Waa waa waa waa waa
waa waa waa was waa , Mummy that National Party is the nasty party. Waa waa.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
Waa waa waa waa waa
71 Responses to “Waa waa waa waa waa”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
And then he goes onto say about National;
“creepy conservatism”
“tough and uncaring”
“combined with a bit of the more British descent into racism”
“hyperliberalism and me-first attitudes”
“unholy debate about Section 59″.
“aggressive throwbacks”
“tone of National MPs in this debate has been nothing but nasty and indeed sinister”
“regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers”
“fruitcakes of the far religious right”
“I’ll be raising this evidence of National showing its true face as the Nasty Party.”
Oh look who is the nasty one…it would be Jordan and the Labour party.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
But when they get perasonal like this you just know you have won the argument. Good to see.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I would have to say it is getting a little tiresome being branded as either stupid for not understanding him or nasty/bad/right wing idelogue for disagreeing with him. It must be nice to be Jordan and have all the answers…
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Maybe Jordan doesn’t know that the Rabid Left niche of the political ecosphere has already been filled over at TUMEKE WITH AN EXCLAMATION MARK IN CASE YOU DON’T GET I’M REALLY REALLY OUTRAGED AND IRRATIONAL.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Hey Jordan are the leftie people suffering from back firing utopianism ?? oh dear- lets blame karl and sigmund eh ?
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Internal polling must be showing them to be taking a hammering.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Fuck-a-doodle-doo, did someone get on the bullet train to Crazy Town or what? I’d like to get back to being able to defend Jordan as one of the more temperate and thoughtful Labour bloggers out there…
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Whaleoil says – “Oh look who is the nasty one.”
Ah – Whaleoil – so you are saying that it is nasty to say that national is nasty. Would it therefore be true that you are nasty to say that it is nasty to say that national is nasty? Would it therefore be true that i am now being nasty in saying that you are being nasty in saying that it is nasty to say that national is nasty?
The argument you make here, dear Whaleoil, is of the ‘I know you are, you said you are so what am I’ variety. It is commonly used by five-year olds and mentally retarded people.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
idiotboy
Whaleoil hit the nail on the head all the same.
BTW: Like your ad hominem, his point was proven with a simple level of debating skills – therefore it must be invalid.
Na… He’s spot on. Plenty of people agree with him here and over on Jordan’s.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Craig R and others inclined to use expletives in their posts – please don’t! I like to check this blog at work occasionally, but our web filters pick up language like that and report it for possible improper use. Then unless I want a conversation with the departmental netnazis, I have to wait a month or so before visiting the blog again. sign
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
jay:
Well, that’s fair enough – then again, I work in a place where you’ve got to apply for internet access and it’s closely monitored. Personally, I find a bit of *ahem* Anglo-Saxon vernacular easier to take than a rabies facial, but as Sly Stone used to say, different strokes for different folks.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:57 am
idiot boy can you give jordan back up ( excuse the pun ) as he is getting hammered by nasty national supporters on his blog .
Thank you dear .
April 4th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I heard a whacky radio DJ refer to the Govt as the ‘Labia Party’ the other day; probably not too far from the truth….
April 4th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Idiotboy…how apt is that moniker?…I need say no more.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:39 am
jordan carter said..
vis a vis national on bradfords’ bill..
“..To line up with a bunch of regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers to lie to the public about an emotive issue and whip up totally underserved hysteria will fatally undermine the whole careful repositioning that National has tried to adopt since Key took over…”
um..what is untrue about that..?
there will be many in national who are cringing at the reactionary/regressive rhetoric coming from national..(with some honourable exceptions..rich..et.al..)..
and with the reactionary fundo-wingnuts national is siding with/echoing their rhetoric..
how is any of that incorrect..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 4th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Phil froths “reactionary fundo-wingnuts” that is the meaning under the word “Greens” in my dictionary !!
April 4th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Whale oil: considering your track record, you should be the last to speak on issues of nastiness.
Craig: I think Jordan has a right to be angry at the Nat’s cynical manipulation of this issue. Sure they have a right to be utilising every legal leverage to get back in power. But when you’re lining up with victorian-minded religious bigots, and indulging in a campaign of manipulation and lies in order to achieve this end, you have to wonder whether your sacrafacing your decency in the process. And jordan is right, when the public discovers that this bill doesn’t result in decent kiwis being persecuted by the police they are going to be thinking about how they were taken for a ride by the National Party and its associated bible bashers.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Remember Phil that your lunatic – utopian infested – tree hugging mates shut down Timberlands and lots of angry residents were further insulted when Helen Clark called them feral inbred’s while the sad fiasco was going on . It was the best forest management plan in the world !!!
pj – you are a sad person .
April 4th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Phil u said:
“..To line up with a bunch of regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers to lie to the public about an emotive issue and whip up totally underserved hysteria will fatally undermine the whole careful repositioning that National has tried to adopt since Key took over…”
um..what is untrue about that..?
1)The “child-hating” part. Obviously he believes that a parent who gives their child a light smack for misbehaving hates children.
2) The “whip up totally underserved hysteria” part. The fact Labour plans to vote down the Borrows ammendment indicates that they want to ban the use of force when it only causes “transitory and triffling” harm gives reason to believe that they intend to ban smacking. If Labour was genuine about not banning smacking they could vote for the Borrows ammendment or propose their own ammendment to xplicitly allow smacking for correction.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:28 am
What is all this stuff about opponents of the Bradford Bill telling lies? I support the Bradford Bill precisely because it does ban smacking. The only lies being told are by those who claim it doesn’t. If Bradford and co would just stand up for principle and tell the truth about what the bill does they might win some respect and win over the public on the issue.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:42 am
PJ Can you provide any examples of this “cynical manipulation” and “a campaign of manipulation and lies in order to achieve this end”?
And seems odd that in a democratic society you view “lining up with victorian-minded religious bigots” as either unusual or even offensive. Are such bigots not allowed to express views and can they not also be genuinely held by other NZers? Why the need to smear?
April 4th, 2007 at 10:57 am
um nicholas..i didn’t say that..i was quoting the piece under attack..
btw..i am cheered that you only disagree with the ‘child-beating’ part..
so you are ok with the “regressive fundamentalist losers’ description in that line..?
that’s a start..i guess..
and i’m with anon..
and am totally against children being hit by anyone anytime…
and after this ‘excuse for abuse’ is removed..
we will see the same sea-change in societies attitudes that we have seen since corporal punishment in schools was banned..
the very idea of that horrifies the sane amongst us..now..
but oh…!..the cries/lamentations/predictions of anarchy in the classrooms…
when teachers’ ‘rights’ to cane/strap our children were taken away from them..
and the repeal of section 59 will lead to ‘no more smacking’…
eventually…
so..nic o’kane..(cane..funny that thing about names..eh..?..)
there is no way i would support your call/plaintive cry..
to..”..xplicitly allow smacking for correction…”
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
btw..whaleblubber said…”…I need say no more..”
how on the money/freudian is that..?
one day he might really surprise us all..eh..?
and come up with an idea..?
or..at the very least..a coherent argument/riposte..?
we live in hope..eh..?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Translate please you nutbar drug addict !!!
April 4th, 2007 at 11:17 am
(sigh..!..)..do try and keep up..d4j.
or..you could go and play in the other room/outside for a while..?
if you like..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 4th, 2007 at 11:19 am
PJ Can you provide any examples of this “cynical manipulation”
well, national has been perpetuating the idea that this bill will turn good parents into criminals, giviing the impression that you may end up in jail for giving your child a light smack. This is clearly manipulative and misleading, the police will not proceed wit ha prosecution on such grounds. it’s like saying that assault laws turn decent kiwi males into criminals because they sometimes may pat their mates on the shoulder. Technically that could be construed as assult, but the police have more common sense than to take such a complaint seriously – you see what i mean?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
burt -
Ok then – well, is this then a case of ‘shooting the messenger’? What about the message itself – why not take a shot at that? whaleoil’s only contribution is to directly quote the message – i dont know about you, but if whaleoil wants to convince me that I should disagree with what he quoted then he will have to go a hell of a lot further than just saying – ‘the messenger is nasty’.
What are the actual issues here? For example:
If the Christian-right insists on making death-threats against other peoples children because of a difference of opinion – then do you think that the author is wrong in describing them as:
“regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers”
“fruitcakes of the far religious right”
If so then why? Why do you think that is ok for the far religious-right to act in this way?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
D4J
you have to either be disingenuous or a bit dull to be claiming that you can’t comprehend Phil U’s posts – yes they’re written unconventionally and even creatively, but they certainly aren’t incomprehensible.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Sorry pj I can’t understand utopianism language.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
“you have to either be disingenuous or a bit dull to be claiming that you can’t comprehend Phil U’s posts ”
I like that there’s less of the “eh?”, today
That was nothing personal Phil.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I don’t see Phil posting over at Public Address as I don’t think they have got a interpreter either ?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am
dad4justice says -
“idiot boy can you give jordan back up ( excuse the pun ) as he is getting hammered by nasty national supporters on his blog. Thank you dear.”
No. But thank you for asking so politely – dear.
love ya – ya big ole cuddly wuddly teddy bear you.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Careful idiotboy the anaconda doesn’t like being disturbed by intruders .
April 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
put it away – dad4justice – put it away…
April 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am
PJ
I could be wrong but I don’t recall any politician seriously saying someone could end up in gaol for giving a child a light smack – do you have an example? A conviction yes. If you are convicted under the crimes act you are by definition a criminal I would have thought. However, given it is a crimes act offence, it possibly ‘could’ end in a gaol sentence though that would probably be the result of previous offending.
But whether you agree with the liklihood, it is not manipulative and misleading to posit the potential outcomes of a law change, especially in the face of various police comments that they will have to investigate complaints. You are equally open to the accusation of being manipulative and misleading to say they will not prosecute.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Love to chat idiot, but I must prepare myself as I got to McKenzie friend a confused person in criminal court 2.15pm – pre trial depo’s .Unfortnately I can’t tell the judge to “put it away ” .
April 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
well – dad4justice – you just make sure that you put it away before you attend that appointment – not a good look mate – not a good look at all.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I see that the the comment s to Jordan’s entry closed at 9.57 this morning…not one comment in support for his vituperative diatribe…perhaps some of the trolls that frequent this site should go and lend him a hand.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“child-hating” -
The Christian-right insists on making death-threats against other peoples children because of a difference of opinion.
Oh my Lawd! – That thar is some of that thar “child-hating” right thar – is it not mates? Oh my Lawd!
April 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“child-hating” -
Graham Capill preaches Christian values while molesting young girls.
Oh my Lawd! – That thar is some more of that thar “child-hating” right thar – is it not mates? Oh my Lawd! When will it stop?
April 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I’ll tell you when it will stop – It will stop when you people have the moral fortitude (read: the guts) to condemn their actions outright!
April 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
But oh no – the silence is deafening.
Well kiddies – do not be too surprised if you, yourself are labelled a “child-hater”. You made your bed – you f**king sleep in it!
If you can…
April 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Who employed Capill as a police prosecuter ?
Wasn’t it the corrupt department of injustice ?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Got you again you f..ked up idiot !!
April 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
pj – how does sharing a similar viewpoint with “victorian-minded religious bigots”, as you might consider them, mean that National is “lining up” with them? Might it just not mean that they agree on this particular issue? Can I line up with the churches on this despite being an atheist?
Sharing a point of view with a group or individual on one particular issue does not mean that you automatically endorse everything they stand for, as the Left has consistently tried to make out by tarring all and sundry as fundamentalists.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“Sharing a point of view with a group or individual on one particular issue does not mean that you automatically endorse everything they stand for, as the Left has consistently tried to make out by tarring all and sundry as fundamentalists”
Well said Sean14. I’ve even found myself agreeing with most here on some issues, even Redbaiter, probably should have told him at the time.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
sean14 said – “”victorian-minded religious bigots”, as you might consider them”
Of course you, yourself wouldn’t have the guts to criticise their actions in any way now would you?
sean14 said – “Sharing a point of view with a group or individual on one particular issue does not mean that you automatically endorse everything they stand for.”
Indeed – it may not. But when you state your support for that group or individual on most issues while failing to condemn outright evil in the actions of that group or individual – one is left wondering.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Sean – I would count adopting and deseminating someone’s rehtoric as lining up with them. Wouldn’t you?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
DF hasn’t linked to it yet, but Jordan has posted a “reprise” to all of the comments he received. Needless to say he thinks the comments just prove his original post to be correct. Worth a read if you need your blood pressure raising, or a good laugh, depending on your approach to life.
Wonder how long it will be before he gets the Cullen treatment…i.e. shut down with no apology.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Idiotboy – I don’t recall personally attacking you, but thanks for calling me gutless. How could you possibly have any idea of who or what groups I would/wouldn’t criticise? You don’t know me.
“But when you state your support for that group or individual on most issues while failing to condemn outright evil in the actions of that group or individual – one is left wondering”
Who is the ‘you’ in that sentence, and what groups or individuals are you talking about?
April 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
A little bit off topic, but I consider this the most profound soungs written about abuse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQDuRb7uP0k&mode=related&search=
April 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
pj – on a single issue, no. To my mind, lining up means general agreement on most issues. I agree for example with Helen Clark that whaling is abhorrent, but that doesn’t mean I am lining up with the Labour party (and I sure won’t be voting for them). I just agree on this particular issue. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
April 4th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Sean14 says – “I don’t recall personally attacking you, but thanks for calling me gutless.”
Sorry Sean14 – please accept my apology. I got a bit carried away there.
Sean14 says – “Who is the ‘you’ in that sentence, and what groups or individuals are you talking about?”
The ‘you’ in that sentence is John Key and the group is the National Party.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
This is semantics sean – the fact is that the Nats have taken up the disingenuous and misleading arguments of some old school christian fundies in order to some cheap political points. Call it what you want, but it’s always going to be distasteful.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I think Jordan should re-name his blog to an acronym of his name.
Just Offering Random Denigration Against National
idiot boy
Give up. You made a fool of yourself claiming that Whaleoil’s argument was of the level usually used by 5yr/olds or retards. If as you claimed his argument was wrong, then you would have made him look very silly. However your attack on Whaleoil failed and so the only conclusion is that you would be beaten in a debate by either a 5yr/old or a retard. The fact you still try to dig yourself deeper further supports this conclusion.
If you want to run with the big dogs – don’t piss like a puppy.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
PJ- politics is distasteful, across ALL parties. As long as politics is about power rather than public service, it always will be. Let’s not pretend that Labours stance on this bill is anything other than for political gain..ie. keeping the Greens on-side, so they can stay in power. Let’s keep both eyes open.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Craig says – “Worth a read if you need your blood pressure raising, or a good laugh, depending on your approach to life.”
I dunno – i think both sides could appreciate this one:
“Having ya face up Clarks minge as long as Jordan has will send ya loopy eventually.”
lol!
April 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Cheers idiotboy, fair enough. I don’t recall John Key and/or the National Party ever stating their support on most issues for, for lack of a better term, extreme religious groups, though I do recall their support for the right to religious freedom. The attack on Bill English recently for conducting a constituency clinic with Exclusive Bretheren was just ridiculous – the implication being that MPs should screen who they meet with based on religious grounds.
Anyway, that’s off the point. For the record, I think that National and the EB took part in some dodgy behaviour at the last election, and I find it very hard to take seriously a group that seeks to exert influence over the political process while refusing to exercise the most basic right in a democratic society.
I also think that Labour took part in some dodgy behaviour, the pledge card springs to mind. Neither side is lily white, and I don’t understand how anyone can claim perfection for their side. In the case of the section 59 debate, I simply don’t think it is reasonable to state that the National party is endorsing “fundamentalists” and their practices because they happen to agree on this one particular issue.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
“PJ- politics is distasteful, across ALL parties. As long as politics is about power rather than public service, it always will be. Let’s not pretend that Labours stance on this bill is anything other than for political gain. ie. keeping the Greens on-side, so they can stay in power. Let’s keep both eyes open.’
OK Craig, I’ll give up the assertion that the Labour Party is the paragon of moral virtue – oh, that ’s right, I never said such a thing. Overall however I do agree with you – But I can’t let you Tories do all the moralising now can i?
April 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
burt said – “so the only conclusion is that you would be beaten in a debate by either a 5yr/old or a retard.”
sh*t burt you are right – and by beating me in this debate you have proven your point once again – brilliant!
please burt – have mercy.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
idiot boy
I was responding to:
“burt -
Ok then – well, is this then a case of…”
Just have mercy on yourself – I had no intention of beating you any further than you had beaten yourself – until you tried to keep it going.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Fair enough Mr PJ. I’ll agree you made an assertion rather than a comment. However, you might like to agree that you have asserted I am a Tory even though I have never said so. In case you missed it in my last post….I have a rather strong aversion to all politicians. I wish they would all give up, retire to Queensland with all the other morons and leave the country to people who care about our country. Now you may feel free to put me in whatever pidgeon hole you choose. Cheers.
Ps: feel free to marolise away, it is a free country…unless you’re a chinese/NZ reporter.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Craig says – “politics is distasteful, across ALL parties”.
It is the degree of distastefulness that bothers me. You got death-threats to children and a child-molesting leader on one side. What do you have on the other?
Seriously.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
burt -
You don’t need to tell me what you were responding to – your argument is surely, absolutely devastating.
My only problem is this: What part of “please burt – have mercy” do you not understand mafugga!
April 4th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
pj thinks the Marxist red dishonest people are the “paragon of moral virtue” , poor wimpish /foolish git, I think he meant to write that they are a paradox of moral virtue .
Clearly pj has continued to exhibit signs and symptoms consistent with a mental disorder, namely delusional disorder .
April 4th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
As for idiot girl – she shows signs strongly suggestive of paranoid persecutory delusions .
April 4th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
D4J – you always make me laugh, whether it’s with you or at you, usually the latter (though your use of snake metaphores has been getting a bit out of hand lately).
April 4th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I feel sorry for you as you exhibit perceptual disturbances, thought disorder and delusions of reference .
April 4th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
idiotboy
There are two old saying:
1. Once you have sold – shut up.
2. If you find yourself in a hold – stop digging.
Either make any sense to you ?
April 4th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
oops…
2. If you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.
April 4th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
…meanwhile, over at Kiwiblog, dad4justice demonstrates an acute case of Freud-textbook-shoved-so-far-up-the-backside-it’s-dislodged-his brain.
April 4th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
burt -
“If you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.”
Sorry burt – but you see my problem is this – my stupidity is so incredibly mind-boggling that i just cannot tell that i am actually in a hole – thus i just keep digging.
Again – burt please – have mercy! boohoohoohoo – see look what you have done now – you have made me cry!