HoS on Peters
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 am by David FarrarThe Herald on Sunday editorial calls for the winds of change:
New Zealand First leader and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has exceeded even his own characteristically pugnacious standards in the past week as he has continued to deflect questions about the cash donations made either to him or to his party. Promising much but delivering nothing in terms of clearing the air, he has engaged in behaviour which has been at times hard to distinguish from the paranoid and irrational.
Except that Peters is just acting – the whole thing is just a charade to him.
It is difficult not to see Peters’ actions as those of a man committing slow political suicide. His party’s poll ratings (which is to say his; there has never been a significant distinction) are averaging barely 3.5 per cent, a long way from the threshold that would ensure its return to Parliament (he seems beyond unlikely to recapture the Tauranga seat).
National’s Tauranga candidate Simon Bridges is a very happy man. Peters may or may not fool 5% of the electorate into believing his protests he is victim of a media conspiracy, but he will not fool 40% of Tauranga voters.
But what is much more likely is that his behaviour is both shrewdly calculated and tactically astute. Fighting for his political life, Peters is interested in appealing only to the small number of voters – most of them lapsed NZ First loyalists who are making eyes at National – who can push his party over the threshold. If he alienates and exasperates the rest of the country, generous wealthy donors, his political opponents and even his coalition partners in the process, that is neither here nor there.
Spot on. He is not worried about the 90% who will never vote for him. He is just trying to lock in half or more of the 10% who might vote for him.
Until now, the Prime Minister has adopted a legalistic wait-and-see approach, saying she must let matters run their course. It is notable that her endorsements of Peters, never warm, are becoming steadily cooler. But it is intolerable that she should allow one of her ministers the freedom to manipulate the democratic process.
Clark will be laughed at if she tries to campaign on transparency or accountability.
Up to now, she has had to consider the implications for the coalition’s stability of alienating Peters, but this week, as the last of the Budget legislation is passed, represents the last procedural opportunity for NZ First to bring the Government down and force an early election. Come Friday, the PM could, and should, sack the minister and expose him to the chill electoral winds that are blowing his way. It would be a good thing for the country if those winds, once and for all, blew him from the political stage.
She made pretty clear on Agenda this morning, she would not be doing that.
Tags: anonymous donations, Herald on Sunday, Simon Bridges, Tauranga, Winston First
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
“It is intolerable that she should allow one of her ministers the freedom to manipulate the democratic process”.
Well that’s certainly true. But this is the woman that allowed her party to manipulate the democratic process in 2005, and has allowed her Speaker of the House to manipulate it for the last 3 years. I doubt she’d have any guilty feelings about allowing Winston to roger it for another few months.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
a piss-week editorial..more a wish-list of the writer..than any political reality..
clark will not sack peters..to force an early election..aside from what clark said on agenda..
the reasons/logics against this are too numerous to bother explaining..
the editorial is full of shoulda/woulda..etc..
as clark noted..she has been shown nothing that peters did has been shown to her as being illegal..
..end of story..really..
..and nothing national/labour/whoever have not done themselves..
peters will probably crack 5%..and will be back..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Philu You’re probably correct that she wont sack him, and that Peters may crack 5%. The good news is how it reflects on Clark, that the public sees she will sell her soul to stay clinging by her fingertips to power.
I dont recall Benson Pope, Dalziel (or other sacked ministers) doing anything illegal either, just lying (which Peters is obviously doing)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Winston’s safe til E day. Even after confidence and supply, Clark needs NZF support to pass the ETS. A deal on power discounts for SuperGold cardholders is not out of the question. Labour gets their ETS, Winston gets his crinkly discount policy. This only happens though, if Labour reckons there’s more votes gained in the ETS than lost from Winston’s damage by association. If the government takes a hit in the polls because of Winston, he’s dog tucker. That’s not happening yet.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“…as clark noted..she has been shown nothing that peters did has been shown to her as being illegal..”
Yes phil, as numerous media commentators and bloggers have noted it’s not legality but ethics and not just the appearance but the actual factual reality of hypocrisy that’s at stake here.
It would be good if just once, one of you lefties from Clark down, directly addressed that transparently simple distinction, and explained to the rest of us precisely why Clark is not guilty of that in this particular instance.
I realise doing such may be beyond your intellectual capacity even if you understand the point that’s being made, but I would have thought that Rogernome who seems rather bright, might have taken up that particular cudgel.
We’re waiting.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“..The good news is how it reflects on Clark, that the public sees she will sell her soul to stay clinging by her fingertips to power..”
do you seriously think..that with the international/local economy turning to shit/people hurting..
..that such a subtlety will drive how people cast their vote..?
..bit of a sheet-anchor that one..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
once again reid..you are presenting a ‘wish-list’..
..not one grounded in political realities..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Not at all phil, everything I said is perfectly evident and factual. I don’t even need to list the premises that support the hypocrisy accusation, everyone already knows them – a child would understand it. It’s just lefties refuse to address it. I don’t care why, but I wish you lefties would stop childish obfuscation. It’s not as if anyone with a triple-digit IQ is taken in by it. Just give it up, FFS. It’s boring.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Squeeze every last drop of tax payers money out the PM’s job Helen, take as long as you like extracting your final moment of sour glory from the people of NZ. The curtain is finally closing on unaccountable arrogant govt and we expect no less than for you to milk it for every last drop. Keep covering that poodle Winston’s ass for him, just like you did Taito Field’s… Sick self serving…
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Rogernome who seems rather bright, might have taken up that particular cudgel”.
Rogernome…. he’s as thick as pigshit!
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
reid..when exactly did hypocrisy become a crime..?
so..your point..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and..um..!..spurt is just spurting..eh..?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Didn’t say it was phil. Once again you’re trying to obfuscate. Please stop it. Address the question.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“..# lechaudlapin (8) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Rogernome who seems rather bright, might have taken up that particular cudgel”.
Rogernome…. he’s as thick as pigshit!..”
mm!!..do you think that is better or worse than your other seven commentss..?
if you were hoping to impress with your wit/erudition..
..you haven’t..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
philu
So you support secret trusts for NZ1? How about for National? Is it the fact National disclosed how much money they passed legally between the trusts they collect donations into and the party that upsets you or are you like the twat roger nome and it’s all sour grapes because the party you support wasn’t supported as well by the public as National?
Fess up philu, tell us what it is that you like about dubious secret deals and funding and what it is you hate so much about accountability?
Perhaps you are like roger and you know that your party of choice couldn’t survive without the likes of retrospective validation covering 14 years and legislation passed under urgency to protect it from the fact it has no regard for the law and is not well supported by the public.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“..Please stop it. Address the question..”
what fucken question..?
you seem to be deeply confused..
does this happen often..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
where to start spurt..where to start..
“..burt (1887) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
philu
So you support secret trusts for NZ1? How about for National? Is it the fact National disclosed how much money they passed legally between the trusts they collect donations into and the party that upsets you or are you like the twat roger nome and it’s all sour grapes because the party you support wasn’t supported as well by the public as National?
Fess up philu, tell us what it is that you like about dubious secret deals and funding and what it is you hate so much about accountability?
Perhaps you are like roger and you know that your party of choice..”
i support the green party policy of no anonymous donations over $1,000..
end of story..
the greens are my ‘party of choice’..and who i vote for..
..so it would be in my short-term/’green’ interest to have peters’ swept away..
..but i don’t see how a numb-nuts like youself could understand such subtleties..
..so..carry on..!
go to source/story>>
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“what fucken question..?”
Either justify Clark’s hypocrisy or explain why it doesn’t exist, phil.
I’m not going to bore everyone (more than they already have been) by spelling out the logic of the accusation. You know it, we know it, 10-year-olds know it.
All I’m asking for is a single lefty, just one, to justify it, directly. Either explain why it doesn’t exist using evidence of past actions or explain why it’s OK. In doing so please don’t resort to references to legality as they are not at all germane. Such references are transparent obfuscation that simply insults one’s intelligence.
If you need more clarity than that phil, please refer to my 12:13 reference to your good self.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“Rogernome…. he’s as thick as pigshit!..”
mm!!..do you think that is better or worse than your other seven commentss..?”
What’s it got to do with you? … include yourself in the same category… a complete waste of space!
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
philu
Now I’m starting to understand you. You support the Green party who although founded on activism voted for the EFA to make people wanting to protest publish their name and residential address and their protest banners or break the law.
If you support poodles like that who will help a twisted self serving govt like Labour then it’s no surprise you don’t think hypocrisy is any concern – hell it’s required to be a Green party supporter since Donald died (RIP).
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
as i said before.
..’spurt is just spurting’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I don’t know what that means phil and I don’t think I really want to. But thanks for playing, sorry, no banana.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
reid
I’ll translate. philu calls me ‘spurt’ and says I’m ‘spurting’ when he can’t answer the questions I ask him or when he’s about to run away because he can’t defend his precious party of hypocritical poodles.
Just like he won’t answer your questions. I suspect it’s a factor of too much THC.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
So, while the journalists are demanding that Peters be completely transparent about apparently legal, but rather secretive donations that have undoubtedly benefited either him or his party, we never hear one peep from them demanding National come out and reveal who donated $1.5 million to the National Party in 2005. More pertinent still would be the question of who made the massive amounts of secret donations to National at the end of 2007, just before the legislation came in that would have made them illegal (the EFA).
If it’s so bad that Peters is not being up front about the details of his few hundred thousand dollars of secret donations in 2005, why is it not bad that National refuses to be up-front about where its millions in secret donations have come from over the last four years?
It’s different because Winston has campaigned on transparency you say? Rubbish. If this makes Winston hypocritical, then National is hypocritical for attacking him over this behaviour, when they are guilty of the same thing on a much larger scale.
So by any reasonable analysis of this issue, National comes out looking at least as bad as NZ First. Where are the reasonable journalists in NZ? Why does National escape criticism, while Winston is hounded day and night?
No wonder Winston is able to paint this as a “media conspiracy”.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
oger nome
You seem to be forgetting one little detail, which is unfortunately the important detail. You know how much was passed between the Waitemata & Ruahine Trust’s to National, they declared it. Labour also declared their funds from trusts even though they were less well supported than National. However all that distraction aside, how much has NZ1 received from the Spencer trust?
We don’t know do we…. What money has gone where for what? We don’t know do we…. We can’t slag off about it being $1.25m because we don’t know how much it was do we. It’s not about how much roger, it’s about transparency and accountability. Give up blogging roger, you haven’t the brains for it
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Why is it that I am hearing from Wellington that more shredding machines have been purchased and why the lights are on well after working in hours in certain Departments, more than others, by nomonated persons so that other “daytime” staff are not made aware, although I am advised that the shredders are sorting files brought to them before “overtime” duties starts.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Nice attempt roger, but how about justifying Clark’s hypocrisy?
Didn’t she campaign on transparency and honesty?
Didn’t she fire or suspend Labour ministers for less serious transgressions?
Isn’t the reason she is failing to act is because she can’t until the Confidence vote has been held, which Peters is delaying?
Doesn’t that make her campaign pledges a mockery?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“do you seriously think..that with the international/local economy turning to shit/people hurting….that such a subtlety will drive how people cast their vote..?”
Vote:Philu, The truth be known about you and where your vote goes is whoever gives you the biggest welfare cheque. Interesting your admitting the local economy is turning to shit under this government though
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
reid
‘A new standard of openness and accountability’
“Doesn’t that make her campaign pledges a mockery?” – Yes 100% power at any price and bugger the pesky principles. It’s like Taito Field and David Benson-Pope all over again. All she cares about is staying in power and how corrupt the govt appears is of no consequence to her.
And people support this ! Go figure.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Burt:
“You know how much was passed between the Waitemata & Ruahine Trust’s to National, they declared it.”
They didn’t declare where it came from. There’s little value in declaring that you’ve received money, if you haven’t declared where it came from.
That’s what declaration procedures are about after all, having a transparent funding process, so the public can see who is backing who. Who has greased the palm of who?
This enhances democracy because it means that people make a more informed voting decision, meaning that the will of the people is more accurately reflected (kind of the whole point of democracy). Merely declaring that you’ve received a secret donation achieves nothing toward that end. It reveals nothing about what/who you may be voting for.
So if this debate is about who is undermining our democracy, Winston doesn’t come out looking any worse than National. In fact, National arguably comes out looking worse. They have, after all received a far larger amount of secret/potentially corrupting money. Further to this, as the party which is looking to form a majority government later this year, they are far more of a threat to the integrity of our democracy than Winston, and so this is where the attention of our media should be. This current Winston/NZ first sideshow is just a distraction from what really matters in that respect.
As for your personal insults, lol! You know I’ve expressed doubt about your intellectual abilities in the past. Having a first class honours degree, I’m fairly secure in mine. You wouldn’t happen to be a little bitter/sore would you?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
The reason the left can’t/won’t comment on mother sha boo boo’s hypocricy is cause it would finally wake up the sleeping mass of NZ public opinion, it would be a death blow to LIARbore and a landslide to national.
Hell even our lefties above dare not even russel up an apostrophy of comment they are that scared.
Vote:If this blatant hypocracy gets fully exposed for what it is, election night is going to be an awful lot of fun, heck I might even tape it !!!!
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
reid:
“Isn’t the reason she is failing to act is because she can’t until the Confidence vote has been held, which Peters is delaying?”
The reason for Labour’s failing to act more aggressively on this issue, is probably the same as National’s (failing to seek a serious fraud office inquiry into Peters – and instead leaving it to Rodney).
If they they are to have a hope of leading the next government, they will need him after the election. It ain’t pretty, but it’s the truth.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
roger nome
Yawn… Yes we know all about your first class honours degree roger but we still laugh at you when you can’t tell the difference between declaring donations to a political party and not. Please roger, try and remember this is about declaring what a political party receives and not about how much they receive. I know it’s difficult for you because without distracting the thread from Winston to National you can’t defend a govt with no principles – but really roger you could just shut the f##k up and let the adults debate the issue at hand rather than some imaginary issue in your mind.
Remember the Labour-led govt and the Green party voted for the EFA to retain anonymous donations from trusts so even the angle of “who donated” has been shot down by the parties your support. Please roger, try and keep up, you are seriously undermining the credibility of a ‘first class honours degree’.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
First class honours in political science? Might as well be from a cereal box. You can’t quote properly, spell properly, or reference properly. You’re a mental midget Nome, and bragging only highlights your insecurity.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Well said helmet.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Burt:
“we still laugh at you when you can’t tell the difference between declaring donations to a political party and not.”
You are a dense one aren’t you burt? I’ve already told you why that doesn’t make Winston any worse than National. If you were engaging in debate you would be addressing that argument. But you don’t. You merely flail about, sling childish abuse.
“Remember the Labour-led govt and the Green party voted for the EFA to retain anonymous donations from trusts”
You’re so pathetically hopeless. Firstly, I’ve never voted for Labour, though I do admit that they are light years better than what we saw from the National Party in the 1990s (apart from Key, their front bench is all the old 1990s faces).
Secondly, the Greens’ policy has always been full declaration of money over $1,000, but being a small party they don’t get everything they want. That’s the nature of MMP.
So, sure as the sun rising, Burt enters into a debate, and his argument falls flat on its face.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
lol – and here’s helmet with his customary cheapshots/blindsides from the sideline. So how’s that anger problem coming along bro? Assaulted any police officers lately? Too easy…
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
roger
They party you support voted for laws which retained the use of anonymous trusts and for thresholds significantly above what they claim they should be. Add to this a party founded in activism voted at the same time to make people protesting declare their name and residential address on their protest material and it’s all looking a bit sad isn’t it.
Keep supporting the party that hasn’t the balls to stand up in parliament for what it believes in but rather sells it’s soul to support Labour. You are one f##ked up myopic partisan lightweight roger.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Burt:
You weren’t there. I happen to know that the Green representative fought tooth and nail to improve the EFB, and was responsible for most of its improvements during select committee (National is responsible for very few, because they actually refused to engage in dialog during SC).
As such, I’m proud to support the Green Party, despite the smears that you’re attempting to land on them. Any how, you appear to have stopped attempting to debate the issues, so I’m off to live my life. Maybe you should do the same?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“..Interesting your admitting the local economy is turning to shit under this government though..”
do you specialise in missing the point..do you starr..?
mental midget..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Zippy Gonzales (12:02pm) – Winston’s also safe till election day because of what the Foreign Minister knows about the LAX incident. You won’t hear a peep from Hulun/Labour that aggravates Winnie.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
roger nome
Bollocks. I discussed it with Russell Norman on Lambton quay one day when he was protesting outside the ANZ. He said he didn’t think it was a big deal that people protesting would need to put their name and residential address on protest material if they were protesting political issues. He said he had no issues supporting the EFA. Clearly he’s a muppet just like you and pretends to be one political flavour while selling his soul to support the Labour-led govt.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
rogernome:
You’re probably right, roger, on the question of donations. Dirty money runs in the political veins of too many parties, and it has to stop (pity the EFA doesn’t do that, but that’s another debate).
However I can’t recall National (or the Maori Party or the Greens or Peter Dunne or even Jim Anderton) stooping to the level of attacking people – especially non-MPs, who can’t, as of right, demand an apology and withdrawal – in a gutless, immoral and disgusting manner.
Attempting to destroy careers and reputations with no thought not only about the people they’re targeting – who have done no more than blow the whistle on questionable practices, usually – but their families requires a deep seated lack of morality and a complete lack of integrity.
That seems to be the sole preserve of Winston, his goon squad, and certain members of the Labour Party. These people – regardless of their political hue and regardless of their sources of funding – are simply bottom dwellers who have no place in a House of Representatives (because they’re certainly not representative of any NZers I know). Wouldn’t you agree?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
On the contrary Roger Gnome (1:57pm), your continuous reference to your “unverifiable anecdotal” claim to have been awarded a first class honours degree does not show how “secure” you are! It shows how INSECURE you are when you dribble on about it…all…the…time.
PS …and your endless repetition of the claim (we were all especially entertained by your AAA+++ average story too!) does not make it any more believable – it just makes you look sad and desperate.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
National, can agree to co-operate on the supply Bill PROVIDING she calls the election immediately. It is for her to make the approach. It seems Peters now realises that once the supply bill is passed he loses all leverage over Helen Clark. But then he has to be careful because if this Government ends in a shambles this will be the THIRD time Winston Peters has caused a difficulty for a Government, and it will surely mean he is simply not fit for purpose.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“Winston’s also safe till election day because of what the Foreign Minister knows about the LAX incident. You won’t hear a peep from Hulun/Labour that aggravates Winnie.”
Very good point 3-coil. In that case I hope Hulun really pisses him off. I’m dying to see some public sunlight on that one.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Paulus
“Why is it that I am hearing from Wellington that more shredding machines have been purchased and why the lights are on well after working in hours in certain Departments, more than others, by nomonated persons so that other “daytime” staff are not made aware…”
Sorry, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. If the department I work in was shredding files at night, I would know. Hell, I’d probably be the one made to stay behind and do it! Ditto for my friends in other departments – no one I know has mentioned anything of this nature.
And what exactly is being shredded? With few exceptions, all the paper a Department produces can be obtained under the Official Information Act. If something is so incriminating that it must be destroyed before a possible change in government, why was it written down in the first place?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
(and speaking of ‘reputations’..)
rex..
got any more of your ‘evidence’ that smoking pot causes male impotence..?
(we could all do with a laugh..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
*Yawn*
And speaking of reputations, Philu, have you got a job yet?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Nome busts out the dull personal attacks- “lol – and here’s helmet with his customary cheapshots/blindsides from the sideline. So how’s that anger problem coming along bro? Assaulted any police officers lately? Too easy…”
I’m whitewater rafting all day every day, have been for a few months now. It’s a pretty relaxing lifestyle, so the anger thing ain’t much of a problem lately. And the cops? Haven’t had to drop any since I was sixteen, but then it hasn’t been necessary…. what’s your point?
Now, I think that this thread is about a lying, bragging, loudmouth hypocrite. It’s meant to be about Winston Peters, but your presence here confirms that there’s at least one other dishonest, divisive, narcissistic arsehole with political aspirations in this otherwise brilliant country of ours. You need to grow a spine and get some principles boy, and then you might get some respect around here.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Obsessed much, phil? Perhaps I’m wrong… the low fertility rate amongst potheads could well be due to another factor entirely. Like say, their failure to shower. Or their personalities.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
you really are a ‘case’..aren’t you rex..?
as an ad hominem..you make the ludicrous claim that pot causes male impotence..
..and when called on this piece of utter bullshit..
..you just snivel and slide around..
..you run and hide behind more (playground level..?..you smell..!) ad hominems..(!)..).
(good grief..!..how fucken old are you..?..)
the only evidence you could find/present..was a link to a website flogging a ‘miracle’ cure for all drug addictions..
(just send ($79.99..!..)
..and another pfizer-funded puff-piece on viagra..
..you are a fucken joke..!
..just answer the question..or withdraw your bullshit allegation..
it’s that simple..rex..
..over to you..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
phil there is a lot of evidence, it’s very well known. If you choose to ignore it that’s over to you but don’t deny it exists. For example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001212065509.htm
I’m only responding since you cast in doubt Rex’s credibility. I know he’s more than capable of responding himself but I just want to say I’ve always found him to be credible and his comments esp on NZF insightful and interesting. Which is more than I can say for some of yours mate.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Philu(seless):
Seriously, please do us all a favour – read this (which says it all) and then shut the fuck up:
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Phul
Why do you get so worked up (almost paranoid) about pot?
It IS harmful and it does fuck your brain up, as I said the other day you are living proof.
It will NEVER be legalised so perhaps you might be better served putting your time and energy into finding a fucking job.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
i’ll shut the fuck up ..when rex either puts up..or shuts up..
as i said..
it’s over to him..
i’m not going to let such outragous bullshit go unchallenged..
over to you..rex..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Phul
Its only “outrageous bullshit” if people give a shit….they don’t, so it ain’t.
Now how about getting a fucking job?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
that’s right..large sibling..
..lies/bullshit are all just a key part of your repertoire..eh..?
..so it being present in others..(c.f…rex..)..
..wouldn’t bother you..eh,.?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ok phil, like you said, it’s over to Rex.
That means now you shut the f$#k up. It’s Rex’s turn.
And if impotent is to be taken literally to mean useless and ineffective, I’d say using you as proof, he’s absolutely correct.
Now. Back to winston….
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Philu:
DPF has kindly put up a general debate thread here – so go debate Rex there.
While you’re at it, on that same thread, you might like to respond to Chuck Bird:
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
um..!..
as in.how low can chucky go..?
no thanks..
he’s a senile old slimeball..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I love the paranoia of pot heads. Suggest it is addictive or harmful you get a furious response – everytime. The mental Health wards are full of them.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
and i mean..he’s a fucken seppo..!..
and was a ginge..to boot..!
(before he got really old..but you can still see traces of the ginge in him..
..personality-wise..also..)
(shudder..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
and where do you old rheumey-eyed piss-heads go..?
tim..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
philu/4:39pm (re: ginge etc) – are you saying there’s a sort of “Rod Donald” quality about Chuck…eh?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
For a moment I thought this was about phil, but then I realised it’s not “You’re a dick on drugs” but “Your dick on drugs”, from the Australian Federation of Aids Organisations:
But then I guess they’re just puppets in the employ of evil big business interests too. Or getting secret instructions from Karl Rove. Or whatever your mind tells you when you take your tinfoil hat off.
In fact so badly are potheads’ equipment failing them that it’s being blamed by doctors for a rise in Viagra prescriptions.
Trouble is, taking the two together then causes an infarct.
Natural selection at work, methinks.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
rod donald and i saw eye to eye on very little..
(i’d never put it down to the ginge-factor..
..but now that you mention it..)
.and have you seen norman..?
the ginge-dynasty/bloodline is still ruling..(!)
,,actually..ginges drove the white-anting campaign against nandor..too..
..and..polling shows most ginges support that poxy e.f.b..
was dpf a ginge..back in the hair-days..?
does anyone have any pics..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“The only reason I can see that you got custody was that the alternative was even worse.”
Impossible, impossible, I hasten to add. Perish the thought, but is it possible to sink and stoop even lower?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“..The only reason I can see that you got custody was that the alternative was even worse..”
i should send her around to rip his head off..
(“what did you say about me..?”..)
she’s a german..!
whoar..!
time to duck ‘n weave..chucky..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“..but is it possible to sink and stoop even lower?.”
you just keep on trying there..!..
..man-so-low..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“should send her around to rip his head off..”
so thats how you once got over your soft cock problem then?
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Steady on guys – Philu is still someones Dad, and someones son.
I am fond of a saying that goes – “always make sure that your words are sweet and tender – for one day you may have to eat them”.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
getstaffed’s rule: a kiwiblog thread is dead the instant nome claims to have a first-class honours degree OR phil posts at five minute intervals.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
phils’ rule:..
getstuffed is but one of a coven of dribbling loons..
(i mean..check his ‘contributions’..
whoar..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
What’s the rule when both things happen at once getstaffed?
P.S. phil since you’re keen on grammar I know you’ll want to know the possessive apostrophe comes before the “s” unless you have a noun ending with an s. As in philu’s vs. Winston Peters’
Isn’t that interesting.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
reid – heh, dunno.
phil – ‘check out his contributions’. not an unfair point. i’ve been too busy at work to devote much time to serious and/or researched comments. oh that, and the constant socialist ideology and/or drug inspired verbal vomit that flows like waikato river once you and nome get in the zone with your keyboards!
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“..I know you’ll want to know the possessive apostrophe comes before the “s” unless you have a noun ending with an s. As in philu’s vs. Winston Peters’..”
that is actually a point of difference/debate in punctuation circles..
i lean to the other ‘after’ school..
..and did you know there is a strong school of ‘comma-haters’..?
..viewing it as the total ‘wimp’ of punctuation..
..and advocating it be done away with..
..and replaced with/by the double-dot..
..i also lean to that school..
(which stretches back to george bernard shaw..
..who was very bitter/bleak on the worthiness of the comma..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Roger Nome you said ( 1.28pm) that the EFA makes secret donations illegal.
It does nothing of the sort. I think far too many people still fail to recognise this ( even opponents of the EFA)
Everything that the Dompost revealed in the last 2 weeks could be structured in 2008 to occur so that the donations go unreported.
The 5 Vela donations of cumulatively around $50,000 in 2003 can be made in 2008 in exactly the same way. There is nothing to prevent each of the Velas and 2 of their companies from donating $10,000 each. Nothing! and there is no dislcosure required. If the Velas wanted they could arrange for 7 of their companies to donate $10,000 each and NZF gets $100,000 and the NZ public is none the wiser. So do not think you will see where NZF gets its money from this eelction, because you will not.
What the EFA does do however is that it restricts people and organisations from speaking out and campaigning against the encumbent government. Both Family First and Sensible Sentening said last year that the EFA would prevent them from writing to every household in the country. It introduces censorship.
The Human Rights Commision said that if there was to be regulation of 3rd parties, it should be for no more than 3 months immediately prior to the eelction.
But Labour, NZF and the Greens were not having any of that. They wanted censorship from 1 January.
The Greens voted to ignore our Human Rights Commission on this issue. And you said you were a proud supportter of the Green Party. Perhaps you should reconsider your support.
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Ah dammit, my response has been trapped in moderation, as I predicted would happen if I started listing references. We have to register to comment DPF… isn’t there a setting so that the known ‘regulars’ don’t get trapped after we’ve established beyond doubt we’re not a spambot and are in fact human*?
* In the broadest sense of the term, considering present company
Vote:August 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Put yourself in the position of a politician and you may will obviously see things from a different perspective. Take from them innuendo, inference, suggestion, diversion, deflection, mis-direction and hypocrisy and what you may well be left with is stark reality. This can be a very scary thing for a politician to have to deal with.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Rex
Vote:More than 2 links in a post will do that. Best to rewrite the post manually spelling out the website without www and then lead readers through the web site sections to the eventual link. Phil has an excuse/justification/standard NORML talking points spin against every cannabis study though – its part of his denial about his addiction.