Labour calling people corrupt

September 21st, 2006 at 7:41 am by David Farrar

Helen Clark claims that calling her Government corrupt is somehow the lowest of the low, something no decent Opposition should ever do. This is of course self serving pap as people will recall her MPs accusing Jenny Shipley of taking bribes to give the tourism board contract to Saatchis and Mallard’s constant allegations that National sells policies.

She justifies her attack on Don Brash by saying the use of the word “corruption” against was “intolerable and had no place in a Western democracy”.

But anyway I thought I would take a very quick look through Hansard in the late 90s. And in a few minutes alone I find these. Perhaps a journalist might want to quote some of these back at Helen the next time she pretends to be outraged.:

CLARK: There is, I believe, jolly close to corruption in the Fire Service Commission over the role played by the chair of the commission

MALLARD: Today we had the stench that is surrounding this rotten Government. We had Mr McCully and the revelations about the behaviour of one of the senior officers of this Parliament. That approach will taint the Prime Minister, and while she may have had a sweet summer, what we will see in the end is a collapse because of her own inability to run a Government that is seen to be clear of the greed, the graft, and the corruption that New Zealanders think surround this place.

Mr Mallard was yelling across the House: “Pack of crooks.”

TREVOR MALLARD: It is absolutely outrageous. It is the sort of corruption that we would expect in countries like Indonesia. We would not expect that level of corruption in any OECD country.

Trevor Mallard: Why does she stand by her Minister after he issued a threat in an attempt to obtain funding for an application, outside guidelines and precedents, for a group that involved two very close relatives, and does she accept that in most democracies such action would be regarded as corrupt?

TREVOR MALLARD: I am making an allegation of corruption

MALLARD: There is only one way the Minister could have studied those balance sheets and that is through his role as Minister of Tourism. If a public official anywhere else in the world took advantage of his public position to obtain documentation that was not made available publicly, then attempted to take advantage of that for his personal and private benefit, it would be insider trading or corruption.

And finally we have two hypocrisy awards for Labour:

Hon. TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it quite clear that it has often been ruled in this House that linking actions of members to corporate donations to a party, and suggesting quite directly that people are acting as a result of those donations, is out of order.

Yes that is Trevor in 2000 saying it is wrong to link actions of MPs to corproate donations. What hypocrisy considering he has explicitly made such allegations on multiple occassions recently.

I put it to the House that the Prime Minister has been central to the development of a strategy that sees the National Party freeloading off public money devoted not to the promotion of New Zealand but to the attempt to resurrect a failed, dying Government.

And the supreme award goes to this statement accusing Shipley’s Government of freeloading off public money!!!

Tags:

84 Responses to “Labour calling people corrupt”

  1. Cretean () says:

    Typical right winger kiddies. You dish it out with relish, but squeal when you have to suck it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Farrar () says:

    Umm Cretean – are you a total moron or just a partial one?

    What the above demonstrates is that Labour are the ones who have dished it out and are squealing when the blowtorch hits them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Put it away () says:

    Cretin, that was the single most desperate, lame and totally missing the point comment I’ve ever seen on this blog. Congratulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. GPT () says:

    Well done DPF. Let’s hope the National Research Office links to this blog as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. culma () says:

    I have to congratulate Helen Clark, Oh this is one clever piece.

    So far in the last couple of weeks she has placed as cannon fodder, Pete Hodson, Trevor Mallard, and her present husband.

    Now where are we with the Phillip Field corruption case, the one that Labour fitted up so as to not have a result!

    Where are we at with the repayment of the $800,000 that Labour removed from public coffers. Have we had this repaid?

    National – forget who Clark is throwing up to take the bullets, get up and mow the bastards down with the real issues.
    The country don’t give a rats ass if Clarks husband is more in tune with her cabinet than she is, get on and finish the job.

    You’ve done the hard yards now close the deal!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. sonic () says:

    Shorter DPF

    National calls Labour corrupt =Calling a spade a spade, perfectly reasonable.

    Labour calls National on anything = An slur that should be shunned by all decent people, this government has to go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Billy () says:

    Sonic,

    Ay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Jordan () says:

    Is that all you can come up with, David? And how many times have your caucus accused us of the same in three sitting weeks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. culma () says:

    DPF – speaking of corruption, If the present Labour Govt are thrown out shortly.
    I presume the money’s they have removed from public coffers for their own use will be debited from the accounts of the Labour party, and if insufficient funds are available then Clark will be held personally responsible for repayment. Fair call.

    I for one don’t consider it a fair trade giving up Clark’s head as a trade for stolen taxpayer dollars, She is on the way out anyway, but the cash needs to be repaid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Monty () says:

    Jordan – I think the point is that labour are totally hypocrites – the blow-torch is on this corrupt labour government big time – you dish it but cannot take it –

    Like all bullies – labour are also cowards – they are spineless and can’t debate the issues, so they continue to stoop to personal attacks – and with Helen becoming more unstable each day the attacks are becoming more venal and I think she is about to go over the edge – she just needs a little more probing and poking (no pun intended).

    Everything that is going on, is of labour own making, because the real debate is the election fraud to the tune of $800,000 stolen money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. sonic () says:

    “If the present Labour Govt are thrown out shortly”

    Don’t hold you breath Culma. I think it is pretty obvious which party leader will be out of a job first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ten Cents () says:

    I am waiting for Don Brash and co. to do this a lot more in the house.

    Poodle Peters and Labour selectively dredge the 90’s Hansards all the time.

    Likewise ‘serious’ journalists like Susan Wood could have a field day if they could be bothered doing any research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ed Snack () says:

    Jordan, what a piss weak evasion. Why is your “dear leader” squealing like a stuck pig about being accused of corruption. The claim she makes that “the use of the word “corruption” against Labour was “intolerable and had no place in a Western democracy”.” shows her, you, sonic, and all the other Labour sychophants up as utter hypocrits.

    As DPF says, you can dish it out happily enough, but you can’t take it in return.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Budgieboy () says:

    Sonic… as usual you fail to address the actual post, and it’s a very fair one … Dear Leaders hypocrisy is simply breathtaking… much like your woeful and blinkered attempt to defend or distract from it.

    And Jordan: “Is that all you can come up with, David?”
    For Gods sake, what he has ‘come up with’ (after the briefest of searches) is the very behaviour you lot seem to think is reprehensible. (But only when you receive it, not when you dish it)

    Interestingly I have no recollection of Jenny Shipley going feral at the time either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ten Cents () says:

    I am waiting for Don Brash and co. to do this a lot more in the house.

    Poodle Peters and Labour selectively dredge the 90’s Hansards all the time.

    Likewise ‘serious’ journalists like Susan Wood could have a field day if they could be bothered doing any research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Craig Ranapia () says:

    It seems for Messers Carter, Sonic & Cretean it’s dirty pool to test the Prime Minister’s unambiguous, oft’ repeated standard for ‘civilized political discourse’ against her own record of public stratements as a front-bench Labour spokesperson and Leader of the Opposition between 1990 and 1999.

    Here’s the gold standard for the benefit of the Labour party hacks out there: To describe the conduct of the Government, or any member of that Government, as ‘corrupt’ is “a vicious smear”, “personality politics” and “intolerable in a Western democracy.”

    Either this has always been the standard that the parliamentary Labour Party operates under, or there was some point where it all changed. It’s quite legitimate to ask whether Helen Clark’s standards of Parliamentary discourse depend on which side of the House she’s sitting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross () says:

    “Likewise ‘serious’ journalists like Susan Wood could have a field day if they could be bothered doing any research”.

    Serious journalists and Susan Wood should never ever be used in the same sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. neil morrison () says:

    I just can’t see what on earth got into Clark with the “cancerous” statement. After going on about how she wanted things cleaned up and how it was all the fault of Naitonal she then calls Brash “cancerous” and expects us to think it wasn’t meant as a personal attack.

    It’s beyond belief. And I’m not sure which is worse, thinking she actually believes this or thinking she doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. culma () says:

    Sonic – the TEFLON on Clark’s suits have worn off and the shit is now sticking, she can keep hiding behind the idiots she has surrounded herself with, but the crap is still getting through.

    General feeling on the street is every time she opens her mouth someone should stick something in it just to shut her up. Her days are numbered.

    Even you must have realised the bullshit over Phillip Field the theft of taxpayer dollars, miss management of the prison services revamp, the dropping of patient waiting lists by DHB’s this has eroded the platform she got in on.
    She’s gone son, get used to it!

    One way to sort out which of us is right would be a snap election, right now lets see if its you or me vacillating shall we!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. sonic () says:

    “General feeling on the street is every time she opens her mouth someone should stick something in it just to shut her up”

    Perhaps in your street mate, but not on mine.

    Easy to test though, of you want to mobilise the “power of the street” organise a mass demonstration. If the right-wing can do it in Hungary why not here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. neil morrison () says:

    Great analogy Sonic, you do know off course why there were “rigth-wing” protests against the Hungarian PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Seamonkey Madness () says:

    Serious journalists and Susan Wood should never ever be used in the same sentence.

    Reminds me of a time when she asked Micheal J. Fox if his lack of height gave him an advantage in getting roles as short characters, and then looked at him with her doe eyes all a-flutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Murray () says:

    Actually the VRWC all have JOB’s sonic.

    That why were not sitting on the comments likes its a bloody egg.

    sonic SIT!

    Good boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. culma () says:

    Sonic – It’s not productive for the country as a whole for the right to march on parliament, simple arithmetic 10,000 people take a day off work to protest = 10,000 lost days productivity + travel so conceivably up to 30,000 days lost productivity.

    For lefties to do the same well you don’t lose a damn thing do you, when the unions protested recently what was lost, sweet FA, they are paid by hard working Kiwi’s, protests don’t achieve jack.

    lets just cut through the shit, lets go back to the polls, if I’m wrong that makes you right and she gets another 3 years, those are the odds, you have a win-win here son go for it, lets see what the people say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. sonic () says:

    “Actually the VRWC all have JOB’s”

    And I assume the also have WEEKENDS?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. brian_smaller () says:

    Actually sonic, as a member of the VRWC I also have work on weekends. When I take the time out for my kid’s sporting activities it doesn’t leave a lot of time for plotting. Perhaps I should get a government job like yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. virginblogger () says:

    Just when you think it can’t get any worse labour sinks to another new all time low.

    A few weeks ago Darnton stated that Clark broke the basic rules that separate democracy from dictatorship – how accurate he was is now becoming increasingly apparent.

    Everything they have done is to attack the attacker because they simply cannot defend their actions. Even some labour supporters have to question the level of corruption of this government.

    Any criticism levelled at Clark she can’t take and she is talking about banning freedom of speech so no-one can criticse her in the media. What is she on?

    The latest flip from “we don’t muck rake” to the vindictive comment about Brash just shows her for the lying hypocritical mad cow she is

    We should remember that prior to the attack on Brash weeks ago that ugly rumours were flying around about stolen emails. Come on Helen – labour started all this.
    Pay our money back

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic:

    I appoint you my bargaining agent to explain to my boss what a ‘weekend’ is, and why I should never be rostered on a day beginning with S. Bugger about that ‘available to work on weekends’ clause in my contract though – where’s Lila Haare when you need her? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. sonic () says:

    So the argument seems to be that while, of course, the right could mobilise thousands on the streets they are all a little too busy.

    Fair enough then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Antarctic Lemur () says:

    Mallard said some National Party members were supporting a corruption in 2003:
    http://www.sirhumphreys.com/antarctic_lemur/2006/sep/20/corruption

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. culma () says:

    Sonic – that doesn’t even rate a response.

    Now when is the money that Labour removed from the public coffers to be repaid?

    Here’s a radical thought “why don’t Labour repay the money”.
    If it is found they are correct, then they can have it reissued once the courts have sorted it out. This would show a level of integrity this Govt has never shown before and also show they aren’t making it up as they go along.

    Bloody Brilliant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. virginblogger () says:

    culma
    integrity and government never go in the same sentence….you know that

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. sonic () says:

    “Sonic – that doesn’t even rate a response.”

    Thats what I usually say when I am outsmarted too!

    xxx

    S

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. phillipjohn () says:

    The right will never protest significantly, a because they’ve all got their heads in the trough, they’ve got their beer, SUV and the next Allblacks game to look forward to, bunch of apolitical hyper-consumerists.. Besides, the right are having a great time of it New Zealand. Income inequality between the poorest 20% and richest 20% has nearly doubled in the last 20 years and the gap continues to grow under Labour (see the 2006 social development report). News that you will be glad of I’m sure Mr Farrar. The closest thing we’ve seen to a right wing protest in this country in the last 50 years is the Destiny Church’s fascist march on parliament last year.

    The message that the public will take out of this is that they (politicians) are all as bad as each other, people will revert back to looking at policy, and unless National moves from its position on the far right wee will have another centre left government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. culma () says:

    Sonic why not respond to this comment
    instead of silly little quips like that – c’mon son get with the programme. I’ve put it below for you to rebut, give it a shot.

    Now when is the money that Labour removed from the public coffers to be repaid?

    Here’s a radical thought “why don’t Labour repay the money”.
    If it is found they are correct, then they can have it reissued once the courts have sorted it out. This would show a level of integrity this Govt has never shown before and also show they aren’t making it up as they go along.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. side show bob () says:

    Sonic do you ever do any work?. Sorry mate but your dream is over there will never be a socislist republic of New Zealand the Dear Leader is certifiable, oh thats right they have shut all the nut houses down.
    Get out mate while you can, get a hair cut and get a real job, prehaps a job with Womans day they are always looking for a good ficton writter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Monty () says:

    PJ the rich cannot help but get richer as we have worked to accumulate assets (most often from nothing) and those assets grow in value. the poor on the other hand do not have the skills, intelligence, ambition, risk to accumulate wealth. Therefore until the popele set themselves goals, they will remain at the bottom of the heap no matter who is in government.

    I started 15 years ago with nothing and have built a modest nest-egg that I will continue to grow. But I want to have and retain and enjoy the benefits of my efforts – not have them stolen by a socialist government to give to well off irish catholics who have decided to have lots of children or worse beneficaries.

    (by the way i am an Irish Catholic with children – but i do not take WFF)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. virginblogger () says:

    looks like more dirt due out about the EB’s from labour….stop attacking and start defending your actions labour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. virginblogger () says:

    here’s an idea – why don’t labour round up everyone they don’t like or has upset their delicate little feelings by calling them corrupt and liars, and stick them all on Waiheke in an Alcatraz. That sort of social engineering would solve their pesky little problem and then they wouldn’t need to ban free speech. Then they just have to deal with South Auckland…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. DavidW () says:

    phillipjohn
    your life in acadaemia awaits

    When the productive work twice as hard, they tend to accumulate the remains of that effort (after Government has taken its multiple slices). When the unproductive make no effort but to rely on handouts, of course the gap will grow.

    Just remember that without the efforts of the productive you would have no (interest free or any other sort)student loans and no institutional salaries.

    You of all people should be looking to the times whhen acadaemia flourished and the great Universities were places of original thought and science. Try a correlation of those times with economic advances and industrialisation, the creation of wealth and philanthropy.

    Instead you cower in your sad little socialist world complaining that others are getting more than their share of the cake. Little Red Hen springs to mind each time you post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. phillipjohn () says:

    Actually David and Monty, wealth inequality decreased during the 50s, 60s and 70s. Why? Well primarily because of the governments policy of full employment and a strong union movement. Income inequality is on the rise and It will remain that way for the foreseeable future, but it will reach a tipping point. For the bottom 60% of income earners in this country wage increases have averaged out below the average level of inflation for the last 15 years. This can only continue for so long before people start to realise that no one can afford to buy a home and we have to work 50+ hours a week to make ends meet. NZ’s richest people often don’t get to their position through honest hard work. i.e. Michale fay and David Richwhite (NZBR) along with roger douglass and richard prebble (4th labour government) and rodger kerr (then treasure department, now NZBR) were the principal people involved with the selling New Zealand’s State Owned assets to Fay and Richwight at bargain basement prices, who then sold the assets to foreign owners profiting hundreds of millions while barely lifting a finger. It is often said that Fay and Richwhite had “a monopoly on free enterprise” in New Zealand. This is the most corrupt political activity that I am aware of in New Zealand political history. BTW, Fay and Richwight originally became millionaires through speculating on the stock market – all that was needed was a few thousand from mummy and daddy and a keen interest in the markets, where was the hard work?

    Don’t believe it? Read “New Rights New Zealand Myths, Moralities and Markets.” Paul Morris (Author), Dolores Janiewski (Author).

    This is mandatory reading for anyone serious about understanding New Zealand politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. virginblogger () says:

    been given a book about how to abuse in latin & here’s a quote from Plautus, Miles Gloriosus (whoever he was)
    ‘Nam Mulier Holitori Numquam Supplicat, Si Quast Mala Domi Habet Hortum Et Condimenta Ad Omnis Mores Maleficos…..’

    meaning…

    ‘A truly evil woman does not need to beg at the apothecary’s door for her supplies: in her own back yard she cultivates sauces to complement every sort of sin…..’

    or

    ‘Fur! Etiam Fur! Trifurcifer’…meaning….’Thief! Thief of Thieves@ Thief, thief thief!’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. sonic () says:

    Ad hominem, the last resort of the loser.

    I’ve got a lovely job thanks, one that I am good enough at so that I have lots of lovely spare time.

    Perhaps people like side show bob should have studied a bit harder, then they would not have to slave so much.

    xxx

    S

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. virginblogger () says:

    I quote from wikipedia “Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks.”

    critical thinking hmn so why the hell is sonic using it??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kiwi_donkey () says:

    Sonic: Ad hominem, the last resort of the loser

    Ha ha ha ! All in one sentence too. You oxymoron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. sonic () says:

    argumentum ad hominem involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

    Got that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. virbinblogger () says:

    I lift from wilipedia again

    Ad hominem
    You-too version
    This form of the argument is as follows:

    A makes criticism P.
    A is also guilty of P.
    Therefore, P is dismissed.

    so if we apply thatto NZ politics
    H makes criticism of B
    H is also guilty of T
    Therefore, H is dismissed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. AGJ () says:

    Wow Sonic your cut and paste skills are amazing.

    Got that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. culma () says:

    VB – don’t get caught up in it, ask sonic simple questions.

    The lefts attempt to justify is to divert. Divert the challenge and the reason for the argument is lost.

    Simple thrust and parry. Clark thrusts out poisonous bile, then parries the reply onto Mallard, Hodson and co.

    Sonic – answer this one for me – Labour pay back the money, wait for the legal challenge to sort out the mess, if Clark was right then Labour will be credited the amount repayed. Lets not forget this isn’t the only election Labour have over used public money’s to fund an election campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. virginblogger () says:

    just playing … and i can see why they would have to be simple questions:)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. sonic () says:

    I’ve said it before Culma, if the spending is illegal they should pay it back.

    Paying it back in advance sounds a bit weird though, like paying a fine before you are fond guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. DavidW () says:

    Tell that to the ird sonic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kimble () says:

    Phillipjohn stop wasting your time. Do you really think that at the standard of living we have in NZ, that people actually give a shit about income inequality?!?

    The reason we cant afford homes has ZERO to do with income inequality and everything to do with demand outstripping supply driving PRICES up! BASIC!

    Sure inequality in places such as India (where it is culturally acceptable to discriminate against a particular part of society) and other third world countries is disturbing. But the even the lowest decile standard of living in New Zealand is high enough for people to live in the top quartile of all people on the planet. Do you think it is a tragedy that some people can afford Sky and some cant? Is it a tragedy that some people can eat steak every night of the week and some people have to make do with Basics?

    “NZ’s richest people often don’t get to their position through honest hard work”

    You have no idea how the rich get rich, do you? It is fairly obvious that you subscribe to the “they are only rich because they are bleeding the poor” fallacy. I reckon anyone who believes that should not include themselves in the group of people who are serious about politics.

    All they needed was a few thousand from mummy and daddy and a keen interest? What the fuck are you blathering about? Is it completely beyond your comprehension that money can be earned by taking on RISK and by thinking as well as physical labour. Anyone who speculates on shares is taking on risk. Any profits are simply compensation for the risk of the losses. They can reduce the risk using knowledge and skill.

    It is childish to demand that all money received be earned through hard work. Grow up and realise that the people who get rich wont be the ones who work the hardest, they will be the ones who worked the smartest and that no one ever got rich by working in a factory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. phillipjohn () says:

    Blah blah fucking blah kimble, I would respond with an argument but I would prefer to argue with someone who can make an intelligent point. Let me guess, you didn’t do too well at school right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. culma () says:

    VB – it just gets him and a few of his personalities excited, next thing you end up with a flurry of posts, buckets of dribble and a big mess, actually very much like Helen Clark.
    So can you wait till later to indulging him, as I will have retired for the day. Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. virginblogger () says:

    lol actually I have it on “good authority from a credible source” that sonic IS in fact Helen Clark

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Camryn () says:

    Kimble, it seems you didn’t realise that PJ has a monopoly on intelligent thought. If he doesn’t understand or agree, you must be unintelligent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. AGJ () says:

    Kimble – 1 PJ – 0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. gd () says:

    Its interesting that those sad puppies who babble on about the nasty rich arent so anti that they will refuse to accept the handouts that result from their contributions.The usual equation is the louder their bleating the greater the percentage of receipts from the OBE ( other buggers efforts for the benefit of the Socialists)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Graham Miller () says:

    DPF: any reason why I can’t post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Graham Miller () says:

    Hey PJ – I hesitate to refer to the “marketplace of ideas” cliche, as you’re obviously very anti-market, what with peak oil and all, but didn’t they teach you that academic debate involves being exposed to alternative points of view? Graham Hart once drove trucks for a living before he decided to take on greater risks for greater rewards. Where did he go wrong, do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Insolent Prick () says:

    Phillipjohn:

    As an accomplished academic, and a leading political scientist in New Zealand, I expect a little more from you than a quote from Paul Morris on New Zealand politics.

    Paul Morris is a professor of religious studies. He is not an authority on New Zealand politics. I’m surprised that you would credit him with writing a mandatory text on New Zealand politics.

    Some of Paul Morris’ recent geopolitical predictions have included claims that the United States would invade China in order to free Tibet.

    Dolores Janiewski is an associate professor of history.

    Surely, phillipjohn, you could come up with an academic dissertation by actual political scientists, rather than two left-wing academics with no political science expertise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. culma () says:

    qd – when Clark opened her mouth the other day and spewed forth bile about accountants and directors on golf courses being behind the National party, I had a wee chuckle.

    Didn’t Helen Clark and Labour use Micheal Campbell in their election advertising campaign at the last election, whats she going to do next. Alienate actors and kill off the support of the likes of Sam Neil?

    Both of these two fall into the category you speak of “the dreaded nasty Rich”.
    She couldn’t buy a trick at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. sonic () says:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00241.htm

    EB in Sweden, and who would have believed it they ran a secret campaign with millions of Kroner to do in the lefty candidate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. culma () says:

    sonic – you are a card,
    -the brethren in NZ are known as the Plymouth Brethren in Sweden
    – in the USA they are known as KKK
    -in Afghanistan they are known as Al Qaeda.
    Shit mate you are onto something here, I’d be off to help out in Sweden if I were you.
    look at the source for fucks sake. get a grip.
    Brown has just fucked up quoting unsubstantiated claims, what is it with you guys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Darren () says:

    Sonic you really keep up with the play, don’t you?
    Chefen over at Sir Humphreys commented on this yesterday. He lives over there in Sweden and says their impact on the election was marginal and ignored by the MSM too.
    The Social Democrats were well on the ropes thanks largely to a ‘we know best ‘ attitude that seems to sum up our own Liar-bour Party pretty well.
    Helen Clark is again coming up with EB Red herrings today. If she has proof then she should come out with it.
    Anyway, what is wrong with the EB spending their own money.
    At least they are not raiding taxpayers pockets like Dear Leader does.
    The EB in NZ even checked with the Electoral Commission about whether they should promote National but were told this would add to National spending, so the EB campaigns went anti-left.
    Liarbour had ample opportunity to check whether its own spoending was legitimate, but did not.
    Now, government agency after government agency finds Liarbour broke the law.
    And now they want to change the law to validate their unlawful expenditure.
    But by wanting to change the law, doesn’t this show that deep down the party knows that they broke the law. For if Liarbour’s election spending was legal, it would not need to change the law, would it?
    Liarbour used taxpayer funds to steal an election.
    The message I have to the PM is Pay It Back. You are a corrupt leader, running a corrupt government. You and your government also reek of hypocracy as well. For the good of God and New Zealand, go! And take your shabby ministers with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. culma () says:

    Darren – sorry mate but if you don’t agree with the hedgehog on “P” then you are wasting your breath, his way of dealing with the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. virginblogger () says:

    couldn’t put it better Darren but sadly the lefties will never see through the Red Riding Hood cloak of corruption

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. phillipjohn () says:

    “Paul Morris is a professor of religious studies. He is not an authority on New Zealand politics. I’m surprised that you would credit him with writing a mandatory text on New Zealand politics. Dolores Janiewski is an associate professor of history.”

    Yeah it is funny, don’t know why Morriss was involve in the project, he doesn’t seem to have contributed a whole lot apart from drawing some parallels between the new right’s dogmatic faith in markets and various aspects of christianity. From what I can tell Janiewski is the main contributor. BTW there’s nothing mutually exclusive about feilds of scholarship in political studies and history you know. i.e. certainly there’s no reason why a professor of history wouldn’t be able to accomplish a study of NZ political history as well as a political studies professor might.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. sonic () says:

    Weird that the EB seem to be interfering in elections all over the world.

    We can argue about their effectiveness however do you not find it interesting that this cult, who do not vote or stand for election themselves, seem desperate to help right wing parties all over the planet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. side show bob () says:

    Sonic, you are quite right I’m no einstein, having worked all my life and been lucky enough never to draw welfare.But I didn’t have to go to bloody university for 7 years to know when I am getting screwed over by the likes of Dear Leader and her gallery of fools.
    I have known people who have more brains then a bull can shit but when it came to the every day living they couldn’t save themselves, some of the people that pass themselves off as academics in NZ spring to mind. As for slaving, I don’t mind working it’s all the other arseholes that I’m force to support that pisses me off. No doubt you are one of these people that has been supported by the taxpayer, maybe not now but when you got your so called education. Sonic you pass youself off as been some sort of academic but you remind me more of an African animal that is known to spend a large part of it’s life with it’s head in the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Billy () says:

    I don’t find it interesting, Sonic. It just seems sensible.

    They’re weird and not very nice. We geddit. We agree with you.

    They don’t like Labour. There’s not much to commend Labour at the moment even if you are not a religious nut.

    The EBs spent their own money. National couldn’t have stopped them even if they wanted to.

    I suspect National wishes the EBs hadn’t involved themselves now since Labour seem to be using them as a universal get out of jail card for everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Billy () says:

    And Sonic, I like the kisses, can you use them every time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. cubit9f () says:

    The past two weeks have seen more personal investment in the political process by just about all politicians to dealing with issues that they thrive on. i.e. the political power game.

    I just want to see a commensurate level of investment at any time in quality governance. If this were the board of any corporate they would be on the street with no possibility of alternative employment.

    Frankly it is pathetic and many of the comments made on this blog by their fellow travellers and sycophants simply place them in a similar set of circumstances.

    Lets get back to the main game – sound government. – God what a ridiculous notion!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Insolent Prick () says:

    Phillipjohn:

    I did expect that you, as an accomplished academic with very prestigious scholarly credentials, would know why the Janiewski-Morris collaboration took place.

    It is because they are both committed socialists.

    You seem to be committed to recommending only texts that confirm your idealogical position. As a distinguished academic, I would have thought you might encourage more free-thinking, and encourage people to read things, as you surely do, that are ideologically opposed to their world views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kiwi Bloke () says:

    David, I hope you ring Close Up and bring the Hansard to the attention of the producer. That would be a great way of pinning Helen Clark down.

    Can’t wait for Close Up tonight. I hope Helen’s evil streak surfaces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SPC () says:

    There is a well known saying about assumptions – those who assume too much and who are taken too seriously, make an ass out of many.

    Donald Brash keeps using the corruption word. He keeps saying that there was some wrongdoing in the use of tax funding for campaign spending (even though this was done by National in 2002 and why this was different in 2005 has yet to be explained). It’s all based on ititial advice and opinions in an audit process. One which is based on consultation and inter-communication between parties. The AG has already shown flexibility in this process.

    Given Donald Brash’s assumptions are based on the AG sustaining his advice/opinion throughout the process (and he has not on other matters), WHY his constant presumption that the AG will not change his mind, or at least qualify his stand, on the LF matter?

    Given the assumption and the presumption are an important basis for the corruption line, maybe hwe should consider showing more respect for the process. No jury would have been allowed to witness media reporting of Brash’s performance, if this had been a court matter. He talks about respecting the officials, when it is he who has not done so, or respected the process of the officials work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. David Farrar () says:

    Umm Cretean – are you a total moron or just a partial one?

    What the above demonstrates is that Labour are the ones who have dished it out and are squealing when the blowtorch hits them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Graham Miller () says:

    SPC

    I’ll give you part of a loaf of bread: I agree that the A-G should have space to finalise his report.

    But you seem to miss a critical point: just because something was acceptable in 2002 doesn’t mean that it *must* be unacceptable in 2005. Presumably you mean to say that it shouldn’t be declared unacceptable ex post facto. So would you be happy if A-G “clarified” the rules ex ante so all parties can apply the revised interpretation in 2008?

    And there’s a more fundamental point. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the A-G’s final report is in line with his provisional one. How is that any different to a court ruling reversing a previous understanding of a particular area of the law? Commercial parties contract on the basis of their understanding of a particular set of rights and obligations. That doesn’t mean that a court can’t reach a contrary view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Graham Miller () says:

    Hmmm… point of clarification: *must* should read *can’t*

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SPC () says:

    IMO people would welcome some quite public declaration and elaboration of the rules applying for the 2008 election.

    Given the court case about PS spending, SC debate about proposed new
    campaign funding rules – some more public statement about the campaign spending regulations applying in 2008, involving a gathering of all parties and involving some media oversight for us, would also be advisable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Seen the front page of today’s Herald, SPC – the story headlines ‘That’s not true, says official to Clark’?

    MONEY QUOTE:
    Auditor-General Kevin Brady has contradicted the Prime Minister’s claim that he backs Labour’s plan to pass a backdated law validating unlawful spending in last year’s election campaign.

    In a rare move, Mr Brady yesterday denied Helen Clark’s suggestion that he had privately told an unnamed party leader that this was the course to take.

    “I would never say that,” Mr Brady said when contacted by the Herald.

    “That’s not my decision to make, or even get involved in.”

    He acknowledged retrospective legislation was an option, but said he had no view on what should happen.

    “I don’t even have that view, let alone would say it.”

    Helen Clark’s office last night stood by her claim, and said Mr Brady’s denial was “completely contrary” to what she had been told by a party leader, whom she refused to name [emphasis mine].
    END QUOTE

    Full story at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10402462

    So, if Helen Clark doesn’t like being called ‘corrupt’ how does she like being called a liar? It’s not too complicated: Clark and Brasy can’t both be telling the truth, and it’s time for her start outing these ‘credible persons’ who keep getting contradicted by people who are willing to talk on the record.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Fredemn () says:

    I just discovered your website, and I must say, I like it very much. Possibly, because, to my mind, there are some similarities to my style. Great thanks! Best wishes.

    buy viagra

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Fredmsz () says:

    I just discovered your website, and I must say, I like it very much. Possibly, because, to my mind, there are some similarities to my style. Great thanks! Best wishes.

    http://spartan.cis.temple.edu/synergy/_knobas/0000031e.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.