Have a lovely day
*Anna.

You are still doing a good job as propaganda writer, son…
using all the old tricks in the book.

But, who can take you serious with statement like:
-”It Is Becoming Clear that …… Seems Based Entirely”
make up your mind, its either clear Or it seems.

-”has in No Way gained confirmation from Anyone as to the context of Some of them”
he has used the resources and methods he could use, nothing more, nothing less.
or are you just sad that he didn’t call you for your deep insight comments again?

And “he can’t prove it, so its not true!, if i don’t want it to be” comments like:
-”but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion”
-”Can Hager verify his assertion?”

You see… its not up to the writer to prove things to people who don’t even want to acknowledge the option.
Its up to the reader to make up his/her own mind,
and those who don’t want it to be true will find ways to deny/dismiss facts any time of the day.

The poor Ex_MP and his smiling successors stand accused of some rather serious braking of laws and fooling the people they say they represent, and it seems that they are to clear their name if they can do so.

Pulling the very old Stalinists propaganda trick “we can prove one item on the long list to be no entirely true, so now we will dismiss all information”, should be left at kindergarten where it belongs.

Which leads me to conclude again,
that you sound and act more like a religious fanatic then a man who uses common sense to look at each issue with an open mind.

I guess you still have the billboard defacing articles hanging above your bed, reminding you of your great, playing victim, spin-doctor achievements.

Big Hug to you, because you seem to lack some love in your life..
*Anna.

You are still doing a good job as propaganda writer, son…
using all the old tricks in the book.

But, who can take you serious with statement like:
-”It Is Becoming Clear that …… Seems Based Entirely”
make up your mind, its either clear Or it seems.

-”has in No Way gained confirmation from Anyone as to the context of Some of them”
he has used the resources and methods he could use, nothing more, nothing less.
or are you just sad that he didn’t call you for your deep insight comments again?

And “he can’t prove it, so its not true!, if i don’t want it to be” comments like:
-”but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion”
-”Can Hager verify his assertion?”

You see… its not up to the writer to prove things to people who don’t even want to acknowledge the option.
Its up to the reader to make up his/her own mind,
and those who don’t want it to be true will find ways to deny/dismiss facts any time of the day.

The poor Ex_MP and his smiling successors stand accused of some rather serious braking of laws and fooling the people they say they represent, and it seems that they are to clear their name if they can do so.

Pulling the very old Stalinists propaganda trick “we can prove one item on the long list to be no entirely true, so now we will dismiss all information”, should be left at kindergarten where it belongs.

Which leads me to conclude again,
that you sound and act more like a religious fanatic then a man who uses common sense to look at each issue with an open mind.

I guess you still have the billboard defacing articles hanging above your bed, reminding you of your great, playing victim, spin-doctor achievements.

Big Hug to you, because you seem to lack some love in your life..
*Anna.

You are still doing a good job as propaganda writer, son…
using all the old tricks in the book.

But, who can take you serious with statement like:
-”It Is Becoming Clear that …… Seems Based Entirely”
make up your mind, its either clear Or it seems.

-”has in No Way gained confirmation from Anyone as to the context of Some of them”
he has used the resources and methods he could use, nothing more, nothing less.
or are you just sad that he didn’t call you for your deep insight comments again?

And “he can’t prove it, so its not true!, if i don’t want it to be” comments like:
-”but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion”
-”Can Hager verify his assertion?”

You see… its not up to the writer to prove things to people who don’t even want to acknowledge the option.
Its up to the reader to make up his/her own mind,
and those who don’t want it to be true will find ways to deny/dismiss facts any time of the day.

The poor Ex_MP and his smiling successors stand accused of some rather serious braking of laws and fooling the people they say they represent, and it seems that they are to clear their name if they can do so.

Pulling the very old Stalinists propaganda trick “we can prove one item on the long list to be no entirely true, so now we will dismiss all information”, should be left at kindergarten where it belongs.

Which leads me to conclude again,
that you sound and act more like a religious fanatic then a man who uses common sense to look at each issue with an open mind.

I guess you still have the billboard defacing articles hanging above your bed, reminding you of your great, playing victim, spin-doctor achievements.

Big Hug to you, because you seem to lack some love in your life..
*Anna.

I do think going out of your way to systematically hide from the electorate who is pulling your strings and how they are donating untold money to you via one loophole or another, is worse than saying ‘I couldn’t really say how fast we were going’.

and If you mean making people think you said somthing you didn’t then maybe. That would be a skillful politician, but that is no better than flat out lying – since lying wouldn’t be a problem at all if it didn’t result in deception.

sucessful policticians are all liers in the sense that matters. they all at some stage get asked questions that will sound realy bad (even if it is not) if they tell the honest truth so they mislead /lie. it’s like a bf being asked ‘do I look fat in this dress’.

the main factor is always going to be how good at it you are. If you elect someone who is really good then there will be a massiver incentive for him to do it.

Thanks for the complete twisting of what I said. It is really refreshing to encounter someone that is capable of misiterpreting something so comprehensively.

I suppose I should have double quoted the “little.” As far as I am concerned a lie is exactly that.

My judgement of Hagar was that. Not the book. The man and his character. He rates as devious and sleazy. The casual way that he gave one set of information in one interview, and another when it suited, that type of ease with lying is something that requires practice with most people.

I put more weight in people’s attitude to the law than to politics. So my sense of magnitude probably differs from yours with regard to lies.

I really not interested in continuing this conversation, Ben. But, in spite of the opinion we may have each other, I do wish you a pleasant weekend.

Yep, true to form, the right lies, the left is slippery. I don’t have to discredit Hager on a personal level, he does not need my help.

I really don’t care what anyone else thinks of him, I would not buy any second hand property off him. I have found that it does not take much exposure to a person to gain what is, > 90% of the time an accurate impression of their personality.

So, what I was talking about was not any stunning revelations, just that Hager had let slip enough information for me to see that he was extremely parsimonious with the truth when it suited him. When that is coupled with a crusade on the issues of honesty in others- then the sleazball radar starts sounding off the alerts.

If you want to justify the little and acceptable lies of the left then that is your perogative. Just don’t expect me to agree, and when their lies are exposed, I won’t even hark back to this conversation.

As for the third inconsistency, you might notice that the memory defence has worn pretty thin recently. Look it up if you want to use it.

I counted hundreds of references to emails in the book so far. You’re going to have to do a lot more work to discredit Hager. I already found one little inaccuracy, an unchecked reference to Hard News. Turns out Russell Brown did say what Hager says, on the date quoted, just not in Hard News. These little inaccuracies creep in when you have almost a thousand citations.

Simple lies in interviews.

First, when he was interviewed with Brash, & Brash said he wanted the personal emails protected, Hagar said that he had none of the personal emails, it was only parliamentary issues ones.

He later made statements saying that they were personal emails.

When the injunction was in place, and the court ruled that all emails had to be turned over to the police, Hagar claimed that he no longer had the emails. Yet, once the injunction was lifted, lo and behold, the emails appeared again- evidence the latest email release.

There was a third “inconsistency, but I honestly can’t remember it just at the current time. I did mention it in another post somewhere.

I picked these things up just from listening to a few interviews.

Had the book been about something other than honesty & integrity, I suppose I would have given more leeway, but with Hagar’s stance mixed with his weasel words- I have no time for him.

I was a Labour voter in 1999. It was the lies of Clark that turned me off from that party completely, and there is NO WAY Labour will ever get my vote whilst she is still an MP.

Had Brash stayed, and Clark resigned, then I would be saying something similar but with party names reversed.

As for apologizing for Clark, the day someone catches her out for telling lies of the same magnitude as Hollow Men lays bare, I will cheerfully join you in condemning her. If I am underwhelmed by the gravity of ‘possibly lying about how fast someone else was driving’, then it could be because it’s underwhelming.

I listened to Hager, and I found 3 distinct lies. They are not hard to spot, and they relate to the type of emails he had & whether he actually had them or not. Just as you are not interested in my opinion of Hager, because I won’t read him, having seen him lie on the issue, I am not interested in his opinion on the truthfulness of Brash. He and Brash can sort that out themselves.

Lies are lies, and little lies lead to big ones.
You can act as appologist for Clark if you want, but it is a question of character. If she has lied in one area, then there is no reason to suspect that she is any more truthful in another.

I can see that you are someone that will always justify the actions of those you approve of, and critiscise those you disaprove of- moral relativism. We are obviously not going to agree, so I’m out of this.

As for lies, there are definitely scales of lies, as every child knows. You can lie about liking Grandma’s soup, or you can lie about stealing money from Dad’s wallet. Do you perceive any difference?

In a job interview, you could lie about being good at public speaking, or you could fabricate your entire employment and academic history. Which is worse?

I thought you might make excuses for Auntie Helen. A clear case of double standards.

I have seen Hager lie on TV- different interviews, contradictory statements. That tells me a lot about his character.

Brash has resigned, so I am not going to waste my money feathering Hager’s nest.

Just remember you yourself wrote this

“It is enough that they were lies repeatedly told, and still being told. If that creates a bad perception, then good. Most people don’t like liars for good reason – they are untrustworthy.”

I do not like either Helen Clark or Hagar, and I am glad to know you understand the reasons why, and approve.

If Clark has lied, it’s still with plausible deniability, unlike Brash. And about some pretty minor stuff.