’ time concerning a single critique you received on a website that;

    a) is open for public commentary and opinion
    b) itself moderated and approved said critique for publication
    c) is of a nature in which said criticism may reasonably be expected

    Then it is my personal opinion that you might be surprised and relatively out of pocket.

    Again, I could be wrong?

    Thanks again and keep up the good work.

      • I don’t think he is.
        Fantastic points raised, Paul. Well argued.
        I have enjoyed this blog as it shames those that I believe – and the eds obviously do – are racist (or sexist) and stupid. With this guy, his racism is assumed and his stupidity is inferred because he didn’t have the savvy to educate himself – unfortunately not a very unique quality in our society. My mother heard this hoax and thought it to be true, until I pointed out it was not. If she had expressed her concerns on facebook, would you have put her on here?
        But I agree: thank you for this blog and keep on keeping on. There are many attitudes and beliefs in our culture that need to be exposed and lanced. This blog, I believe, is a vital tool in doing so. Just please don’t let the power go to your head…

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s