Bid on the 2008 General Election
Heh this is priceless. As a protest against Helen Clark’s refusal to clamp down on anonymous and trust donations (her latest excuse is because John Key has more money than her) the Coalition for Open Government has listed the 2008 General Election on Trade Me.
Very smart idea. I’ve just put in a bid of $100. I like the idea of owning the Government 
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Act
August 14th, 2007 at 9:53 am
I see you’ve bidded $100. I am wondering what vote share will I get if I win the auction.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I just bid for it $225 , I am in for the long haul as I want it bad .
August 14th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Very symbolic of National’s desire to buy the election, well done to whoever came up with this.
[DPF: Sonic you fucking moronic lemming, National has said they support anon and trust donations ending. It is Labour and Helen Clark who is standing in the way of this, having reneged on her promise]
August 14th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Fuck me I have to bid over 6 and a half thousand , wow talk about public interest rates going up . A million by lunchtime ?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:02 am
It’s been withdrawn!
August 14th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I hope Mr Wong doesn’t enter the bidding race – eh sonic ?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Brilliant
August 14th, 2007 at 10:03 am
It was fun while it lastest , Queenie Hellgrad must have got a bit nervous ?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:06 am
David, that is the most terse I have seen you get with your pet troll.
have you had your morning coffee?
[DPF: That was just a troll too far. Attacking National when it is his bloody precious Helen Clark who is the who betrayed the public on this, was just a step too far. ]
August 14th, 2007 at 10:10 am
That went down quickly. 15 page views when it was at $671 on a bid by petermj.
I have a screen shot which is at http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7118/picture2kp6.png
August 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Oh dear David, Either you have lost your sense of humour or I touched a bit of a nerve there.
The National party, the best policies money can buy.
[DPF: Sonic you are a liar and a troll. Your post was not humourous and just showed your total lack of credibility.]
August 14th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Sonic do snakes have nerves ?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am
and the good people at Trademe with no sense of humour have pulled the ad.
helen will have to look to other ways to buy the election.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:25 am
sheesh, saw this site for the first time yesterday after hearing about it occasionally for quite a while, and what do I see but a lot of aggro. I thought that only happenned on other sites. I guess humanity is all pervasive – actually, of course it is, look at the way the idiots in wellington lie and cheat and behave like they’re at school.
mind you I do see some clear-headed commentary on some of the posts.
sonic, are you anonymous or do people know who you are?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am
It was an attempt a joke David, with respect I think your response was untypically over the top.
If you want me not to post here just ask.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:37 am
DPF – Helen must have arranged to have the auction withdrawn, now that she is Head Cheerleader for the anti-EFB lobby:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10457543
You must be very disppointed that she has trumped you – I know that you were looking forward to driving a stake through the government’s heart with this issue. Flippin’ heck, and she accuses John Key of flip-flops!
August 14th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Sonic,
You should really declare your conflict of interest in supporting a Labour Government. 24,000 extra government employees has done wonders to your personal income. You can’t stand the idea of the National Party coming into power, shutting off the massive growth of the civil service, and forcing you to get a real job.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Come on David, it was a pretty funny comment – elsewhere on this blog there are regular commentators making totally offensive comments about various women in the Labour party caucus without a hint of disapproval and yet Sonic’s comment attracts your ire?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
The Prime Minister has not said anything significant about this proposed law. She continues to defend it on the grounds it is necessary to silence the evil Brethren. The idea that a select committee might examine and amend a bill is an irrelevant statement of the obvious. The media saying it signals a u-turn are being spun. It is fullspeed ahead for the bill.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
sonic, you of all people (trolls are people right?) should know that if one makes factually incorrect statements the cyberwrath must ensue. it did, and the retreat to the excuse of ‘humour’ is a pretty poor rebuttal. but i do agree that DPF was a little more toxic than usual.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Anon – read the link I posted above! These quotes, direct from the PM’s gob on RadioLabour, don’t sound like spin to me:
“”It may well be that in endeavouring to fix that, the net’s been cast too wide,” the Prime Minister said on Newstalk ZB.
“That’s why you need good scrutiny at a select committee.”
Later in the day, she said the bill would “undoubtedly come out changed”.
She is backtracking at the speed of light. Which of the minor parties which supported the EFB at its first reading has changed its mind?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Maybe we should all shed our thin skins in time for spring.
The comment on national wanting to buy an election may be snarky, pointed or robust, but it is hardly toxic. Remember that no party has clean hands when it comes to electoral funding.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:01 am
This could be a good way of getting your message across if the EFB becomes law. Great example of lateral thinking!
August 14th, 2007 at 11:05 am
At least if wasn’t the LAbour Party doing this. It wouldn’t be worth owning the party as they wouldn’t take any notice of the owner (or should I say voters) anyway!
August 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
The Labour-led government nailed it’s colours (The skull and crossed bones) to the mast head when on their evil pirate ship “The Electoral Finance Bill” they attemted to board the good ship “New Zealand Democracy”
but
Despite their surprise approach under the guise of the Exclusive Brethern, they are now in full cowardly flight from the fierce resistance they have received.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:26 am
The evil pirate ship , just love it Frank , is Jordan or Tony the cabin boys ?
All poofters on portside please , hopefully the list will cause the ship to overturn and drown them all ?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:29 am
It’s no good d4f. The gay lobby on the portside will be balanced by the raving nutjobs to starboard, and the ship will sail steadily on.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Remember the pendulum theory kiwi donkey, if it stays in the middle the ship stays still . We must have extreme positions before the Captain can tell the engineer the motor can go full throttle – steam ahead now SIR.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am
“DPF: Sonic you fucking moronic lemming, National has said they support anon and trust donations ending. It is Labour and Helen Clark who is standing in the way of this, having reneged on her promise”
Very uncharacteristically intemperate for you DPF – makes me feel not so bad about my occasional blog outburst.
One has to wonder if National’s “supporting” the banning of anon donations is more political strategy than a genuine attempt to clean up elections. i.e. they must have thought that labour would actually ban them – and polling showed that the public supported the idea. One way that we may find out is in the eventuality that National win the next election – will they actively ban anon donations? Somehow I very much doubt it.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
But Inventory2, those are just statements of fact, and therefore spin.
What she is trying to do is sound (today) like the bill will be changed substantially to deal with her short-term media problem.
Then, in October, they’ll raise the thresholds to $70,000 as a major concession and say they have listened.
She is not backing away from the principle of the Bill which is that speech is dangerous and needs to be regulated … except for political parties and, in particular, the government of the day, which can do what they like.
It should not be being reported as backtracking but as spinning, and a refusal to admit the bill is profoundly flawed.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:40 am
But surely David was going to buy the election with his own money.
Not that beloging to the taxpayer.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Good morning from the “starboard side” of the good ship Labour!
I’m all for humor – this was quite classy – The Coalition for Open Government has good points – the legislation is flawed – not necessarily the reasoning, but without banning anonymous donations over $500 it plainly sux.
Perhaps a limit of $250,000 on third-party spending may be fairer than $60,000?
Still, there will be no mutiny on the ship – this bill only fail if the captain turns the ship.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Q2 this afternoon could be interesting:
“JOHN KEY to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, in regard to the Electoral Finance Bill, that “obviously there’s going to have to be some change in the select committee”; if so, what changes does she think are “obviously” required?”
August 14th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Look the ship of fools has hauled from the dark depths of the ocean floor a roger nome lickspittle subspecies of parasitic bottom dweller !
August 14th, 2007 at 11:44 am
And yet again chronic manages to disrupt a reasonable thread with his drivel.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
The captain would like to know if passenger policy parrot knows that the parrot on his leftie shoulder is a normal hetrosexual parrot that has the IQ comparable to 5 year old child . Poofters are going stirr crazy in hold Sir !
This is going to one hellva voyage ?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:51 am
yeah parrots and pirates are just sooooo relevant
August 14th, 2007 at 11:53 am
D4J – bit early in the day to be hitting the old johnny walker red isn’t it? What should we do with a drunken dad?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Heh @ D4j’s last comment.
- I guess the only thing I can add it is that we can at least sail the ship. The last one the Nats captained nearly broke in two, and only survived by allowing the other part to sink – that still didn’t save it in the long term.
They were too busy selling parts of the ship off, the anchor, the mast, its not bloody wonder they sunk it. Do people really want them to sail again?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Look at that, Chroic broke Dave.
Congratulations Chronic, you ARE the biggest loser.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Until large anonymous donations are banned then there will always be the threat of elections being bought. Unless the citizens know who has financed the winner there is no way to prove or disprove . And given the (cough) past behaviour of pollies from all sides only a fool would think it couldnt happen.
Its simple self interest that prevents the Socialists from banning these donations. In fact why should the pollies be allowed to decide the rules on this matter. Where is the logic. They dont get to decide their own salaries for good obvious reasons so why shoule they get to decide how they should be funded.
In a real democracy instead the sham we have a Commission would hear submissions and a citizerns refernendum would decide the model from a small choice reflecting the submissions. Now thats democracy. For the people By the people.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Inventory2 – Keep us up to date with that question please! I think “Obviously” must be the word most over-used in an incorrect way in NZ – hell, I do it myself from time to time – will be nice to see someone, the PM no less, having the rug pulled from under them for misusing it.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
No more rum for roger and parrot and sonic .
Time to walk the plank as the sharks are in a frenzy .
August 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Shit gd are you sure that you’re a righty? I had to rub my eyes after reading that last comment. Usually the right are all for the corporates buying elections – it’s the only way that all those plebs, that you hold with such distain, are kept from having real democratic power after all. Though kudos to you for supporting democracy. Now we need to stop talking about this kind of stuff and bloddy well demand it.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“Look at that, Chroic broke Dave. Congratulations Chronic, you ARE the biggest loser.”
Good to see Murray chime in with his trademark supreme political acumen. So do you have anything to say about thread topic or are you just going to sit on the sidelines hurling abuse at the players?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
An unintended side effect of your baning from nominister is more drivel on this site roger.
GD, if you remove “large anonymous donations” and replace with “corrupt labour government” you would have a reasonable summation of the last election which was bought with stolen public money. Arguments that Clarke and co repaid the money are irrelevant. You cannot put the poo back in the donkey.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Barnsley – um … wtf? What part of the phrase “coherant argument” don’t you understand?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
If there was such a requirement as “political acumen” Woger the only thing we’d get from the likes of you and chronis would be fucking silence.
When its your site you set the rules.
Being one of the longest blogging people here it seems like I might have a better idea than you of how things are done. This is a shark tank, not a paddling pool for lefties.
Hows that winny assed bitch award coming along?
You’ve got my vote.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“Usually the right are all for the corporates buying elections..”
Well shit Roger, remind me again who overspent by the most at the last election?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Roger you are why I write on here as you are a gutless wonder who changed his name from phillip john to this nome idiot and you think you are so learned ? -yeah right dipstick ! Look, if the socialist’s want buy another election , let them, who cares and you won’t stop them because it is the norm . They do it everytime as everything is done behind closed doors and the public are kept in the dark .
August 14th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Woger/Phillip John:
If the socialists are so democratically attuned to the people, and the right are so beholden to large corporates, why is it that the Labour Party has only 4,000 financial members, yet the National Party has over 30,000?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Good point IP , the red unions contribution anybody ?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“Well shit Roger, remind me again who overspent by the most at the last election?”
Even with that perversion of democracy that was the “pledge card scandal Labour spent far less than National on the 05 campaign. Without offering an excuse for Labour’s actions, I wouldn’t be surprised if the pledge card was simply an attempt to neutralise National’s colossal financial advantage. This is why it’s essential that all areas of funding be transparent and limited. We shouldn’t have either the left or the right favoured by funding laws.
D4J – I spent two or three days here pointing out that I was intending to change my name from PJ to RN (the latter being a more interesting name IMHO) – that’s why everybody knows about it.
Murray, um ….. nah can’t be bothered.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Murray Says:
“When its your site you set the rules”
Oh I see, and you’ve decided that the rule on your site is that it should be a trainwreck?
That explains much.
Buying elections, a topic it seems we will be returning to, hopefully next time shedding more light.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“If the socialists are so democratically attuned to the people, and the right are so beholden to large corporates, why is it that the Labour Party has only 4,000 financial members, yet the National Party has over 30,000?”
That’s very interesting IP. Van you point me to the source of that information?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Trainwreck sonic – what weird tool you are !!
Who the hell do you think you are !??
August 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Roger poofter go sit on sonic’s face !
August 14th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
D4J – You sexual pervert. Keep your profane and lascivious imagination to yourself, as CYFS are currently very interested in your moral circumstances.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
roger nome . As I said before they are plenty of issues that those who are referred to either Right or Left can agree on. For me democracy means one voter one vote. I have no difficulty with an individual or group supporting a political party and am not too concerned as to the amount spent. But by hell I want to know up front Otherwise down the track how can I tell if the donation resulted in treament that was unfavourable or predujcial to me and fovourable to the donor
Its crapola to say that a donor may fear the consequences of donating.Hell if that is the case then we have another problem to address as regards our democracy.
I come back nto the point that poachers shouldnt be setting the rules as regards their poaching. But thats exactly what we are allowing the pollies to do. Which bloody part of conflict of interest dont they and those who support them not inderstand
August 14th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Umm I seriously doubt any spending by National outside the 90 day period came to more than the $800,000 overspend by Labour.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
PAY ATTENTION
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10457543
best bit:
“Explaining this, Helen Clark fired a personal shot at the National Party’s multimillionaire leader, John Key.
“The problem is if you’re going to totally clamp down on anonymous donations – which I’d be very happy to see – you do need some quid pros quos,” the Prime Minister said.
“Because the Labour Party isn’t led by me with a $50 million bank account.”
She said the Labour Party had support from many people on low and modest incomes and “we are not in a position to just write large personal cheques”.
The Prime Minister needs to clamp down on all NZ because of John Key.
Its all there in black and white….
August 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“Shit gd are you sure that you’re a righty?”
Hey roger, perhaps we right know who really has the money and power and who is really denying us true democracy better than the left eh?
the plebs as you call them, and real democracy is the only hopoe of getting those tough feeders off our backs for good.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
“I spent two or three days here pointing out that I was intending to change my name from PJ to RN (the latter being a more interesting name IMHO) – that’s why everybody knows about it”
It took you two or three days just to explain that you were changing your name?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Roger CYFS wouldn’t know what moral circumstances meant , however back to the topic the pledgecard was a crime , can I expect another one in my mail box again ? Still just a rat in a cage silly poofter nome !
August 14th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
“Umm I seriously doubt any spending by National outside the 90 day period came to more than the $800,000 overspend by Labour.”
OK – I should have been clearer than that – I meant to say “pro-National” spending. Do you remember the $800, 0000 “fairtax campaign by the racing industry? And do I need to mention the EB campaign which involved up to $1.2 million? Or what a bout the $1.3 million in anon donations?
[I have not seen any reports that the racing one costs $800,000. Do you have proof of this. I thought it was a five figure sum. The EB campaign was $500,000 and didn't actually help National. And the anon donations which Helen is protecting can't be added to the expenditure total as they are income not expend]
August 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“It took you two or three days just to explain that you were changing your name?”
I looked at the bait dear old helmet – however it was smelly and under-prepared – no sale.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
PJ I might think you’re a twit, but you’re obviously a well read one nonetheless. I hope no genuine offence was taken.
It was just a joke, cheer up.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Leftie twits , like vile sonic and roger can’t joke, as they only laugh at someone elses misfortune .
August 14th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
My surmise is that the Labour Party were financially bankrupt at that time and couldn’t pay the invoice for the pledge card. That’s when Helen 2 stepped into the fray and saved the sinking ship, by directing Parliamentary Services to pick up on the tab, as they had always picked it up on previous occasions without question?
Police did not ask to see the invoices or who ordered the pledge card thus allegedly they are party to the misappropriation of taxpayer’s money?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“PJ I might think you’re a twit, but you’re obviously a well read one nonetheless.”
Well thank you purple warrior/helmet – You, like D4J are apparently an exceptionally erudite interlocutor as well.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
purple warrior?
August 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
We now know what Roger calls little Roger….
August 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
And I take umbridge at being lumped in the same category as D4J
(no offence intended D4J)
August 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Use your imagination helmet you co*k head!
August 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Phillip John you are as normal making up figures as you go along, so we will do the same.
Using your reasoning what about the $4.2 million that the unions spent, the $3.6 mil in donations the biggest of which came from overseas read a certain Aussie Kiwi billionaire with serious Lab government contracts.
On top of that a further 100 million in Tax payer money per year on student loans (it was an election spend – remember that they pulled it out of the hat during the campaign)
See you young thief, figures can be made to say anything.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Figures for the union spend is based on the following;
Use of offices
man hours
money
advertising
etc.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
roger, you have me confused, as I am only interested in bringing about interlocutory dialogue in proceedings against Helen Clark in a Court of Law .
August 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“Using your reasoning what about the $4.2 million that the unions spent, the $3.6 mil in donations the biggest of which came from overseas read a certain Aussie Kiwi billionaire with serious Lab government contracts.”
My sources are “the Hollow Men” (which would be a highly libellious book if it had any lie in it) – and elections New Zealand.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
Where the hell did you get your figures from?
August 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
No offence taken helmet – cheers mate .
August 14th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
What part do roger the dodger and sick sonic play in the labour lickspittle tax payer funded hollow head play ?
August 14th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
“And I take umbridge at being lumped in the same category as D4J”
Why? D4J is a top bloke! A certain CYFS officer that I know told me so.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
“On top of that a further 100 million in Tax payer money per year on student loans (it was an election spend – remember that they pulled it out of the hat during the campaign)”
Policy cost=Election expense?
I’m glad I don’t work in a business run by you “Bok”
August 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“Why? D4J is a top bloke! A certain CYFS officer that I know told me so.”
Roger my lawyer tells me I hope you can back that statement up ?
August 14th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Why is that D4J do you wish to take legal proceedings against me for calling you a top bloke? Now I know some people can’t take compliments but that’s just ridiculous.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
You are shitting me right? You are quoting figures by Nicki Hagar? Are you for real. Oh yes thats right, you are the academic who steals Wiki articles to prove themselves.
And to answer you on the hollow men, why was Hagar not charged with libel when he suggested and wrote that Helen had the SIS spy on the Moari party? Because it is a waste of time you pillick.
The same reason most of us just laugh at The Hollow men.
And the rest.. here i just a little bite.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10337679
or this
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/08/labours_donor_letter.html
August 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
The name of your friend in CYFS as it is offence for them to talk about me? Got you Roger , I will make an example of you !!
August 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Frank go play somewhere else you scottish git.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
the name Roger please – the CYFS Officer – otherwise off to Court we go !!!
August 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
It was clearly written in jest D4J – good luck on preparing your ‘court case’.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
heh Guys and gals Can I suggest we are getting a bit off topic Suggest we all put in a submission setting out our beefs on the Bill and pray that not with standing the pollies all have a vested interest we can at least get the worst aspects off the agenda.
I mean surely they arent so thick that they dont see at least some of us are very pissed of again with them Or maybe those rhinocerous skins and brains mean they dont care or havent figured it out yet.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Great comeback Bok as factual, witty, impressive as you have ever managed!
“most of us just laugh at The Hollow men”
Don Brash didn’t.
Got any more of your amazing guesses on what I do for a living, why not call every business in Auckland and ask if they have a blue hedgehog on site?
x
S
August 14th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Roger the comments you sent to my blog http://dad4justice.blogspot.com/ have already been forwared to the appropriate authorities and I suggest you are a sunk ship matey .
You can’t tell lies about CYFS officers and a loving father of four children . I will make you regret lying in public about me !!
August 14th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
*************************************************************
“Explaining this, Helen Clark fired a personal shot at the National Party’s multimillionaire leader, John Key.
“The problem is if you’re going to totally clamp down on anonymous donations – which I’d be very happy to see – you do need some quid pros quos,” the Prime Minister said.
“Because the Labour Party isn’t led by me with a $50 million bank account.”
*************************************************************
Why the snide comment as to the wealth of Mr Key? I have always considered the left to be the politics of envy, and statements like this only confirm it.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
gd- I think that transparency through removing anonymity has got to be a good thing if you can trust governments not to be vindictive but;
Can I ask a genuine question (for once)-
If you spend a lot of money on advertising your message, and people vote for you (or vote consistent with the message you promote if you’re a third party), was it the advertising or the message that made them vote for you?
If it was the message…. who gives a f*ck about how much you spent?
August 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Under Labour, being rich is a political crime.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I told you Roger, better just to ignore him and not even read his comments.
As well as being thick, he is a vindictive little man.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
gd: “or maybe those rhinoceros skins and brains mean they don’t care or haven’t figured it out yet”.
or
maybe their taxpayer funded “minders” kept unpleasant tidings from them?
or
maybe they are so immersed in corruption that it’s like water off a duck’s back?
August 14th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Can’t handle a joke D4J? After all the abuse you’ve levelled against anyone left of Genghis khan on this blog? Oh well I guess i’ll just have to compile a catalogue of the abusive comments that you’ve made all over the NZ biosphere in my counter claim – should be of “war and peace” proportions eh? I’ll be sure to make special mention of your threat to commit GBH against a defenceless 15 year old boy. Shame on you dad.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Sonic – who the fuck do you think you are? I can’t wait to catch up with you one day as you find out I am not a little man !!
August 14th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
The comments I made to James Sleep after he called me a paedophile have been sent to NZ police and two lawyers , roger or sonic do you want the detectives email address just to check !!
August 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“I can’t wait to catch up with you one day as you find out I am not a little man !!”
Was that a rape threat as well D4J?!! Have to say that I’m really looking foward to this court date D4J. No blog stone will be left unturned my friend.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
You guys should all become Labour party politicians. Enough nasty bile and venom to qualify you for the front benches. Then we could watch on the telly.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
sonic Says: If you want me not to post here just ask.
David : please please just ask this idiot to shit the fuck up. He’s offering and it would be silly not to take him up on this. Idiot sonic does more to lower the tone of this blog that all the other trolls put together.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Roger and sonic , is it any wonder 80 % of smart kiwi’s want a new government , rape threat , is sonic a women ? What twisted people the labour creeps are .
I have had it with this thread .
[DPF: Can I suggest everyone calm down and stop posting on this thread unless it is to do with the original post]
August 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Hey Slighty Righty, Yoo Hoo I’m over here behind the Trolls…
Maybe her comment was meant to be more along the lines of
“That Keys a moron, look how rich I am without doing a days work”
August 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
slightly rightly: ,” the Prime Minister said. Because the Labour Party isn’t led by me with a $50 million bank account.”
She doesn’t need that sort of backing to run an election. She has taxpayers money to call on.
She has it both ways. She claims the Pledge card is not Government policy that it is Party policy and then gets the taxpayer to pay for it .
When the taxpayer objects she passes her law Law to justify an allegedly criminal act?
August 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Frank,
I understand the principles, you just spelled it out as cleanly as I have ever seen it written and I still had to read it twice.
THe whole debacle is not just dodgy, but magnificently so.
Kudos to the crooked buggers that worked this one out
August 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Well, I wouldn’t give tuppence for the 2008 election but I’d sure bet that nothing changes afterwards.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“I have not seen any reports that the racing one costs $800,000. Do you have proof of this. I thought it was a five figure sum. The EB campaign was $500,000 and didn’t actually help National. And the anon donations which Helen is protecting can’t be added to the expenditure total as they are income not expend”
Hagar’s book reports that cost of the the “fair-tax” propaganda was “exactly the same as the pledge card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election_2005
“The EB campaign was $500,000 ”
do you have any proof of this?
“And the anon donations which Helen is protecting can’t be added to the expenditure total as they are income not expend”
So we are to believe that National just left their War Chest half full? Not likely hey David?
Oh yeah – and I forgot about the several thousand dollars that National’s property developer mates (who are a good part of our housing crisis) spent on billboards.
Can you really sit there with a straight face and tell us that you think labour matched National’s spending in the months coming up to the 05 election? I mean, you’ve got to be bloody well joking right?
August 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Sorry, I meant to say …
“Oh yeah – and I forgot about the several HUNDRED thousand dollars that National’s property developer mates (who are a good part of our housing crisis) spent on billboards.”
August 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Roger Nome: I don’t know who spent the most. But I do know that Labour spent tens of millions on WFF advertising in Labour colours, and cynically and deliberately breached the spending cap in the last week of the campaign. Since then, they sheltered corrupt liars and thieves in their caucus for as long as they possibly could, engaged in extensive hate speech against their political opponents, and broken key promises to work for get us in the top half of the OECD, make NZ carbon neutral, and close down anonymous political donations. Instead, they seek to ban criticism. Like those who dwell under the mountain they believe in nothing and answer to no-one.
Labour are politically corrupt and morall bankrupt.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“Labour spent tens of millions on WFF advertising”
The total for all WWF communications was 21.15 million over three years.
http://www.oag.govt.nz/2004/working-for-families/
If I’ve told you once I’ve told you a million times, you exagerate far too much
August 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
As I type this, Mark Burton is giving a series of evasive answers to the House in repsonse to Q4. Hnasard will make interesting reading tonight!
August 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Sonic: Schedule 1 of that link shows over $10m spent in the 12 months before the general election. Then Labour fought the election on Working for Famililes! (And student loans). $10m on a major election issue, in the 12 months before the election. And you think it’s okay! Amazing …
August 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Aha, I have identified Nome’s “closing down the debate” technique.
Essentially, all he does is constantly ask for proof of this or proof of that. So unless you are willing to spend a chunk of your day finding a document (available online, no less) that specifies the EXACT figure you quoted, he can happily ignore your point.
Of course it doesnt always work. Notice that DPF said, “The EB campaign was $500,000 and didn’t actually help National.”
Nome’s comeback was to ask if he had PROOF of the figure $500k. He obviously did this reflexively because DPF actually said the $500k DIDN’T HELP NATIONAL!
August 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Quite ironic that a Justice Minister is quivering with Q4 , funny as a hollowhead play .
August 14th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
“Sonic: Schedule 1 of that link shows over $10m spent in the 12 months before the general election”
10 million on every bit of communication, thats every leaflet, every internal communication, the staff training other staff how it works etc etc etc.
If you think that adds up to “tens of millions on WFF advertising in Labour colours” I’d stay away from any difficult business decisions involving budgets.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
The questions are: Who drew up The Finance Electoral Bill and at whose direction?
The most important implication is, that we have, in its present state, the most iniquitous Bill (Other the the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, that has ever reached a select committee submission stage. To do so, it had to have the support of the House.
So
The people who supported this Bill to get it before a Select Committee are the really guilty parties that have allowed such a scurrilous piece of proposed legislation to denigrate the so called integrity of the House.
Parliamentarians have a term for it:
“Bringing the House into Disrepute:
August 14th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“Sonic – who the fuck do you think you are? I can’t wait to catch up with you one day as you find out I am not a little man !!’
to lower myself down to d4j’s level (and that’s a looong way down)
so are you saying your a big man…. with a small dick ?
that would explain a lot….
August 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I thought I read that David Farrar the owner of this blog said keep to the topic and refrain from personal attacks ?
August 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Sonic: You are a liar. Paragraph 9 of the document not only makes clear that you are wrong, but it indicates that costs were incurred in other budgets not included in the $20+m total.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
The advertising for WFF had “You’re better off with Labour” all over it. The KiwiSaver ads are a lurid red and feature the Labour logo.
This was not ‘information’ but blatant politicking – paid for by us taxpayers.
The WFF campaign was $10M in the 10 months prior to the election but was not counted as Labour Party advertising – which it was.
The Electoral Finance Bill proposes to allow even more of this kind of advertising while shutting up third parties and restricting National (and other parties) for 10-11 months before the election.
Sonic, don’t even feel a little uncomfortable about that?
August 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
but thinly veiled threats of violence are ok ?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Shall I unleash fully on orginal simon and cop a two month ban ?
Let me see now , double standard smells bad from here .
What the hell , liars always start the fires .
August 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“Roger Nome: I don’t know who spent the most. But I do know that Labour spent tens of millions on WFF advertising in Labour colours, and cynically and deliberately breached the spending cap in the last week of the campaign.”
KD – like I’ve said – there’s no excuses for these actions, but there are reasons. A small number of people from New Zealand’s elite business community were able to provide National with a massively undemocratic advantage in the 05 election. Now IMHO Labour sought to counter this with its own undemoctatic action (the pledge card). Clearly we need to clean up election funding on both sides.
“Since then, they sheltered corrupt liars and thieves in their caucus for as long as they possibly could”
I agree, they should have put principal before political expediency in those instances – but such is the world of politics ….
“engaged in extensive hate speech against their political opponents”
I think that you’ll find that went tit for tat. neither the left or right have a monoply on that kind of abuse.
“and broken key promises to work for get us in the top half of the OECD, make NZ carbon neutral, and close down anonymous political donations.”
NZ’s economy has been growing well since 2000 – they may have fallen short of their expectation there but they’ve done well.
So you expected them to make nz carbon neutral in several years? A tough task master aren’t you?
The Lab Party are par for the course when it comes to politicians.
Personally I am very wary of John Key – after all, like Don Brash, he was a trusted employee of the international banking elite – the same people that have funded both sides of every major international war for the last two hundred years. I really wonder about the connections that John Key still has in that community. I know that Don Brash planned on borrowing more money from his former employers to fund National’s tax cuts – now I wonder how JK will make his
This brilliant doco will show you what i mean about the international banking elite.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=the+money+masters&total=1421&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
August 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
bored now!
back off to work…
August 14th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“So you expected them to make nz carbon neutral in several years?”
Umm no sensible person believes this was ever going to happen, but thats what they were selling
August 14th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Roger Nome: Unfortunately, the facts are against almost every point you make.
(1) Our OECD ranking is going backwards.
(2) Under Labour carbon emissions have grown by 8.6%, compared to 3.8% in the USA and 5.1% in Australian.
(3) Don Brash specifically told his caucus not to retaliate against Labour’s dirt. Labour kept up the filth anyway.
(4) There is no evidence of massive donations let alone massive advantage to Labour in 2005. The only known massive donation was from overseas business interests to Labour.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
It does not matter who had more money in the bank, Labour or National, as there were limits on how much they could spend on the 2005 campaign. What Labour did is spend up the the limit, then spend another $800,000 on top of that. If you add in the $10M on WFF which clearly said “you’re better off with Labour” Labour’s over spend was simply breathtakingly massive.
So Labour cheated. cheated. cheated.
Excessive (in some eyes) donations make NO difference if everyone sticks to the limits.
Leave third parties out of it – EB and the Unions, and anyone else.
Everyone should be able to have their say in the election process. Not just political parties.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Point (4), should read “let alone massive advantage to Nation”. DPF, how about a preview option?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Sorry DPF, cant help myself.
“I’m glad I don’t work in a business run by you “Bok”
Hard to imagine you actually work at all Sonic.
G
August 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“Excessive (in some eyes) donations make NO difference if everyone sticks to the limits.”
That depends on whether you think that parallel campaigns by third parties make a difference. I happen to think that they do.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
NZ Lead will the world in Carbon Neutrality??? Perhaps not. So now, we are going to lead the world in legislating the carbon cost of producing eco friendly housing. A bit of a come down?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Kiwi donkey the figure included
9. The $21.15 million for the Communications Strategy includes the costs of research, creative development, production, media placement and monitoring for mass media advertising, as well as the costs of the MSD’s direct marketing campaign to its existing clients. The MSD direct marketing campaign includes the cost of amendments to brochures and forms, and of letters to explain the Working for Families changes. The IRD will use its annual renewal letter.
So how can you claim 10’s of millions in Labour advertising?
Oh I forgot, you just make it up.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
To all interested political parties…
There seems to be a theory that the more money you spend on elections, the more votes you will get. BOLLOCKS, My vote is not for sale & never has been.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
helmet I think we are on the same wave I dont really care how much gets spent as long as I know who it is whose spending it. I put my trust in my fellow citizens making a good decision ( well most of the time expect they stuffed up in 05) Thats why i support the jury system
On the other topic thats come up I believe we need to sort out the situation re a current government and the difference between informing the great unwashed on its programmes and advertising for re election.
Perhaps the rules should be information on programmes like WFF KiwiSaver etc must not include the usual party colours or font or any marks likely to suggest the party.
Also maybe there should be a dollar limit on each programme decided by an independent Commission. (take the self interest away from the bastards).
The pollies and their advisers need reiging in.For too long they have been on a drunken uncontrolled spree at the taxpayers expense.
Remember Foot on throats Blow torch down Y fronts. Feet to the fire. And all at the same time so they get the message.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Sonic: Try to torture the English language as much as you like; it’s a misrepresentatino and a red herring. The fact is you support the insupportable and twist words to try to back it up. You have the moral fibre of a jellyfish.
When you open your mouth, lies vomit forth like a camphylobacter infected dinner. You are quintessence of style over substance. Your version of dishonesty a wen on the blogosphere.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
While I don’t support Sonic’s views, I do support his democratic right to air them.
As for some of the other contributors – it would be really refreshing to see you “attack the topic” instead of “attacking the player”
Get your S**T together lads……………..
August 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“When you open your mouth, lies vomit forth like a camphylobacter infected dinner”
All I have done is quote you and provide evidence as to why your comment was, at best, an exageration.
What is up with you guys today, too many outrage pills?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Lets hope the All Blacks show more mettle than the twisted Labour Lickspittles have shown on this thread ?
No wonder the election is for sale, as this country is infested with wimpish corrupt socialist liars . Attack whoever, the truth about these filth is for all to see as they learnt to attack like demented foaming pit bulls from the criminal leader behind all this corruption !
August 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Question for the rogered gnome.-
What was the ” ….massively undemocratic advantage in the 05 election.”
They lost for #$%^’s sake. Political observers ever since have noted that it was a disadvantage to the gnats.
Why are you so obsessed with the EB’s?
Is it a lame attempt to keep the light from shining on the proven electoral corruption of the pledge card and the subsequent “make the rort legal” Act? or can you just not help yourself from avoiding the reality?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Roger Nome, the EB would have had to spend 20x what they did to match what Labour spent (on WFF alone) – and they did NOT ask for people to vote National. (Even if they wanted to – they didn’t.) They raised issues and said why they did not like Labour’s or the Green’s stand on them.
I can’t for the life of me understand why they should not have the right to express their views. Are you saying that because they didn’t support Labour or attack National they should be muzzled? Because that’s what is sounds like.
The only rule they broke was not being open about who they were – but that all came out before the election anyway.
This whole mess is because Labour massively broke the rules and still only just managed to squeak in. Then they were not charged by the cops (as all parties except Progressives should have been, and the EB to boot) and passed validating legislation to get themselves out of the crap.
The Electoral Finance Bill is simply not needed at all. There was nothing wrong with the rules – except that they were not enforced.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Catwoman
I agree but it is an ironic contradiction that he is supporting legislation to remove much of that freedom.
A bit like socialists on welfare, living on the efforts of others then bitching about the “wealthy” who pay the taxes. Bah Humbug
August 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Catwoman – “While I don’t support Sonic’s views, I do support his democratic right to air them.”
There is no democracy on the internet dollface.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Bluebelle — thanks for your refreshingly clear logic. Sadly nothing logical appears to register with those who blindly support Labour and simultaneously hate anyone/anything that dares to present an alternative
August 14th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“(1) Our OECD ranking is going backwards.”
Our economy’s been growing at 3-4% per year since labour took over. That’s impressive in anyone’s book.
“(2) Under Labour carbon emissions have grown by 8.6%, compared to 3.8% in the USA and 5.1% in Australian.”
Yeah, Dairy farming’s exploding – remember how National ridiculed Labour’s proposed “fart tax”?
“(3) Don Brash specifically told his caucus not to retaliate against Labour’s dirt. Labour kept up the filth anyway.”
So labour got rattled for a while … politicaians always have played the adhom game and always will.
“(4) There is no evidence of massive donations let alone massive advantage to Labour in 2005. The only known massive donation was from overseas business interests to Labour.”
really?
The New Zealand National Party The Ruahine Trust P O Box 2244, Auckland $249,948.00
The New Zealand National Party The Waitemata Trust P O Box 2244, Auckland $1,254,845.00
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen1
August 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Bluebelle
Chris Trotter summed it up with his (in)famous comment that any corruption is acceptable as long as it keeps National off the Treasury Benches. !!
How can you argue with a concept that is so mindblowingly corrupt in itself?
August 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Hey Catwomen keep your powder dry pur,pur ,meoooow, I am still laughing from the sonic directed camphylobacter diner comment, well done kiwi donkey as that is up there in the blogosphere humour tumour stakes .
August 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Sonic has the mind of a politician and might go far if can find a sympathetic audiance.
- accepts insults as a given and tries to maintain civility,
- portrays half truth as fact,
- construes opinion as truth,
- blurbs only with no long analysis,
- answers questions selectively,
- hardly ever states a direct opinion,
- if caught with a direct opinion changes immediately,
- takes glee in categorising opponents.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
why dont you all shut up and do some work,
for christs sake how on earth do you eggs contribute anything meaningful to your communities when you spend all day arguing like this.
There must be some big internet mains switch somewhere on the planet that can be flicked to ‘off’. Clues to its location greatly appreciated.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I think too many people are paying too much attention to the amount spent. Act spent heaps and got very little. The Fair Tax in Racing scheme spent a few bob, but got nowhere in the election stakes. Where the Racing Industry did well is that a certain dapper Hori insisted that his price was N.Z. First’s racing policy. Now whether that party was beholden to some wealthy people in the racing game – I do not know. But the Taradale slime ball (MC) agreed with everything the dapper one wanted; that slime ball would even make wealthy graduates’ student loans interest free if it would get him a vote.
In short, no electoral success is guaranteed with a big big spend. It is the little intricate bits that count.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
vto ; I am contributing lots to my country by explaining to a large voting audience just how corrupt the Labour government is ? Blogs are very influential in elections , just look at the last US election. No PC crap on blogosphere , no media paid shrill puppets , etc…etc…
Go somewhere else if you’re not a happy chappy , maybe planet clare eh bud ?
August 14th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
ya ya dad4justice i know. you quite right. just having a bad day.
anyways, on the topic – what if everyone in NZ simply stood at the next election? surely then the rules open up and allow all sorts of commentary from everyone. play them at their own game.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
D4J -please do as the owner of this blog has requested and keep to the post at hand, as you are looking like an intemperate and disobediaent child – bad daddy.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
vto – great idea I’m in mate .That would stuff the political nutbars up for once and all .
August 14th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
……..
…….
……k
…..i
….w
…i
..b
.l
.o
..g
…
….
…..
…….
DPF, what used to be a great discussion forum, is quickly going downhill. ‘Debate’ and ‘discussion’ is almost entirely gone. I have noticed that many of the people who used to make good contributions, no longer (or rarely) visit anymore. Any chance cleaning this up a bit?
August 14th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Bid on the 2008 Election: We need to revise our estimates of what it is worth.
Biggest incentive is that once elected, you can dip into the public purse to your hearts content. All International sporting events – other events dear to your heart. Your wish is Parliamentary Services command.
But
The golden rule is don’t get caught out otherwise you’ll be on the mat before Mistress Speaker The Hon Margaret Wilson, and you will be subject to abuse with a wet bus ticket, with full Police approval.
Hone has to Pay $750 AIR FARE BUT HAS NO LIABILITY FOR HIS UNUSED ACCOMODATION?
Boy does that suck! In the private sector borrowing from the petty cash box is shown by an IOU. An audit – No IOU and it becomes THEFT?
Special dispensation for Members of Parliamen? The Crimes Act doesn’t apply to them?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
“(1) Our economy’s been growing at 3-4% per year since labour took over. That’s impressive in anyone’s book.”
Except, of course, all those countries that are surpassing us.
“(2) Under Labour carbon emissions have grown by 8.6%, compared to 3.8% in the USA and 5.1% in Australian.”
“(2) Yeah, Dairy farming’s exploding – remember how National ridiculed Labour’s proposed “fart tax”?”
And that would achieve what? Reduce the number of dairy cows? Yeah, it isnt as if NZ relies too much on the Fonterra payouts. Of course, National also would have ridiculed Labours nationalisation of carbon credits from forestry.
It is funny that you call yourself Nome,
Step one – TAX
Step two – ???
Step three – UTOPIA!
“(3) So labour got rattled for a while … politicaians always have played the adhom game and always will.”
Thank goodness labour was only rattled for a while and arent trying to use the leader of the oppostions economic status against him. Can you imagine if National was to justify a law curbing free speech because Helen Clark has no children?
As for the last point… meh, it was an abberation. If we take the data you provided a link to we will find that since 1996,
Labour has recieved $3.79million in donations.
National has recieved $4.57million.
Nothing much to say about that. Take out the one off $1.2m and they are fairly even. Leave in the $1.2m for National and assume that only 25% of the WFF was a campaign spending donation by the New Zealand taxpayer (a brave call) and Labour would have recieved around $1.5million more.
Anonymous donations you ask? Well,
Labour had anonymous donations of $1.75 million.
National had anonymous donations of $0.73 million.
The proportion of Labours donations that are anonymous, 46%.
The proportion of National donations that are anonymous, 16%.
Even if you include the $1.2m donation in 2005, Nationals proportion would STILL be lower that Labours.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Oh, and the average anonymous donation for Labour was $46,166 and the average for National was $43,217.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I agree with Andrew Bannister.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
The coalition for open government has revealed that a ban on anonymous donations was in the Bill, but cabinet had it removed.
“Shortly before the Bill was introduced, whole sections simply disappeared. Gone was anything about stopping anonymous donations. The same for secret trusts. A ban on donations by foreigners also disappeared without a trace.”
That is remarkably amazing hypocrisy, right up there with carbon neutraility really. Source: see page 3 of:
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0708/newsletter2webversion.pdf
Of course, Labour is the recipient of many anonymous donations, as Kimble notes above (onya Kimble). Labour also received $300,000 from a very wealthy Sydney businessman, Owen Glen. And who was it that tried to bribe the Maori party to support Labour?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Why do so many wealthy people give large sums of money to labour? Is it a form of economic sabotage of the competition or what?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I have to say, these post things on these forum things are quite weird. Which is probably what mr bannister may be getting at. They strip away the usual forms of communication and leave only bare words, which can be harsh and like a possum in the headlights. There are none of the things that have been used to assess a communication since man became man – like body language especially, and appearances, and accents and etc etc and easy to avoid instant and more dangerous reactions. As such the posts seem hard and uncompromising. It is a form of communication that would seem to have a lot of maturing to go through yet. Meantime, what a clash!!
That was way off the subject but I only just started looking at these things and it seems easy to get cut by people. And didn’t know where else to say it.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Well its a nice post vto. Keep it up.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
The nice thing for other multi millionaires about having a multi millionaire for the next prime minister is that you know you dont have to buy him.
After all he will think just like and have the interests of other multi millionaires who made their money on the money markets right at heart.
Its a lot cheaper this way. And even better, you dont have to delegat someone from the round table to provide him with sexual favors!
Bring back Bill English. Bring back Mr Integrity to National.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Bannister said ” Any chance cleaning this up a bit?”
Oh why Andrew ? I do notice your subtle manoeuvre of attempted persuasion , however we’re only emulating the televised antics of our elected leaders in the debating chamber of Parliament today , another disgrace here and there !!
August 14th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Dad4Justice – I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew Bannister. You seem completely incapable of understanding the difference between “intelligent comment” and “ranting” (assuming your daily poo-dump even qualifies as a “rant”). You’ve already been banned several times from Kiwiblog for this reason. And your silly threats against James Sleep and (on this thread) Phillip John/Roger Nome show you up in a very poor light. You clearly feel aggrieved about what “the system” has done to you. That’s understandable. But DPF has previously pointed out that his blog is about issues – not about your personal problems. Just so we can assess your sanity level, can you point to ONE constructive contribution of yours on this thread? That’s “constructive” as in something other than your obsession with feminazism, Helen Clark and her evil lesbian cult, Sonic the snake etc. Go on – surprise us.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Whatever gripper I don’t care what you think .
August 14th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
And you don’t care what DPF thinks?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Hey Justice take some bad acid and hit the road you twisted nutbar .
August 14th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Nutbar? Do you even KNOW what that means?
dad4justice Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“The captain would like to know if passenger policy parrot knows that the parrot on his leftie shoulder is a normal hetrosexual parrot that has the IQ comparable to 5 year old child . Poofters are going stirr crazy in hold Sir !
This is going to one hellva voyage ?”
Way to go Dad4Justice. Now can we have a “utopian” from you please?
August 15th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Andrew Bannister: DPF, what used to be a great discussion forum, is quickly going downhill. ‘Debate’ and ‘discussion’ is almost entirely gone. I have noticed that many of the people who used to make good contributions, no longer (or rarely) visit anymore. Any chance cleaning this up a bit?
I agree David. It seems as if every third post is from Dads4Justice posting some random selection of invectives from the dictionary. It’s not funny, it’s not entertaining and it’s most certainly not contributing to the topic. Any chance of getting a /ignore feature, perhaps?
August 15th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Not to mention Sonic delibertely winding people up with half truths and distortions, laced with insults.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Possible, although the same could be said for Selma and a variety of posters here. If it were up to me? I’d prefer to listen to the ignorant than the insulting. There’s at least some hope of teaching those who do not know. But with an ignore feature, one could choose which annoying buzzing flies you were listening to and which you were ignoring.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Pascal, you would know all about buzzing blow flies eh ? Don’t cry, it’s only Labour trying to buy another election , however all the money in the world will not help them this time .
Do have a nice day .
August 15th, 2007 at 7:48 am
If you were to actually discuss Labour and their pathetic attempts to buy an election, by all means – we could have an interesting discussion.
But when you are throwing around threats of lawsuits, claiming defamation and playing the moral high-card when just about every post of yours contains an insult to someone who might hold a different opinion to yours – having a credible debate on what is affecting our nation becomes very, very difficult.
You do however have the right to say whatever you like, which is why I would like an ignore feature. The only person you’re hurting is yourself and your own credibility. Your message, accurate as it might be, gets lost in the noise.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:59 am
My credibility has seen the Families Commissioner call me to Wellington to explain a serious travesty of justice case and dear pascal, I think Dr Rajen Prassad, whom I met earlier this year face to face is a better judge of character than some internet geek with an opinion !
Can I expect another criminal labour fraudulent pledge card in my letterbox this election? This is the million dollar question . TAB is paying evens on the odds of it happening !
August 15th, 2007 at 8:11 am
And yet again, out with the insults. What do you gain by calling me an internet geek with an opinion when you know next to nothing about me, but that I have an internet connection and read Kiwiblog? The only factors you have to judge me on, as the only factors I have to judge you on, are the comments on this blog.
Tell me, when you met with Dr Prassad, did you use the type of language that you use here? And call them names as well? I suspect not. But that matters not a whit – because that is not the Dad4Justice that is represented on Kiwiblog. Here you appear to be a noisy, angry man who’s vocabulary and wit is restricted to insults. Outside of this blog you might be a Nobel laureate who regularly dines with the most influential members of society – but that is not the side of you that we are seeing.
As I said earlier, you have the right to do whatever you will. I am however pointing out to you that the face you are presenting on this blog makes you look poorly and will result in your message being ignored, skipped over or dismissed outright. And you don’t want that to happen, do you?
As to the fraudlent pledge card – I would honestly not be surprised. It seems as if there is a certain desperation in the Labour camp recently, perhaps punctuated by witty responses like this “Election for Sale” spoof on Trademe. Reading the commentary that David posted on the State Housing sale, they do seem to be lacking in substance resorting only to attacking without actually dealing with the issues.
It’s almost a pity that so many people are swayed by that type of thing.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Ok pascal , Gandhi said “honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress “, the internet geek comment offended you , hell I get called a paedophile on here every second day , but whatever, it is encouraging that we agree that this Labour government is destroying the self esteem of this nation’s people . As I said before , do have a nice day .
August 15th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Being called a paedophile? That is reprehensible, especially when speaking to a loving father. The depths that people would sink to, it just never ceases to amaze me.
We were having a discussion on the self-esteem aspect over the proverbial office watercooler a few days ago, especially with regards to the education system and how it teaches dependancy rather than excellence. But I suspect that is a discussion for another topic.
You have a good day too, sir.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
How sweet. Do you to want a room so you can make out?
August 15th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Two not to
August 16th, 2007 at 7:54 am
And what leads you to that suggestion that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China?