Now’s that’s a great bauble
November 28th, 2005 at 8:50 am by David FarrarOkay finally Winston is scoring some decent baubles. Sure the VIP cars and the extra salary and staff are all very nice, but will you remember them in 20 years?
But getting to watch the All Blacks achieve the grand slam in Scotland, from the Royal Box no less – that’s a stunning bauble.
Hell let’s be honest I’d be half tempted myself to sell my party and promises out for some test match tickets. More than half tempted 
November 28th, 2005 at 10:36 am
Ben Wilson post of
“I think the bitterness is around Winston being a ‘lapsed Nat’. A traitor is always hated even more than the enemy”
keeps coming back to me.
So Winston watched the All Blacks win the Grand Slam in the Royal box, so what! Helen Clark won us the rights to the 2011 World Cup she may have offered her seat to the Rt Hon Minister of the Crown Winston Peters? because he has been a Rugby Player.
Vote:I suppose you guys wanted to see Brash sitting there?
It seems to me that if Messrs Farrar & Rapania had their ‘lapsed Nat’ back in the fold it wouldn’t be unusual to see the 3 some back slapping and drinking single malt wiskey down at the “Green Parrot”, but in the mean time I suppose it will be bile about the ‘Lapsed Nat’ spewed over these boards in revenge?
November 28th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Sorry Craig Ranapia about the spelling of your name above.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Precisely, Cadmus. The Nats can’t take the moral high ground in the political slush fund stakes. Still if they can’t take Winston to the rugby with them, perhaps they can take their new mates from the Exclusive Brethren?
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 11:36 am
So What Cadmus, sure it is no big deal that Winston goes and watches the footy inin the Royal (full on baubles) box…except he said he wouldn’t, and based a bit quite a bit of his election campaign around that. Once he figured out that he couldn’t just base it arount himself
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 11:42 am
You leftie parrots make me laugh. So Helen won the 2011 cup rights, did she? Only after Jock Hobbs made the stupid bitch rewite her ‘arrogant and boastful’ speech. Fortunately she was only there for five minutes (after flying all the way with Qantas!) Lucky they got rid of her, another five minutes and the Nips would have had the damned thing.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Adolf,
Vote:PM Clark appeared and spoke to support our All Blacks, along with Tana & Pinetree.
We won, aren’t you pleased?
Or is this another case of Rightwing sour grapes. I don’t suppose you were secretly hoping NZ would lose the bid for the 2011 hosting rights, so you could blame it all on PM Clark?
Yes, she did speak for only 5 minutes, and she flew to the other side of the world to do it, which sealed the deal, no other leader of Japan or SA was prepared to turn up to speak. Rt Hon Winston Peters was behind the NZ bid. I doubt Brash would have bothered showing up to support NZ Rugby.
The PM can’t be everywhere and gave her seat to our Foriegn Minister, so he could fill in for her. Who was supposed to be there to support the grand slam. Brash?
November 28th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
You leftie parrots make me laugh. So Helen won the 2011 cup rights, did she? Only after Jock Hobbs made the stupid bitch rewite her ‘arrogant and boastful’ speech.
Sigh … lovely to see Adolf continuing to keep up the tone. No doubt tomorrow he’ll be taking exagerrated offence when someone says something rude about a politician he does like.
It seems she took direction quite well though. The story Adolf refers to also quotes Pinetree Meads as saying she was “bloody brilliant” at the meeting …
Cheers,
Vote:RB
November 28th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
RB – haven’t you heard? Pinetree is a sleeper far left Labour activist – or that’s what we’ll hear soon from the nutters on here.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Yup, it’s another Helen win, plain and simple. But it’s really a full court press, lead by Jock. He deserves a knighthood or whatever award it is we give these days. Good on him, three cheers. Good on Pine Tree, honest despite his National sympathies to admit the support of the highest ranking politician in NZ probably helped. I think he undersells his own contributions, which the Japs know full well they lost out on, down at the bar. Nothing like some famous old massive sports star cornering you and telling you to vote NZ when you’re too drunk to say no.
Adolf, you make me laugh too. Only someone like you is partisan enough to find a downside to something like this HUGE win.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
You head up your arse lefties ought to go and read again the original comment from Cadmus. He said ‘Helen Clark won…’ Just in case you hadn’t noticed, she was a bit player and a pretty poor one at that if her speech had to be rewritten. That was the point. The real reason we got the deal was that Jock Hobbs saved the bacon of the IRB a few years ago and called in all his IOUs. Sure Clark played a small part in the success but you wankers seem to be convinced she did it all on her own. Grow up.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Cadmus – I’m a little worried about your post times on this thread – 10.36am,10.43am,12.25pm. They all seem to be during the day, which by your own addmission must make you one of the idle rich.
Surely you have something better to do with your time than post continually on Sir Davids site.
Charity work may be the answer for you.
Ohh you already do charity work.
Defending the righteously unhounorable WP must be charity, mustn’t it??
When it all comes down to the brass tacks Winston misled(there are stronger words)the NZ public with his election promises.
Nothing you say can change that.
Allah protect us.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
The reason Winston is getting pillaried is because he said he wouldnt do something and then did. Its not about whether he used to work with National or even the Mount M ladies bowling club.So leave out the smartarse Cullenesque,”we won you lost” rubbish. Its about how he told NZ( and his own caucus)one thing, got the votes and did something else.Also about how Clark and Cullen think they can just rewrite the Cabinet rules to suit their own expediancy and then tell NZ,”its water under the bridge” yeah right, a new (low) standard in our political history.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Keep pillorying Winston. He’s your baby after all.
Adolf, you’re the one being a wanker. Cadmus gave credit where it was due in saying Helen helped. She did, that is obvious. If Jock told her to redo her speech it is to her credit that she did as she was told. You are just being a sour grapes fuckwit, as usual. It undermines your already tenuous credibility that you can’t give credit where it is due. We’re all happy to credit Meades, despite his being a Nat. He’s still a legend and has helped to pull off something great. You, on the other hand, are only pulling off something that is small.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Ben Wilson Do you have a Masters degree in mendacity? I repeat – your friend Cadmus said “Clark won….” He did NOT say “Clark ‘helped’win” In fact it was I who said, ‘Sure, Clark helped…’ Why do you buggers persist in telling lies? Is it in your genes? You are either a liar or you are just stupid. Which do you prefer?
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
HAHAHAHAHA!! Lapsed Nat?
And what exactly has Winston Peters done in the last decade that would cause any National Party to miss him, to regret his leaving (rather than his political existence and current status as the cornerstone of the Labour government)?
He isnt a traitor to the cause, he is a traitor to his constituents. Your lot is the beneficiary of his back-sliding so now you all seem to be falling over yourselves to defend him!
Oh, and we will never know whether HC’s performance helped or hindered our chances of getting the tournament (which I am still surprised about). Meads has his opinion, sure, and he was there, but it wasnt his opinion that mattered.
I think it probably did help having the PM there, not HC, the PM (if Trevor Mallard was PM he probably would have had the same effect, if he could keep his mouth shut). I mean, do you reckon if Junichiro Koizumi turned up representing Japan that we still would have gotten the tourney?
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
A Master of Mendacity. Not bad. Has a good ring. Whatever dude, I can’t really see myself bitterending a debate about the horrors of leaving out the word ‘helped’. Feel free to carry on, take it to a new level.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Kimble, I agree. The PM was merely show. But credit is still due. She did actually do it. Koizumi didn’t. So the favourites lost.
As for Peters, I think what you regret about his leaving was the hundreds of thousands of supporters he took with him.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Adolf,
Vote:Clark won, Pinetree won, Jock Hobbs won, Tana won, NZ Won the 2011 Rugby World cup bid! Who else would you like me to mention or thank?
Well by your writings here, not you Adolf!
In my view, not taking away anything from other fine NZ Rugby Reps, but I believe PM Clark was the one that clinched the deal for NZ.
I don’t doubt the board of Directors would have been very impressed that the NZ PM flew from one side of the world to speak in front of them on befalf of NZ Rugby, good on her when no other Bid leader would take the time.
Problem is Adolf your on the losing team still, get used to it!
November 28th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
TheProphet, don’t worry about me, but thanks for the concern.
Vote:I’m multi tasking between posts, you know the GST return is due in three days im working on that also.
Your are right on one thing I should be doing “more’ charity work in NZ.
I used to work on a non religous food trailer overseas.
BTW, Giving away watered down soup & coffee, 2 day old Rolls and bruised fruit to the less fortunate is not the most pleasurabe task, let me asure you of that.
But give it a try yourself, who knows you may see the light.
November 28th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Ben you rightly state that Jack HOBBS deserves the country’s highest honour for his efforts in securing the World Cup.This would ofcourse put him in such illustrious company as that of Johnathan HUNT, a dubious honour he would probably wish to avoid….Although Winston is sacrificing his integrity for 20 pieces of silver and a heap of glittering baubles, his disciples are living up to his pledge and getting nothing, doing nothing, going nowhere.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
How soon you all forget, It was only 9 years ago when Winston went back on all he said before the election and took the biggest shiniest bauble of all, one especially made and polished by Jim Bolger and the National party, as Treasurer . A bauble so glittering it was never given before or since.
Vote:And lo and behold one DPF got his start in life as a public servant solely because of Winston’s succumbing to temptation . Since then DPF has freeloaded at every opening of an envelope around the world. Pot meet kettle !
November 28th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Winston is just winston – he did what it took to win and in doing so served his constituancy about as well as we can expect.
It is pretty funny to watch people argue about who is being critical of winston for what reasons. It is quite the NZ past time to have a go at him but if your going to do it you might as well not argue with each other about your critiques.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
The omission of the word “helped” changed the meaning of the entire sentence. It is important and the correction was warranted. Dont get all pissy about people pointing out your errors. If it was an honest mistake, say so, but it wasnt.
“But credit is still due. She did actually do it.” Uh huh, and if National won the election an it was DPF claiming that Brash won us the World Cup would you still be singing the same tune? You would not.
“As for Peters, I think what you regret about his leaving was the hundreds of thousands of supporters he took with him.”
Perhaps, but that is very different from despising him for being a “traitor”, which is what you are quoted as saying.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
No, Kimble. I would be congratulating Brash on a job well done. It’s that simple – it’s a great win for NZ, worth untold millions. I’m not unable to give credit where it is due.
And getting bitter on a former colleague for stealing your support IS despising a traitor in this case. You’re far more bitter on him than, say, ACT, which also steals National’s support. But they have never traitored out on you. They are Labour traitors, which does explain much of the extreme dislike felt there. It’s only evaporating now (along with ACT’s support) because the traitors are mostly gone.
As for being pissy, if you read the thread you’d see it’s not my words you are talking about anyway. You’ve made an honest mistake, so admit it. Cadmus claimed ‘Helen won us the rights….’. That’s overstating the case, sure. Satisfied? I think saying Helen did a pisspoor job of it is understating the case, and the proof of that is in the pudding. But stick to grapes if you don’t like sweets.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
What took you so long? It was that simple.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Um, I did say that already, repeatedly, in many different ways. But you’re fond of carrying on until people say things in a way you want to dictate. OK, you got it, darling. I can’t see that you needed to call people wankers because you like refusing to read what they said. THAT is being a wanker.
My first post here: “But it’s really a full court press, lead by Jock”. Second sentence. Did you not get that far in?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:45 am
Bloody amazing. You have a crack at Cadmus and all you get in reply is Wilson. Oh I read what you said alright. It was your mate trying to lie his way out of trouble by rewriting his original post that was the problem. I see Cadmus firmly belives that without Clark’s presence NZ would not have won the day. I happen to think he/she/it is wrong. I think the deal was 90% down to Hobbs, 9% down to the other rugby people and 1% down to the PM.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:22 am
Can’t speak for Cadmus, don’t know him at all. Just a like mind floating out there. I think he’s just trolling you for kicks though.
As for the % it’s really quite unknowable what was in the judges minds, but Hobbs does seem to have been the driver, good on him. Bloody good show, not many folks land their country a deal like that. Knighthood?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 6:54 am
Time to forget Winston as he is what he is a media and public distraction, where the focus should be are Benson Pope, Phillip Field, Matata,Poverty bay. This Govt is floundering and the people of this country that do have the ability to tie their own shoes continually take their eye off the ball. Clark is the target don’t let her get to the jump off point without giving her a good kick up the ass as she goes over. Winston is has been and will always be, full of shit.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 6:56 am
AF,
“90% down to Hobbs, 9% down to the other rugby people and 1% down to the PM.”
That doesnt sound too unreasonable – every bit helps of course…
Ben,
can you imagne a world in which national party embers were constantly after a party to national’s right? (ie right in a libiterian way) I just dont see it as very plausible.
Winston is just an easy target if anyone complains you are too right wing you can call him a racist or machavellian or any of a host of generaly accepted insults.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 7:45 am
BW. Damned right!!! And a real one. Sir Jock, if you don’t mind.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Adolf, disagree with you on the PM ‘s input. Sure Jock Hobbs put the presentation together, the legend Pinetree spoke, AB capt Tana spoke.
Vote:But PM Clark clinced the deal, as Pinetree said she was “bloody brilliant”
I put it to you this way if you invented a piece of software, put a presentation together, and then Bill Gates stood up for 5 minutes and endorsed it for your company. Do you think you would be on a winner?
Thats exactly what PM Clark did for us, good on her.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Genius, Winston is to the right of National on many issues. I stick by my traitor analysis.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:56 am
I think the ‘right’ and Winston’s constituency have every right to despise Winston as a traitor – if I remember correctly the split-vote stats indicated that Winston’s supporters voted National more than Labour. The charlatan obtained his baubles against the mandate of the people who put him there, and by promising he wouldn’t!
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:02 am
“But PM Clark clinced the deal, as Pinetree said she was “bloody brilliant”"
You assert that she clinched the deal, but your only supporting evidence seems to be that we were awarded the tournament and the quote from Meads. Face it cadmus, you have no other reason for believing she was the key to the victory other than you WANT it to be so.
“I would be congratulating Brash on a job well done.” Ha! As if.
And Ben, you are the only one calling Peters a traitor. And why cant you comprehend that National treats ACT differently because ACT is a party with expressed principles rather than simply a personality cult?
“They are Labour traitors, which does explain much of the extreme dislike felt there.” Oh, for fucks sake! The dislike felt there is obviously because Prebble and Douglas were labourites, rather than the fact that ACT is for a freer labour market and Labour is just one big trade union. Oh no, it is because the founders of ACT are traitors.
Again, you are the only one calling ACT traitors. Your reading of this and of the Peters situation reeks of teenage amateur-psychology.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Yup, Kimble, you don’t have to call Peters a traitor. It’s there in your voice every day. Call me amateur, but I hear what I hear. Nats share far too much with Peters to forgive him for straying from the path of taking-it-up-the-date-from-the-whip righteousness. He’s your ex.
ACT shares at least one dimension with Labour – social permissiveness. But they just don’t get on. I see a deeper reason that just economic freedom disagreement. But the feeling is much less strong than with Nats & Peters, since his betrayal took much more support from National than ACT did from Labour. He’s shafted National twice, whilst in office.
ACT does seem to be moving away from social permissiveness though. That was why I stopped voting for them. I realized that they are being slowly sucked into the conservative extreme, rather than the unique position they used to have. I think in hindsight it was inevitable, that ultimately the ex-Labour support base would melt away from ACT as it’s true support base of people like you got bigger. Now, with Brash, it’s almost indistinguishable from National.
I was only giving you credit in pointing out the ACT/Labour antipathy, to imply that such rancour is not the sole province of the frothing right. Feel free to make me rethink that.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
“It’s there in your voice every day.” No, it is in your ears.
If National criticises NZ First it is because Peters is a traitor. Failing to engage, ie not criticising NZ First, cannot prove that they dont consider him a traitor. So the only way for you to be disproven is for National to actively endorse NZ First, which is something they arent likely to do because there is no way he deserves it. But by your reasoning the only reason they wouldnt endorse Peters is because they consider him a traitor. Your begining assumption and your ending conclusion are the same, National considers Peters a traitor.
If National criticises Peters it is because they consider him a traitor. National is criticising Peters therefore they consider him a traitor. QED.
The same flawed reasoning applies to the Labour ACT relationship. Once again your accusations boil down to wishful thinking and imagination.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
I’m not making a scientific claim man. But failing to criticize Peters twice a day would perhaps make me think they’d got over it a bit.
I got lost in your logic. But that’s because it’s *your* logic, which always seems to be a tangled maze with many exits, none of which you seem to be able to find. I’m glad to see you’ve finally mastered modus ponens though, even if it’s for a straw man argument you invented. There is some hope.
Oh, it must be shitty to chew on the fact that Peters came from National. I understand your bitterness. And he is a real fool, in that I agree with you. A powerful, influential, successful fool. Hurts like a bitch, doesn’t it.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
There were three steps, how could you get lost?
Consistent with previous form, you are trying to hide behind the ‘mask of the intellectual’ to avoid criticism of your flawed arguments. Feigning confusion does not make my argument confusing. In fact, it only reinforces the perception that you refuse to engage.
“I’m not making a scientific claim man.” No, but you are making a claim which is not falsifiable in any practical sense. In other words, you are claiming something for which you have no basis other than your own imagination. Tp put in even fewer words, you are making shit up.
“But failing to criticize Peters twice a day would perhaps make me think they’d got over it a bit.”
And with this you have proven my point. Your initial assumption is that National considers Peters a traitor. There is never any question about this assumption. It is a given. It is fact. What is more, the fact that National is criticising Peters twice a day is proof that they consider him a traitor.
I think this is enough to prove the first step, “If National criticises NZ First it is because Peters is a traitor.”
Not even refraining from criticism will shake your initial assumption, you will only concede that they have gotten over it. Which proves the second step, “Failing to engage, ie not criticising NZ First, cannot prove that they dont consider him a traitor.”
Which only leaves one other option, which is “the only way for you to be disproven is for National to actively endorse NZ First”.
Three very simple steps.
What you are requiring is for National to endorse NZ First. At the moment the only reason National would endorse NZF is to prove you wrong. As they dont give a shit about proving you wrong, they will not endorse NZF. So, you can just sit back in a warm, comfortable smugness making cowardly assertions, and being content with yourself knowing perfectly well that you will not be proven wrong. But it doesnt make you right.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Kimble, Prebble & Douglas only achieved power by the support of Labour voters in a First Past the Post political system. They both were given safe seats, that anyone on this board could have won with a Labour endorsement.
Vote:The pair then move to the complete other side of the spectrum and formed the ACT party, putting the borax into those that supported & worked for them while they recieved the baubles of office as Labour MP’s.
Winston Peters on the other hand has stuck mainly with the traditions of the National Party he originally joined.
Im believe the reasoning behind Peters formation of NZ1 was to put the handbrake on radical Right/Left agendas, which are not suitable for NZ.
Come on Kimble if your mates Brash/Hide were in power know I believe most of whats left of the countries assetts and infrastructure would be sitting on E-Bay, or flogged off at fire sale prices to Party backers.
I believe Minister of the Crown Rt Hon Winston Peters new this and for the good of Nzers & NZ, made a common sence judgement for the best govt possible, in tough circumstances.
If National believe Peters is a Traitor, get Brash & Co to take a good look at themselves in the mirror for a reality check!
November 29th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
“The pair then move to the complete other side of the spectrum” No, they were mostly already there. Do you know what they did whilst in Labour? Today’s National would probably be proud to be able to claim Prebbles, Douglas’s and even the Great Enabler, Lange’s achievements in the 1980′s.
“I believe Minister of the Crown Rt Hon Winston Peters new this and for the good of Nzers & NZ”
So now we know cadmus voted NZ First.
“If National believe Peters is a Traitor”
And now we know he doesnt read too well. Cadmus, I have been saying they dont think he is a traitor.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Wow, Kimble you’re really trying hard. Your logic’s looking even more like the Harry Potter hedge maze it is. And it’s still made of straw. I never offered any of your so-called premises. I do refuse to engage, mainly because it’s such confused bollocks that I don’t want to even help straighten it up.
My claim was about your psychology. It was never scientific, never presented to be. If you must have some logic, here’s mine:
1. People often hate traitors even more than the traditional enemy
2. Peters is a National traitor
C. Therefore National possibly hates Peters even more than their traditional enemy.
Note the word possibly. It’s one explanation amongst many, and because of premise 1, I find it highly plausible, as do many others. It’s a weak claim and I do feel smug about it. It is always amusing so see petty human stupidity get in the way of National doing what would clearly benefit them, which is to court Peters. At the moment they are polarizing him more and more into Clark’s hands. And she can drop him like a cup of cold sick at any time, if his support starts to wane, if National manages to get all the grannies back. I can’t see it, because Brash is too concerned about taking away their pensions. He might get the racist vote back, but only if he stops courting the Maori party.
But hate makes you too proud to court Peters. And the hate is abundantly evident from the continual (if justified) character assassination leveled at him. You want to hound him out of parliament or make him do something really stupid.
I’ll be interested to see if it works. Singleminded attacks on one person often do. Sling enough mud and it will stick. But it’s not enough to win support. Killing off Peters doesn’t put the grannies into National’s hands again. It may put them straight into Labour’s. But Peters is a survivor. He’s run his party far longer than Brash has, and I expect he will continue to do so.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Kimble,
No, Douglas & Preeble abused their position as MP Labour Party reps. They went into Par;iament representing those Labour Party ideals, then turned mongel.
“Do you know what they did whilst in Labour?”
Nothing much until David Lange was made PM then they showed their true colours.
“So now we know cadmus voted NZ First”
How do you know who I voted for?
I’m just glad Winston Peters went with Labour, the common sence choice in the circumstances. The alternative would have been a disaster for NZ.
“And now we know he doesnt read too well. Cadmus, I have been saying they dont think he is a traitor”
Again, After reading the blog here there can be few other reasons other than National seeing Peters as a Traitor.
Vote:Would the same amount of bile be spewing off this site concerning Rt Hon Winston Peters, if he was with a National led govt? of course not!
Kimble, Peters is up your nose, and you and your rightwing colleagues hate it, because he outsmarted you and your agenda, good on him!
November 29th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Ben, just stop it, ok, just stop it. My logic is perfectly fine. It is simple and irrefutable. Every time you try and make out that what i have said is some sort of tangled mess you, just make yourself look more childish.
“My claim was about your psychology”. So? That makes no difference whatsoever.
“Note the word possibly.” I note it is the first time you have used it. You werent quoted saying, “I think the a small part of the bitterness is possibly around Winston being a ‘lapsed Nat’.”
“At the moment they are polarizing him more and more into Clark’s hands.” The biggest laugh here is that you still think that Peters’ support is something National would desire. After the mess last time? After the mess this time? The more National can tar Labour with a Peters shaped brush the better it is for them.
Peters role in this government is a joke, and Labour is guilty of enabling it to happen. THAT is why National is criticising Peters twice a day. And it is why they will never form a government with him, and it will probably be why they wont have to woo him in the future.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
“I can’t see it, because Brash is too concerned about taking away their pensions.” And saying things like this dont help your credibility. Once again you refuse to accept reality so you invent your own. You are clown shoes, dude.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Cadmus, get your hand off it. Peters said he wasnt going to take the baubles of power, but he is. Labour is contorting itself into knots trying to convince everyone that Peters is Foreign Minister but he isnt in government. This whole situation is a farce and is recognised as such by everyone except partisans like yourself. Brash and Hide will enslave the Maoris and burn homosexuals!
I know you didnt say that, but you really do seem that hysterical. Get a grip dude. You havent got a clue about National, ACT or any other party on the centre right. You live in a fantasy world of your own creation and react almost violently when anyone threatens your cherished delusions.
If you still think that Peters is a noble statesman and he formed a government with Labour for the good of the country then you arent even worth engaging as a rational human being.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Sorry, Kimble, didn’t mean to make you cry. I’ll stop hammering your logic, such as it is. I actually tried to avoid it completely, but you just keep going on about it. I wouldn’t want you to go any more Jay on me and come round an bash me or anything. Clown shoes? Toke it up man.
So you’ve gone into sentence-by-sentence mode now? I don’t have time for it, sorry, flattering though it is that you want my tender ministrations so much. We’re into repeat loop mode, going nowhere. See ya.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Kimble, Winston Peters was between a rock & a hard place, he had no option because of the close election. He had to support either a National or Labour coalition, he made the correct choice.
Well you enlighten me on what you think Winston Peters should have done?
“Get a grip dude. You havent got a clue about National, ACT or any other party on the centre right”
I have more than enough knowledge on the agenda of Brash/Hide types. I don’t want to see this country ruined by a couple of economic cowboys.
Vote:I know how these people operate, and im not a leftist either.
I see the likes of Brash/Hide the Right’s equivalent of Keith Locke. Big Trouble!
Brash will be pushed next year, which is one down. But if the Nat’s put up a blue blood with some standing in NZ, Hide will be out on his ear by 10 pm on Election night. That would be the job done for the better of our countries culture & values.
November 29th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Be well aware, BW, that if we never hear from you again, your imaginative opinions and fanciful interpretation of the most scant information, your unwillingness to directly address peoples criticisms of your argument, your readiness to use latin phrases at the slightest hint of disadvantage and your unearned and undeserved arrogant assurance in your own intelligence will not be forgotten or missed.
And the clown shoes line was used in reference to Jay and Bob, not by them. You obviously saw the movie so how could you make such an agregious error. But then again you do have a habit of rearranging reality to suit your purposes, dont you?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Aha, u dropped the weak logic shite to go hard on the ad hominems, that’s more like it, my bag.
I’m constantly surprised at your use of ‘projection’ to introduce another word you will no doubt find annoyingly intellectual. You love to pick out silly phrases you don’t understand, but get bitter if someone else actually does, and go all ‘salt of the earth’ as a supposed way of undercutting what you see as intellectualism. And you accuse me of this. I never claim to be intellectual. Sorry if I use big words every now and again, it’s just a consequence of having an adult vocabulary. Hell, I even had to look up the word mendacity yesterday, but I didn’t hear you screaming intellectual at Adolph for using it.
I am not assured in my intelligence at all, and I don’t know where you get that idea. I think intelligence is far less important than character and style. You are living proof that anyone can look something up on wikipedia, which shows what cheap currency your ‘facts’ are. I sense deep insecurity in this accusation by you.
You know sweet fuck all about me, and make constant false assumptions. I don’t know anything about you and am quite happy about it. I don’t need to know if you have a job or are a bum or gay or a stoner or a lawyer. It’s all irrelevant. I just dislike your online persona, which may be no reflection at all of you as a person.
You plug the rightist line like you’ve just read ‘capitalism for dummies’ but stopped before you got to the critique section. You are very quick to extend unlimited benefit of the doubt to the entire war on terror and every fucker involved, but not one tiny bit to anyone else. You like to chop logic without the tiniest clue how, which leads to threads which remind me of why I hated teaching contrary children maths.
But all that’s just you trying to fit in here and fairly forgiveable. What I really don’t like is how you go off on massive long tangential assumptions about what people think or meant off the tiniest piece of evidence, and then hang on out of sheer tenacity until people get bored and leave you to it.
Your Jay crack here is a classic example – Yes I know it was some little punk online calling their comic book personas clown shoes (were you being that punk, in your mind?). And my crack was simply to imply you’re a silly pothead if you use a phrase like clown shoes without even knowing what it means. Clown shoes are people trying to be funny who aren’t, but you used it as a follow up to “Once again you refuse to accept reality so you invent your own”. Mmmm, witty. Actually, it’s clown shoes, a perfect example, and also a perfect example of projection. Look it up this time.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
“See ya.”
Didnt realise you would be back so soon.
I didnt so much drop the “logic shite” (by which I expect you are refering to the comments where I showed that you were, as usual, using circular reasoning to reinforce your unfounded beliefs) because I figured it was a waste of time as you never listen anyway and you said you were leaving.
The term clown shoes can be extended to include those who are trying desperatly to be one thing, but fail patheticly. It is the quiet desperation that I find to be most powerful within the metaphor. You so desperately want your poorly thought out political insights to be taken seriously, but you fail miserably because of your irrationality and reflexive positioning.
I only read the first sentence of your latest post BW, and the last (couldnt help it, it was at the top of the screen when I typed this and I instinctivly read everything I see). I can only hope that in between you have provided more justification for saying that National despises Peters as some sort of ex-lover than simply you think it is so and you think it is proven so by Nationals failure to endorse Peters. Or explain if we are really lucky, you could describe to us the situation that would disprove your assertion.
You have had ample opportunity to do so and have failed, so I dont hold out much hope. Anyway, this is my last comment on this topic, dont bother raising it anywhere else either. If you are reading this, Ben (and I know you are), you can have the last word, I will never read it and I dont think I will have missed much.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Cheers, I will have the last word, since ‘see ya’ was premised on you having flipped into infinite parse mode, but you flipped out again and went straight for ad hominem mode – and I’m a sucker for that.
I’m not surprised you have yet another personal definition for a public phrase, that being another annoying trait of yours.
Nor am I surprised you didn’t read the post but want to rag it out anyway, that’s been a theme for you this entire thread. Actually for the entire time I’ve known you. You probably also didn’t read the one where I gave my ‘logic’ after you couldn’t give up mangling some straw man to death, in the ultimate hope of getting the flame response from me. You got it. I hope you liked it.
Congratulations for getting me steamed enough for such a concerted personal attack. You really fucken asked for it, and I really couldn’t give a fuck if it hurts your feelings. Don’t insult people if you can’t take it back, son.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 7:20 am
“Genius, Winston is to the right of National on many issues. I stick by my traitor analysis.”
Ben – Im a bit confused about your definition of left and right it seems to be foreign to me. Maybe you mean social conservatives in the same way that the national party is to the right (by a mile) of ACT. In which case united future is the far right of NZ politics – Im sure that confuses UF voters….
I think the majority of politically active national people see it as fairly clearly Labour NZF National ACT and look at it in desired tax take (to be simple) sort of terms.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Yeah sorry about that. It’s confusing. Left/right is such a sweeping generalization. I was using a 2D model, and it’s a fair cop that it’s pushing it to call an up/down axis left/right. I was just putting National into the broad right camp and letting the names hinge around that. What I meant was ‘Winston is less socially permissive than national’. But he’s less economically permissive too, which he shares with Labour. To me, his social policy is what has come to define him, even though I actually think the economic policy is more important to him.
Vote: