Thread after thread after thread.

How about applying your considerable intellect to the issue under discussion?

Using the political maxim of not answering the question that’s asked but rather posing the question you want to discuss is a tactic that works well for morons and the terminally naive, but I would have thought you’d have picked up by now that this blog is inhabited by-and-large by rather more enquiring minds who become bored with such tiresome games.

But I’m entitled to point out the hypocrisy and lack of moral authority of the National Party in this issue. Coming from you people, it’s all much a froth about nothing (you all defended National’s use of secret, corruption inviting trusts).

Anyhow, I’m more interested in hearing why Farrar hasn’t done many more posts extolling the virtues of National’s latest proposal, aimed at taking a way the basic human rights of New Zealand’s most vulnerable workers.

Well Mr Farrar, how say you?

So on the face of it, Winston did stuff up, but in substance National’s potentially corrupt receiving of donations was on a much larger scale, so they have no moral high ground on this issue.

Whereas, the moral high ground of “everyone does it, and National has to be even worse — move along, nothing to see” is the rock of ages. Really, Nome, when it comes to ‘faux outrage’ someone really needs to deal with their own Freudian projection. Still, nice to know that what Winston is alleged to have done is a mere technical whoopsie. Must write out my big fat ‘subscription’ towards National’s campaign expenses – via John Key’s personal lawyer, who is as discreet as a high class call girl.

While we are on about faux outrage, how is it that you (a staunch defender of the EFA) can defend the actions of dear leader and the actions of Mr Owen Glen given that we have found out this week that BIG MONEY purchased the 2005 election?

$100k to Winnie if he went with Labour, another $250k offered to the Maori party (who rightly turned it down) if they went with Labour, is it that the real reason behind the EFA was to stop anybody else doing what Labour and dear corrupt maggot leader has already done?

Perhaps you miss the point. The National Party used secret trusts to receive a lot of potentially corrupting money in 2005. How ever it was public knowledge that this trust was being used to benefit the National Party.

Winston’s case is essentially the same, except his secret trust wasn’t publicly listed as delivering financial benefits to him, and this probably breaches the standing orders of parliament. Both situations stink to high heaven for the same reasons, but Winston has made the mistake of getting his law wrong.

So, the faux outrage of National over this issue inevitably looks hypocritical.

Nah – the National Party were never honest about the trust money they received in 2005 -and that was at least 15 times the amount Winston received. The only difference is, Winston didn’t list his trust as a pecuniary interest – which may be little more than a technical detail as we don’t know that Glen would have benefited from the donation (the lawyer was instructed to keep donors’ identities to himself).

So on the face of it, Winston did stuff up, but in substance National’s potentially corrupt receiving of donations was on a much larger scale, so they have no moral high ground on this issue.

In this case the time frames have weakened the plausible denialibility for them.. The email from Glenn was the killer punch.

I suspect Glenn was behind the leaking of this to pay Peters back for stuffing up his little Monaco job.

I also suspect Glenn has something up his sleeve on Clark probably thru the Bagman Williams.

Will be watching to see if there are more emails leaked. I wonder whether Clark found out about Glenn being the number one shipping agent for BAT British American Tobacco and the other (cough) interesting cargo he moves around the globe and even she drew the line and pulled back.

If so then Glenn will be out to destroy them both and so the death by emails

Well, thanks, but that’s not what I said at all. What I have said all along is that, you need to *prove* wrong-doing before you can start sacking people and the like. Helen Clark actually listed the various avenues for pursuing the matter in Parliamnet today.

Why has National not lodged any complaints anywhere then?

On National’s undoubtedly greater garnering of secret donations from wealthy and corporate interests I noted that, “… this will be lost on too many people, I fear.” You, of course, will probably say, “it was legal at the time, move on.”

Lastly, don’t know whether you saw Trotter’s recent Independent piece where he maintains that National had so much money at the last election that they planned a two-election strategy: barely winning in 2005 and then engineering a fresh election within a short time — not difficult if you have Peters in your government — and being the only party with the funds to fight it. Interesting?

[DPF: Trotter has made that up. It is a myth. And as for wrong doing - I would say demanding the resignation of journalists for exposing a secret $100K donation which benefited him is a clear case of unethical conduct.

And it is also bullshit about wrong doing must be proved in court or something before a sacking. Ask Dover about that. That is the excuse she used for Field when it was obviously clear he had acted unethically. The standard for Ministers should not be that they have not yet been sent to jail]

Nah – He recommends suspending the lynching until a case of wrong-doing has been proven. I thought that was obvious, although I’m not so surprised that the point was lost on you – being one of the shrillest Nat Party shills in the blogsphere.

Also, he’s right that the National Party risks looking hypocritical over this issue. They were by far the biggest recipient of secret, potentially corrupting money in 2005.

Next you are going to apply for a job with Father Christmas?

Heh… spasm of optimism which has been ruthlessly quashed. Sorry. But seriously, I just don’t know how anyone can even try and defend the indefensible.

Jafapete’s latest post on this makes all this frothing in the right blogsphere look a little silly. Perhaps this place needs a name-change? I suggest “lynchblog”. Any takers?

So, Jafapete’s attitude is ‘everyone does it, and John Key must be worse so move along… nothing to see.” Thanks, Nome. Also nice to see that anyone having the gall to criticise Saint Winston is tantamount to a pack of racist killers. Wipe the spittle off your chin on the way to the naughty step, and try not to be such a hack. Just once.

http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/nope-the-axe-is-stayed/

[DPF: Well I have had oh well over half a dozen lawyers go out of their way to congratulate me on the analysis on this blog.]