Craig v Norman

February 18th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Green Party co-leader has refused to retract his characterisation of ’s views on women and homosexuals despite the threat of legal action against him.

Craig, Conservative Party of New Zealand leader, has taken the first steps in action after Norman claimed at Auckland’s Big Gay Out that Craig thought a woman’s place was in the kitchen and a gay man’s was in the closet.

Norman made an almost identical comment in Parliament during his opening speech for the year, but attributed it to the “conservative Right”, rather than Craig.

Craig has instructed his lawyers to take legal action and told Fairfax Media that the Green MP should apologise and retract his comments as “these are not things I think”.

“It is a defamatory thing and I would consider that somebody who thinks those sorts of things would have a lower standing in the eyes of the public … he’s crossed the line,” Craig said.

Norman’s characterisation of his views were offensive and “just wrong”.

“We … see them as defamatory, sexist, derogatory and offensive, so that pretty much sums up my view of them.” 

Norman today refused to resile from his comments, however, saying he found Craig’s comments “offensive”.

This doesn’t reflect well on either man. Russel Norman is the co-leader of the Green Party that claims a core value is “Engage respectfully, without personal attacks“. Norman tramples over that Green value all the time.

However Craig looks thin skinned for again threatening defamation. It may appeal to his support base which don’t like the Greens, but will make the media more hostile towards him as they don’t like politicians who threaten defamation. Also the comments Norman made, while false (as far as I know), are not worse than a lot of political rhetoric.

However there is one aspect to this, which the media have not picked up on. If you look at the letter Craig sent Norman, he is not threatening to sue Norman for damages. He refers to getting a declaration that what Norman said was false and defamatory.  That means it is not about trying to financially penalise your opponent – just having a court say that your opponent lied. It would be interesting to see how a court would rule, if it does proceed. Could Norman remain Green Party co-leader if the court ruled he had defamed Craig?

John Armstrong writes that Craig needs to “harden up and quickly”. It is good advice, but he also overlooks that Craig is apparently not seeking damages, just a declaration that the statements were defamatory.

Tags: , ,

216 Responses to “Craig v Norman”

  1. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..However Craig looks thin skinned for again threatening defamation….”

    Hardly.

    He never said those derogatory statements.

    Or is it ok for Mr Craig to now do the same? And Key and Collins and……

    What sort of shambles would NZ then be in?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Simon (612 comments) says:

    A battle of wits between dumb and dumber.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. NK (916 comments) says:

    It’s moot what Craig wants. He’s a plonker either way.

    Disclosure: That is my honest opinion based on facts that are known and provable and honestly believed by me. It is also political discourse about a candidate in election year.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. NK (916 comments) says:

    What sort of shambles would NZ then be in?

    Think about that statement a little, Harriet, in the context of legal cases on defamation every time someone said something that you thought wasn’t quite true, but maybe could be interpreted that way, or was an honestly held view, or was general banter in election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jp_1983 (98 comments) says:

    Well if that fails there is the eminent Law Professor Grahame McCready to take up the cause

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Craig is either a thin skinned or attention seeking dick (probably a bit of both) and is unlikely to get much support out of this, but it’s interesting to see how much attention the Greens are giving Craig – especially after they claimed that Key/Tolley/Collins giving Greens attention meant National was worried about them. Are Greens worried about the Conservative Party?

    But there’s a few Green double standards here, especially since Turei jumped up and down claiming racism and sexism and elitism over a bit of clothing criticism, and now both she and Norman think Craig is fair game and should get used to what is “part and parcel of robust political debate” (Norman’s words).

    Green double standards on personal attacks

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..in the context of legal cases on defamation ……………or was an honestly held view….”

    ‘honestly held view’ ? – Based upon what evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. peterwn (2,935 comments) says:

    There are a thousand and one ways of making the point without being defamatory and top notch politicians, journos and bloggers have this down to a fine art. Surprised Russell Norman has not learned this particular art of politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jack5 (4,222 comments) says:

    Craig is keeping himself and his party in the headlines.

    As for DPF’s suggestion he may be alienating the MSM, Craig will be offside with them regardless. Centre-right or right-wing, religious, offside with the gays, Craig doesn’t stand a chance of support from within the MSM.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. greenjacket (346 comments) says:

    But as a political tactic by Colin Craig, it is very clever. Colin Craig gains media attention (and for a tiny political party not in parliament, that is priceless). And he shows up the Greens as hypocrites when they claim they don’t do personal attacks.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    If the Court finds for Craig, then Norman will be liable for the costs I think.

    As for the defensive qualifications on this thread, they are unnecessary. It’s one thing to say that Craig is an idiot but saying that Craig believes something which he has never said (e.g. Colin Craig believes that women are good for Church, Children and Kitchen) is another as it becomes a provably false statement. It’s also no defence to say that because Craig has said, for example, that homosexual relations is not normal, what Norman said was not defamatory. What Craig has said elsewhere on another topic affects the scale of the injury to his reputation, it does not obviate the actual injury to his reputation full stop.

    You might all think this is legalistic hair-splitting but that’s the approach the courts are going to take.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (12,624 comments) says:

    Will the communist ginga eat humble pie and recant his words? I doubt it.
    He is too arrogant and full of himself to do it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Colin: Explaining is losing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    But as a political tactic by Colin Craig, it is very clever

    Hell no – I would be of his core constituency but no way would I vote for a man who goes crying to mummy the courts every time somebody offends him with schoolyard taunts

    This is so dumb as to be incredible, the offending words were offered up at a venue and to an audience who were never going to vote for Mr Craig in the first place but now they have been disseminated the length and breadth of the land

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. s.russell (1,486 comments) says:

    Harriet is right. While robust political debate is a good thing, and standards of “defamation” are rightly a lot lower when it comes to politicians saying things about other politicians, we do have to draw a line somewhere. It is not OK to have license to utter any lie you like about someone just because they are a politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. unaha-closp (1,033 comments) says:

    ‘honestly held view’ ? – Based upon what evidence?

    It is a view held by Russell Norman, there really isn’t going to be any precedent for it to be evidence based.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BeaB (1,948 comments) says:

    Good for Craig. He is showing up Aussie Norman as a liar.
    The Left are always claiming the moral high ground despite Cunliffe’s shiftiness and lies and now Norman asserting he can say what he likes, true or not.
    As for the media being more hostile – they already disdainfully treat Craig as a joke so through actions like this, Craig can keep raising his public profile.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Does Kolun actually WANT to look / sound like the kind of “bubble” kids his conservative base loves to blame on anti-smacking?

    You can’t say that to me. You can’t say that about me. I’ll sue. You can’t stop me.

    Notice how Key just lets Cunliffe put his foot in his own mouth…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Alan (910 comments) says:

    There is no way that this is going to court. The risk for Craig if he’s defeated are too high, with no upside to a victory.

    There is very little downside to the greens losing, worst case he gets to put Colin Craig in the dock and cross examine him for days on everything he’s ever said. They’ll hire a good QC and it’ll be a execution.

    Even if he loses, his voters will not care.

    If I was Norman, I’d retort with “come at me bro”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Ross12 (927 comments) says:

    I agree with Jack 5 and Greenjacket. Why should Craig play by the usual “game rules”. Most of the voting public rate politicians along side second hand car salesmen. So maybe Craig not being prepared to take crap from Norman will go down well. I doubt it will get to Court but it will have got some attention.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    Craig would be best to drop it and say he’s very disappointed in Norman’s behaviour. This will make Craig look good. It will make Norman look bad.

    Going to court is a no-win.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. jawnbc (40 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 36 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Than (371 comments) says:

    If Colin Craig wants to be in politics he’d better get used to this kind of comment.

    The opposition know they aren’t getting any traction attacking National directly, so the Conservatives (and Craig personally) will be seen as an easy way to damage National by association. Labour and the Greens will spend a lot of effort to paint Craig as a caricature of a bible-thumping puritan out to ban abortion/alcohol/gays. Craig’s actual position on issues won’t be relevant. That’s not fair, but it’s what will happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. EAD (316 comments) says:

    What is happening at the moment with the Conservatives is that extremely “unfashionable” views are being openly expressed in public and in the media. The ruling class and their PC acolytes draw away with a shudder because people who support and speak up for the Conservatives are no respecters of Groupthink. It isn’t a question of “left” vs. “right” anymore, it’s a question of holding opinions that radically oppose the political class and much of the broadcast media and their smug consensus on just about every single issue of importance.

    We are living in a particular moment in time in which opinions define who people are. That is why, for example, some very wealthy people who fly around the world and own several cars, loudly support green taxes and eco friendly living; and why, for another example, many people who choose to live in comfortable leafy suburbs nevertheless assert the benefits of ‘multi-culturalism’ and continued immigration. Opinion is all.

    The Conservatives as a party may or may not break through the political barriers, but the ideas and policies it promotes will. These sorts of people who try and promote Conservatism as somehow being “extreme” can best be described as “bigots” to use their vocabulary. What is Conservatism after all but the respect for experience – the collected wisdom of our ancestors.

    In the big arc of human history, the Green movement will be an afterthought and recognised exaclty for what it is – just another attempt by Totalitarians to gain power and control the masses

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Wayne Mapp (54 comments) says:

    In fact a defamation suit would be a good thing in this instance. The Courts (appellate) would be able to set out more clearly what is legitimate political debate.

    Now in my view Colin is wrong. It was essentially an off the cuff, slightly amusing comment of the style that is typical of many politicians across the political spectrum. If Colin is successful, the result would be that politicians would be expected to carefully review everything their opponents have said before they say anything about them that might be construed as being somewhat critical. That is far too high a test. It would clearly stifle free speech.

    But it is one thing for me to say that, as opposed to the courts pronouncement of what the law actually is.

    Of course a politician can clearly defame other politicians, for instance accusing them of corruption. But even then, most politicians know they have a level of recourse through the media that is unavailable to most private citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    The Labour Party and the Green party have made an art of personal attacks, snide comments and innuendo. In the last few weeks we have seen a number of misrepresentations which can really only be deliberate. Andrew Little’s gaff, for example. The news media will not take anyone to task and asked them to justify their comments. The ultimate outcome is that an election could be decided based on bigotry, prejudice and misrepresentation.

    Craig might well be following a very deliberate policy. It is not uncommon for a rugby team to take a shot at goal knowing that the distance limits the odds significantly. The kick may miss but if it comes close, offending in that territory drops back significantly.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Are Greens worried about the Conservative Party?

    No I think they just hate him, because they’re mental. Blind, irrational hatred is common in the insane and the Gweens are the most insane of all in the land of Bedlam that is called lefty politics.

    If anyone is worried it will of course be Dunne since Craig stands in stark contrast to the lying philanderer as an ethical man without guile who is seeking a good chunk of Dunne’s own base, in the Christian conservative camp.

    I haven’t decided whether or not I support the Conservatives as I haven’t yet bothered to read any of their policies but what’s interesting to me is witnessing the attacks on Craig from all camps in both the media and from politics. I think most of Craig’s issue that those people have decried can be put down to political and media inexperience and as he learns the ropes I suspect they’ll disappear and the real substance of the man will emerge which will of course mean those people will bray even louder but I suspect their arrows will increasingly bounce straight off Craig’s armour as it develops. I can already see signs of it which means he’s a quick learner given the complexity of those two disciplines – politics and media. Good.

    I don’t think either ACT or National need to be concerned because I think his vote will be coming mostly from NZF, UF, those in the Maori Party with a strong Christian faith, a few Mana and a few Gweens.

    Apart from the Maori Party which I don’t think will be heavily affected, I couldn’t care less if any of the others got totally destroyed since if they were I think the country would be in a better place.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Daniel (156 comments) says:

    I’d be quite happy to see a Judge declare Russell Norman a liar.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    I agree EAD. There is a particular head of steam in the MSM against Colin Craig, saying things he never said, and printing “wouldn’t deny” as actual opinions. It’s the Palin-Russia thing all over again as satirised by Tina Fey (yet universally attributed to Palin). The Left love this game (denigrate the intelligence of your opponent). The only defense Colin Craig really has (because he’s not in parliament) if this is not to become an accepted reputational meme, is to have lawyers write letters.

    Really all he’s asked for is a retraction and an apology. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    EAD,

    Well said! One of the best posts I have seen on KB in a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. chris (460 comments) says:

    It makes Colin Craig look like a wuss – seriously, how’s he going to handle Parliament if he goes crying to the courts every time another MP says stuff like this? On the other hand, it’s a master stroke of genius proportions because it points out (once again) what a bunch of hypocrites the Greens are. Disclaimer: I would never ever vote for the Conservatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. flipper (3,270 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,842 comments) says:

    February 18th, 2014 at 11:58 am

    The Labour Party and the Green party have made an art of personal attacks, snide comments and innuendo. In the last few weeks we have seen a number of

    ***************

    Perceptive…. and very good stuff.

    Add in the fact that Craig is not seeking damages….

    May be, just may be, he is now getting some good legal/political advice …… next development awaited with interest. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    If Colin is successful, the result would be that politicians would be expected to carefully review everything their opponents have said before they say anything about them that might be construed as being somewhat critical. That is far too high a test. It would clearly stifle free speech.

    I don’t think that’s what it’s about Wayne. I think its limited to the much narrower case where a politician alleges another politician thinks or said “x.” Now presumably any politician that alleges that is basing their allegation on something they’ve read or heard, in which case, it’s not particularly onerous to expect them to be able to front up with that, if asked. And to me, that would not “stifle free speech” in anyway but rather would be a welcome restraint on the outright bullshit that Wussel in particular is so very wont to bray and bray and bray.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Norman claimed at Auckland’s Big Gay Out that Craig thought…

    What Colin Craig thinks is not falsifiable and whatever he has said is not proof of what he thinks. It’s no different to saying the Prime Minister values Big Business over ordinary people, even if the Prime Minister has never said that or even if his actions reasonably suggested otherwise. Or saying the Greens want to tax everyone 100% and eliminate private property despite them never saying that.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Craig can’t go crying to his lawyer over anything that is said in Parliament. It’s looking increasingly unlikely it will be put to the pest anyway.

    Greens (and Labour) want to depict Craig as poorly as they can, and link Craig to the National option for government.

    National may well distance themselves from Craig, Key seems to see him as nothing more than a bit of a noddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,410 comments) says:

    Norman, has not just made untrue comments about Craig but implies Mrs Craig is some sort of weak doormat.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    IMP;

    Everything EAD says in his post is 100% correct but if the Conservative party is to prosper they need to be able to deal with it.

    Colin Craig just does not have the skills to deal with it

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Jack5 (4,222 comments) says:

    A Freudian slip perhaps by Pete George, a supporter of Possum Pete Dunne:

    It’s looking increasingly unlikely it will be put to the pest anyway.

    I don’t think Possum Pete will have any say on the matter, Mr George.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. AceMcWicked (10 comments) says:

    Colin Craig is a petulant brat with a skin too thin for life in the modern world let alone the cut and thrust of political debate. End of really.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Ashley Schaeffer (336 comments) says:

    Craig would have been better to have come back with a witty retort of his own about Norman in my opinion. To show he has the mettle to mix it up in the rough and tumble of politics. Norman was preaching only to the choir.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    If anyone is worried it will of course be Dunne since Craig stands in stark contrast to the lying philanderer as an ethical man without guile who is seeking a good chunk of Dunne’s own base, in the Christian conservative camp.

    That’s ignorant, even by Reid’s standard.

    The Christian Conservative vote deserted UF when Gordon Copeland walked out on the party in 2007. There’s no chance of it returning. It’s significant that Copeland stood for the Conservatives in 2011. I think there’s little if any competition between CCCP and UF.

    The fact is that Dunne is the only reliable coalition partner option for National and it’s possible that like this term he could make or break National’s chances. The last thing they should do is put any faith on the looney Christian vote, it is proven as unreliable. They have a habit of hissy fitting on single issues – often ones that aren’t very important in the whole scheme of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Craig can’t go crying to his lawyer over anything that is said in Parliament.

    Another earth-shattering revelation that no-one ever knew about. The fact Craig is talking about something that was said outside of Parliament apparently flying straight over someone’s head.

    Greens (and Labour) want to depict Craig as poorly as they can

    And Dunne doesn’t?

    National may well distance themselves from Craig, Key seems to see him as nothing more than a bit of a noddy.

    What’s going to happen Pete when you learn that National intends to give Craig the East Coast Bays seat and put McCully onto the list?

    Reading between the lines isn’t something you appear to be very good at but those of us who are saw something a few weeks ago that gives the lie to your assessment of Key’s opinion of Craig.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9481282/Colin-Craig-may-be-playing-media-Key and

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-lines-up-deal-with-Colin-Craig/tabid/1607/articleID/320895/Default.aspx

    The fact is that Dunne is the only reliable coalition partner option for National and it’s possible that like this term he could make or break National’s chances.

    Another hallucination coming from the vested interest. Dunne has nowhere else to go, even if he does manage to hold his seat, which he won’t, if National stand anyone capable of dressing themselves and brushing their own teeth.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Norman, has not just made untrue comments about Craig but implies Mrs Craig is some sort of weak doormat.

    Untrue comments or not there is a wide perception that Mr Craig is some sort of weak doormat.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Pete,

    Polls have the Conservatives on about 2%. That’s pretty good this far out from the election for a new and niche party, and with Peters looking bad over Dotcon, breaching the 5% threshold is looking reasonable. Craig got himself in the media, again, and made Norman look both hypocritical and dishonest. Nobody with more than two braincells to rub together thinks Craig wants women solely as cooks and breeders.

    Don’t count him or the Conservatives out.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. EAD (316 comments) says:

    Thanks for the kind comments.

    This is no lurch to the ‘right’ as the MSM and some bloggers portray, but a return to old-fashioned Kiwi values that worked so well in the past and which are needed again as I increasingly see my country becoming hamstrung with corruption, incompetence, cronyism, restrictions of freedom, lack of morals, decay of infrastructure, heavy taxation, debt and increasingly violent and shocking crime.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Jack5 (4,222 comments) says:

    Ace McWicked posted at 12.20:

    End of really.

    What does that mean? Are you stoned?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Than (371 comments) says:

    What’s going to happen Pete when you learn that National intends to give Craig the East Coast Bays seat and put McCully onto the list?

    That hasn’t happened yet. And Craig going crying to the courts because Norman was mean to him only makes it less likely.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Reid – keep up. Have you seen Key on Craig lately? One thing about Key is he doesn’t tolerate fools and Craig is looking more foolish the more he tries.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. greenjacket (346 comments) says:

    Alan: “There is very little downside to the greens losing, worst case he gets to put Colin Craig in the dock and cross examine him for days on everything he’s ever said. They’ll hire a good QC and it’ll be a execution.”
    .
    There is little downside to the Greens losing – apart from the media coverage that Russell Norman is, at best, a nasty piece of work, and very possibly a liar who lacked the character to just man up and say “I was wrong”. Yeah – what could possibly go wrong for the Greens.
    .
    And the worst case will be wall-to-wall media coverage of Colin Craig’s political views, all before the election. And a nasty QC executes Colin Craig – way to make him into a right-wing martyr.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. AceMcWicked (10 comments) says:

    “end of really.” for “end of story really.”

    Pretty simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Dunne has had his day. He may win his seat, but that is one seat. National will need a party with more than one seat on it’s right flank, and so far only the Conservatives are looking likely.

    We need new blood and new thinking in Parliament, and UF has neither. Dunne had his day in the sun, and squandered whatever goodwill he had by propping up the Clark regime and, sorry Pete, by lying about being a family values party to gain votes, then throwing that out the door as soon as he had a ministerial office and perks.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    ShawnLH – I’m not counting Craig out – but Craig risks ruling himself out unless he can demonstrate some political competence. So far he seems to keep doing the opposite. I have thought in the past that he could establish a reasonable constituency but that’s fading with each faux pas.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    And a nasty QC executes Colin Craig – way to make him into a right-wing martyr.

    :neutral: Executes him? What fresh hell is this?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    EAD (165 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 11:55 am

    What is happening at the moment with the Conservatives is that extremely “unfashionable” views are being openly expressed in public and in the media. The ruling class and their PC acolytes draw away with a shudder because people who support and speak up for the Conservatives are no respecters of Groupthink….

    In the big arc of human history, the Green movement will be an afterthought and recognised exaclty for what it is – just another attempt by Totalitarians to gain power and control the masses

    It’s interesting you talk of the “arc of human history”. Conservative views, such as opposition to homosexuality, were quite fashionable up until relatively recently (i.e. only a few decades ago). So for me the Conservative Party does not represent some sort of emergence but rather a reaction to diminishing influence. The National Party overall is quite liberal and conservative ideals have less traction and influence than they once had. Consequently this minority seems to be starting to seek to concentrate their support in a smaller party more vocal in their conservative values.

    Of course reactionary trends can sometimes turn the tide, but it’s hard to believe that likely given my impression of the youth demographic.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. chris (460 comments) says:

    It’s funny on this blog whenever anyone says anything even slightly negative about the messiah Colin Craig, they get thumbed down. I wonder how many thumb downs this will get?

    It is going to be very interesting to see how the polls show his % through the year, but given the margin of error of the polls and the low percentages his party attracts, it’s always a stretch to make any conclusions about growth of vote. It’s also quite a stretch to assume 2% now will somehow translate to 5% by election day.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    One thing about Key is he doesn’t tolerate fools and Craig is looking more foolish the more he tries.

    Is that why he fired Dunne, Pete?

    The only people who thinks Craig is going that way instead of in the opposite direction are those with vested interests in so thinking. Hysterical people who burst into tears at the thought their mighty heroes who are in fact about as substantial as your average dandelion might get torn asunder by the astute and forceful arguments of the “brilliant” Colin Craig, to use Key’s own words. People like you, and Wussel.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jack5 (4,222 comments) says:

    Re AceMcWicked’s 12.28:

    Would be half decipherable if you used a comma.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Mrs Trellis (24 comments) says:

    Only a prat says “end of” nowadays…. it is soooooo last year! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    We need new blood and new thinking in Parliament, and UF has neither.

    I agree with both those points. I wish UF had new blood and new thinking but wishing doesn’t make it happen. But Parliament also needs experience and reliability as well, and Dunne is National’s best ally at the moment.

    …by lying about being a family values party to gain votes, then throwing that out the door as soon as he had a ministerial office and perks.

    That’s the sort of comment that Craig might try and slap a defamation threat on. It’s blatantly false.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    This is not a level playing field.

    Russell Norman is subsidised by the taxpayer and has parliamentary privilege.

    Colin Craig is a private citizen that has started a political party off his own bat.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    EAD (166 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    …a return to old-fashioned Kiwi values that worked so well in the past and which are needed again as I increasingly see my country becoming hamstrung with corruption, incompetence, cronyism, restrictions of freedom, lack of morals, decay of infrastructure, heavy taxation…

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/graph/21532/top-income-tax-rates


    The top rate of income tax has varied widely over time. It first spiked in the First World War, and again in the 1920s depression and in the Second World War, when it peaked at 90%. The top rate remained high until 1988 when it dropped to 33%.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    The only people who thinks Craig is going that way instead of in the opposite direction are those with vested interests in so thinking.

    And he’s got his own poll results that prove it! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “So far he seems to keep doing the opposite. I have thought in the past that he could establish a reasonable constituency but that’s fading with each faux pas.”

    According to you. And that’s the problem. You have a vested interest, which while it does not make you wrong, it makes your interpretation of Craig’s political fortunes suspect.

    I know people who see what you call faux pas as little victories against the MSM and liberal elites.

    So it all depends on your pov, Your assumption, which I think wrong, is that your pov is shared by everyone who may be a potential Conservative supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    and Weihana, rates of physical violence was quite high during WW II, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jack5 (4,222 comments) says:

    Weihana posted at 12.32:

    it’s hard to believe that likely given my impression of the youth demographic…

    Youth has always rebelled against existing views, and when liberal-lefty, soft on drugs and crime views become those of the Establishment, further change will be on the way.

    Attitudes to heterosexual sex, homosexuality, alcohol, other drugs, have fluctuated for millennia. What makes you think the latest changes are set in society concrete, Weihana?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Is that why he fired Dunne?

    Sort of, Dunne resigned becasue he’d been foolish. But it was a one off (in many years) and Key has since deemed Dunne reliable enough to give him back ministerial responsibilities.

    Craig is looking like a recidivist fool. Fortunately in time for Key and voters to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. AceMcWicked (10 comments) says:

    I do sort of wonder whether or not there is a market for Mr Craig’s brand of conservative values (heavy on the social conservatism, light on the details of the fiscal) or whether the reason that mainstream political parties (on both the right and the left) dropped the social conservative line because it wasn’t in step with mainstream New Zealand values.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    iMP (2,006 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    and Weihana, rates of physical violence was quite high during WW II, too.

    Did WWII end in 1988? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    That’s the sort of comment that Craig might try and slap a defamation threat on. It’s blatantly false.

    Oh, so Badger was exhibiting the spirit of Family, community and the outdoors wen he sent all those spadey texts to Andrea Vance?

    I suppose having an away game does involve the community in a limited extent. And you can do it outdoors…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Already 69 comments on National Blog – and most supporting Mr Craig and the Conservatives.

    5% is easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    No, its still going, because fascists are still in power and becoming more fashionable by the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. AceMcWicked (10 comments) says:

    Jack5 at 12.40:

    Are you saying that the National-led Government is soft on drugs and crime? Since they are the back-bone of the political establishment at time of writing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. goldnkiwi (649 comments) says:

    Good for Colin Craig, warning shot across the bow in my opinion. If it gives others pause coming up to the election, all well and good for all the ‘players’.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Seeing as we’re talking about accuracy, how about our resident fence sitter getting this little point right: It is simply the Conservative party. Not the Christian Conservative party, nor Colin Craigs Conservative party, nor is it abbreviated “CCCP”.

    why do you insist on the misrepresentation?
    A\ Senility is creeping in.
    B\ Details just aren’t your thing.
    C\ You’re just pissing your pants (in private, of course) at the thought of being irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Re AceMcWicked’s 12.28: Would be half decipherable if you used a comma.

    It’s a great name, comma or no comma.

    I wish UF had new blood and new thinking but wishing doesn’t make it happen.

    What, you mean the intellectual horsepower of the ten or so people at the last AGM wasn’t sufficient to come up with anything at all? Nothing occurred, to anyone? Wow. I mean my hopes weren’t high but WOW.

    That’s the sort of comment that Craig might try and slap a defamation threat on. It’s blatantly false.

    You mean like where you just alleged Craig might slap a defamation suit on a blog post? Poor Pete, you’re a very confused young man, aren’t you. You can’t even lie properly. It’s like you lose all your veneer of fairness, reasonableness and sensibility whenever the Craig monster pops into debate, it’s like you’re so hysterical about the tremendous threat he represents to your master you just lose it completely and go totally and utterly mental.

    Sort of, Dunne resigned becasue he’d been foolish.

    You mean because Key told him he’d fire him if he didn’t resign, don’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Already 69 comments on National Blog – and most supporting Mr Craig and the Conservatives.

    5% is easy.

    Kiwiblog is not a random sample. Most of his fans are here.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    According to you. And that’s the problem. You have a vested interest,

    In what? I call things as I see them. The only interest I have in the upcoming election is to get the best Government possible out of it. National is looking reasonable but beyond that the pickings are not flash.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…….Already 69 comments on National Blog – and most supporting Mr Craig and the Conservatives…..5% is easy.

    Kiwiblog is not a statistically accurate sample. Most of his fans are here…………..”

    HAhhahahahahahah………..John Key’s fans were here before Mr Craig……right RRM? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Jack5 (4,222 comments) says:

    AceMcWicked posted at 12.43:

    ….Since they are the back-bone of the political establishment at time of writing…

    What are you saying now, Mr McWicked? That drugs and crimes are the backbone of the political establishment? Are you suggesting that we are being run by a drugs and crime mafia?

    And your inclusion of “at time of writing”. How fast do you think politics move in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. EAD (316 comments) says:

    @ Weihana 12.37pm.

    We are not heavily taxed. Really? In 1 minute I can list the following:

    ACC Levy
    Fringe Benefit Tax
    Goods and Services Tax
    Smoking Excise Duty
    Alcohol Excise Duty
    Fuel Duty
    Council Rates
    Paye as You Earn
    Cheque Duty
    Company Tax
    Resident Withholding Tax
    Gift Duty
    Green Taxes
    Tax on Interest Income
    Tax on Dividend income

    and the worst, most insidious tax of the lot………..inflation

    but apart from that we’re not taxed that much!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. AceMcWicked (10 comments) says:

    Jack5: I’ll take that as a ‘Yes, I think the National-led Government is soft on drugs and crime.’

    Which, of course, is a silly thing to think.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    In what?

    Your history indicates you have an enormous hard-on for Dunne in whom you from all your comments you cannot find fault despite there being many, writ large, for any objective observer. You have been running a campaign against Craig ever since he first appeared in the news. The only possible explanation for this is because you see him as a threat to your favourite politician, otherwise why would you care? You don’t do this for any other politician, just Craig.

    That’s what.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Zapper (843 comments) says:

    I look forward to the Greens condemning Cunliffe for bringing the Prime Ministers house into politics. The Greens are consistent right?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    I don’t deny that Kolun appears to have got the [edit]extreme right angry conservative blog commentor vote well and truly stitched up. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    You mean because Key told him he’d fire him if he didn’t resign, don’t you.

    Neither of us know that, but I think it’s reasonable presumption that Dunne has enough experience to know that it was his only option. I doubt he needed being told.

    A Senility is creeping in.
    B Details just aren’t your thing.
    C You’re just pissing your pants (in private, of course) at the thought of being irrelevant.

    A I think there’s a lot of that here.
    B Craig’s Conservative Party is commonly referred to here as CCCP and recognised as such. Parties are given many name variants. Is that you Colin? You seem a bit thin skinned.
    C Funny. I’m not the one frantically talking up Craig and attacking anyone who doesn’t worship him here.

    RRM is right, the biggest concentration of Craig fans seems t be here on KB. They flock to Craig topics.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    National has certainly not been soft on crime. That’s a silly statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    I think that what a good proportion of people commenting here don’t realize is that their are a growing proportion of NZers that are sick and tired of the sharp tongued arrogance of NZ politicians.

    Sure, Wussels core support will think he is a hero, but politics in this land is very much about the swing voter. The contrast between Craig and Wuss could be the greens undoing and the very thing that pushes the conservatives over the 5% threshold.

    If Craig sharpened up his act a bit and conducted himself with a bit more wisdom, I think things could get very interesting indeed.
    And I would say it will be easier for him to do that than for Russel and Turei to come across as balanced, reasonable politicians.

    The Greens have broken their own rules and taken a leaf out of Labours nasty handbook, good luck with that, but it won’t work.

    The longer Craig stays in the spotlight and clashes with opposition leaders, the better it will be for him come election time.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Jack5 (4,031 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Weihana posted at 12.32:

    it’s hard to believe that likely given my impression of the youth demographic…

    Youth has always rebelled against existing views, and when liberal-lefty, soft on drugs and crime views become those of the Establishment, further change will be on the way.

    Attitudes to heterosexual sex, homosexuality, alcohol, other drugs, have fluctuated for millennia. What makes you think the latest changes are set in society concrete, Weihana?

    I don’t think they are set in concrete. But I don’t think all changes are just random fluctuations that will inevitably swing back to what you might prefer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Pete was ranting against Craig right from the start, so his claim that it is just a thing that has grown based on Craig’s supposed faux pas is not credible. Pete was and may still be a supporter of Dunne and UF, so to claim objectivity towards a party that looks likely to replace them is not credible. Pete jumps on every little thing Craig does, claiming, with zero evidence, that he is failing, while giving Dunne a pass. Also not credible. Pete often opposes and/or attacks social conservatism, so again his claim that this is just about Craig’s supposed faux pas, is not credible. Claiming that a party that is rising in the polls is looking less and less likely to get into Parliament is seriously not credible.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…….Are you saying that the National-led Government is soft on drugs and crime?…”

    Absolutely.

    “…….The harm minimisation model simply rejects the drug-free approach as unrealistic and unworkable. It asks us to manage the problem, instead of preventing the problem in the first place. However, as in so many other areas, prevention is always better than cure. It is more cost-effective and more compassionate to keep people off drugs in the first place, than to try to get them off drugs.

    We certainly do not use such a defeatist attitude in regard to many other social ills. Most governments do not argue that we must live with pollution, or that we will always have racism, or that we must accept rape. Indeed, in certain areas we take exactly the opposite approach.

    A good example is in the area of tobacco use….”

    The NSW Police take drug dogs through train stations, gay niteclubs, parks, public bars ect.

    Key gets the NZ Police to fight drugs with one hand behind their back. They don’t police the DEMAND side of the drug equation.

    Key educated in demand and supply side economics ? LIKE FUCK HE IS! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Funny. I’m not the one frantically talking up Craig and attacking anyone who doesn’t worship him here.

    I’m not attacking you Pete, just asking you (and others) to be accurate. I take it from your remarks that we are free to assign alternate names to the UF abbreviation? I mean, it’s all in good fun, robust, etc?

    I’ll stake out Utter Fuckwits, and hand the mike over. Reid, floor is yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    NZ has gone just too PC. To voice an opinion that homosexuality is not normal is likely to get you strung up these days. Well, I don’t care how politically INcorrect it is, I don’t think homosexuality is normal and I don’t think our PM should have attended the Big Gay out as he is seen to be endorsing an unnatural way of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    RRM is right, the biggest concentration of Craig fans seems t be here on KB. They flock to Craig topics.

    Must be terribly frustrating for you Pete. Despite your best efforts (which I have to say aren’t much) his support continues to grow. How terribly unfair, unreasonable and insensible.

    Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

    I’ll stake out Utter Fuckwits, and hand the mike over. Reid, floor is yours.

    Goody, although I’m not very good at this. Utter Fools comes to mind, but I’m sure my thesaurus will yield some more amusement.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Reid – again you’re making things up and you’re wrong about just about everything.

    I’ve actually supported Craig’s stance on standing up to Norman for telling lies – check YourNZ and check @PeteDGeorge for evidence.

    And I’ve been far more critical of Norman and Turei – directly to them on Twitter and Facebook and they’ve tried to defend themselves. Not getting pissy in the depths of a Colin friendly blog thread. See Twitter for evidence. And see:
    http://yournz.org/2014/02/18/green-double-standards-on-personal-attacks/
    http://yournz.org/2014/02/18/labours-worst-week-leading-to-an-omni-shambles/

    That I get targeted here with more lies directed at me than Craig gets is kinda interesting. I can’t tell whether it’s all deliberate crap or ignorance. I don’t expect you to be able to answer that Reid, but it’s funny to see how much some people treat me as some sort of a threat. Keep it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Linkwhore.

    but it’s funny to see how much some people treat me as some sort of a threat

    You Sir, are suffering delusions of grandeur.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    The Conservatives have a mix religious and non-religious support. It is not a Christian party, and Pete calling it that is just more evidence of a total lack of the neutrality he claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Liberty (211 comments) says:

    Red Norm is fast losing the plot.
    Last week he sold his soul to Dot.con in exchange for votes that Dot.con never had
    Big fail
    Now this week clanger. He slanders some non entity. Who can afford to sue him.
    Instead of eating a rat. And moving on. He is going to be smart arse and fight it.
    Big fail
    Keep it up Norm with a bit of luck you will take the Green Taliban down with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    That didn’t take you long to switch to screaming hypocrisy ciaron.

    I’m not attacking you Pete, just asking you (and others) to be accurate.

    Your comment at 12.44 was little but a pissy attack. Keep the comedy going.

    KB is a good place for Colin’s thin skinned crew to come to.
    FHM.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    ‘……I don’t think they are set in concrete. But I don’t think all changes are just random fluctuations that will inevitably swing back to what you might prefer….”

    He wasn’t talking about randomness.

    He was talking about a mean. He is also correct in what he implied – that gays are flavour of the month for the MSM and MP’s. For now anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    “It’s just not intelligent to pretend that homosexual relationships are normal.” ~ Colin Craig

    Every time Craig opens his trap, his chances of getting into Parliament decline.

    He needs a brain, not a defamation lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    The Conservatives have a mix religious and non-religious support. It is not a Christian party, and Pete calling it that is just more evidence of a total lack of the neutrality he claims.

    I didn’t call it that.

    That’s more evidence of the total lack of accuracy Colin’s crew seems to operate with, despite Colin himself saying he wants to raise political standards and make a stand against people making false claims and misrepresentations. You’re letting the team down.

    It’s interesting to see the disconnect between Colin making a stand against people lying about him, and what appears to be his support crew who lie and fly off the handle at any perceived opposition to their messiah.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..I don’t think homosexuality is normal and I don’t think our PM should have attended the Big Gay out as he is seen to be endorsing an unnatural way of life….’

    Yep……a death style.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    That didn’t take you long to switch to screaming hypocrisy ciaron.

    No, no, no Pete. I simply asked you a question (which I note you have not answered) and provided some reasonable (based on the little that I know about you) answers for you to chose from. I have not confined you to those answers and if you find that offensive then all I can say is: Join the club and hu hu,hu,harden the fuck up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    KB is a good place for Colin’s thin skinned crew to come to.

    It’s standard propaganda to accuse opponents of that which you are most guilty, but you’re such a lightweight Pete that I don’t think you’re doing it for that reason, I think your fear-driven hysteria has overwhelmed your mind and you really believe that when people point out the vapidity of your comments on Craig you really do believe, in your hysterical hallucination, that we all favour Craig, rather than are merely pointing out that your comments are lightweight disinformation bollocks, and this is the truth regardless of what any of us think of Craig.

    Not that I give a damn what you think I think, but I’ve already told you above I haven’t yet decided if I support the Conservatives or not, I’m responding as I am merely because I can’t stand shills, and you’re being one, on Craig, and you always have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Craig is flushing the true colours out of his opposition, and all they can really say back is the equivalent of “you’re a dick”.

    At the end of the day, Craig seems like a “nice” guy, and even if people do think he is a bit of a “dick” that is better than being the complete f@cking arsehole that ole Wuss looks like right now.

    People are generally repelled by unbridled seething contempt, so the more Craig gets Wuss to lose his shit, the better he will look.

    It’s actually a lesson out of the gay activists handbook!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    EAD (167 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    @ Weihana 12.37pm.

    We are not heavily taxed. Really? In 1 minute I can list the following:

    What does “heavily” mean? A libertarian would regard any taxation as onerous. A Marxist would regard anything lower than 100% to be too low.

    You were referring to some sort of by-gone era where we were not taxed that much so I pointed out that marginal tax rates are lower now than they have been through much of the 20th century. But of course that’s not the whole picture either. Historically our tax system wasn’t particularly efficient: overly complex with many loopholes. Despite high marginal rates, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were not so dissimilar from today. Basically taxation increased ever since the welfare state was introduced.

    On average our tax burden is below the OECD average according to this review:

    http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publications/2011-other-bim/2-new-zealand-tax-system-and-how-it-compares-internationally

    From my observation I do not see that other countries with higher or lower tax burdens are necessarily better or worse than us so perhaps the question is not simply what the overall tax burden is, but how that tax burden is managed and what the revenues are spent on.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    Back to the “normal” debate (which used to be about NORML ie cannabis) and no, not Dr Russell Normal, but homosexuality and normal.
    This pic from Politically Incorrect NZ…

    https://www.facebook.com/571506276226382/photos/a.572851532758523.1073741828.571506276226382/677244198985922/?type=1&theater

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    No, no, no Pete. I simply asked you a question (which I note you have not answered) and provided some reasonable (based on the little that I know about you) answers for you to chose from.

    You are fibbing ciaron. The truth:

    Seeing as we’re talking about accuracy, how about our resident fence sitter getting this little point right: It is simply the Conservative party. Not the Christian Conservative party, nor Colin Craigs Conservative party, nor is it abbreviated “CCCP”.

    why do you insist on the misrepresentation?
    A Senility is creeping in.
    B Details just aren’t your thing.
    C You’re just pissing your pants (in private, of course) at the thought of being irrelevant.

    And I did answer. You should actually read before you rush to criticise.

    You seem to be the one (and Colin) who needs to hu hu,hu,harden the fuck up.

    This thread is not a great advertisement for Colin Craig’s Conservative Party. Maybe Colin should spend less time with his lawyers and more time teaching his followers how not to look like a party of oversensitive fuckwits,

    Have you been getting blogging tips from The Standard, where anyone deemed not a chosen one should be hounded and harassed? It’s not working very well for Labour, is it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    This thread is not a great advertisement for Colin Craig’s Conservative Party. Maybe Colin should spend less time with his lawyers and more time teaching his followers how not to look like a party of oversensitive fuckwits,

    Whatever are you going to do Pete, when the Conservatives start firstly registering then rapidly overtaking your beloved UF poll ratings? Will you fly to Wgtn and have a wake with your master? Or will you just quietly weep to each other over the phone?

    Frankly Pete, if you’re the best KB shill UF could come up with, clearly they don’t even deserve having an office in the garden shed, let alone be in the Cabinet. Key is indeed a merciful, merciful man.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    This thread is not a great advertisement for Colin Craig’s Conservative Party.

    You just can’t help yourself, can you?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    is http://www.colinhatesfags.com taken?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    Seeing as we’re talking about accuracy, how about our resident fence sitter getting this little point right: It is simply the Conservative party. Not the Christian Conservative party, nor Colin Craigs Conservative party, nor is it abbreviated “CCCP”.

    I thought their policy was to save taxpayers’ money by removing unnecessary letters from the alphabet.

    Hence Kolin Kraig’s Konservatives…

    Sounds familiar…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “KB is a good place for Colin’s thin skinned crew to come to.”

    What about Dunne’s thin skinned crew of one?

    Disclaimer; I’m not a member of the Conservatives and have yet to decide who I will vote for and if I will vote at all. But Pete, your claim to neutral commenting on Craig is just not credible, not remotely so. You have been pushing this “Craig is failing, looks less and less likely he will get into Parliament” line for months now, and they are up in the polls. And it is well known that you have been in the past a supporter of Dunne, so trying to claim an objective/neutral pov with regards to the Conservatives is not fooling anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “………People are generally repelled by unbridled seething contempt, so the more Craig gets Wuss to lose his shit, the better he will look……….It’s actually a lesson out of the gay activists handbook!!!…..”

    Yes, and Mr Craig is reading from the Tony Abbott handbook.

    Tony didn’t bite at anything all the way through the election campaign. And he also threw the dogs bones for them to chew on….and they barked back.

    The Greens looked real ugly. The gays currently do.

    BTW. The Feds voted on Friday not to change the Parlimentry Prayer………….something DPF hasn’t put up!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    Craig is flushing the true colours out of his opposition, and all they can really say back is the equivalent of “you’re a dick”.

    The problem is that it is self evidently true that he is an epic dick.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    You just can’t help yourself, can you?

    It’s a bit like watching someone who has no idea what’s going on hold a conversation with himself while the rest of the room gets on with the serious discussion, isn’t it ciaron.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    You are fibbing ciaron. The truth:

    Seeing as we’re talking about accuracy, how about our resident fence sitter getting this little point right: It is simply the Conservative party. Not the Christian Conservative party, nor Colin Craigs Conservative party, nor is it abbreviated “CCCP”.

    why do you insist on the misrepresentation?
    A Senility is creeping in.
    B Details just aren’t your thing.
    C You’re just pissing your pants (in private, of course) at the thought of being irrelevant.

    And I did answer. You should actually read before you rush to criticise.

    #1 Seeing as we’re talking about accuracy, how about our resident fence sitter getting this little point right: It is simply the Conservative party. Not the Christian Conservative party, nor Colin Craigs Conservative party, nor is it abbreviated “CCCP”.

    This is a statement.

    #2 why do you insist on the misrepresentation?

    This is a question.

    3# A Senility is creeping in.
    B Details just aren’t your thing.
    C You’re just pissing your pants (in private, of course) at the thought of being irrelevant.

    These are some answers the I thought mightbe appropriate (well, they are, from my point of view).

    #4 And I did answer. You should actually read before you rush to criticise.

    Yeah ok, I missed it. In good faith, point me to your answer please.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    Tony didn’t bite at anything all the way through the election campaign. And he also threw the dogs bones for them to chew on….and they barked back.

    Australia is a fundamentally bigoted country.

    In New Zealand, hate politics tends to garner support for the objects of the hate rather than the purveyors of it.

    What do you think the punishment for homosexual behaviour should be, Harriet?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,593 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    ‘……I don’t think they are set in concrete. But I don’t think all changes are just random fluctuations that will inevitably swing back to what you might prefer….”

    He wasn’t talking about randomness.

    He was talking about a mean. He is also correct in what he implied – that gays are flavour of the month for the MSM and MP’s. For now anyway.

    I think future attitudes towards drug liberalisation are less certain, but acceptance of homosexuality are not likely to retreat in my view. Acceptance among the youth demographic is across the board and not something simply represented amongst the “MSM and MP’s”. You offer little in the way or argument as to why it would swing back to your point of view other than “I’m against it, so others should be too!”.

    Sexual identity is quite similar to race relations. The biggest thing that overcomes certain cultural stereotypes is social mixing and because society has migrated from a relatively isolated agricultural society to a highly urbanized metropolitan community the presence and representation of minorities has impacted the culture. Humans are inherently tribal but the historical trend is towards larger and more inclusive social groupings. Human conception of their “tribe” expands as society becomes more connected.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    It’s a bit like watching someone who has no idea what’s going on hold a conversation with himself while the rest of the room gets on with the serious discussion

    Serious discussion from you?

    FFS

    lol

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…….Hence Kolin Kraig’s Konservatives……”

    Tom………the PI’s are deserting Labour for Mr Craig!

    Keep going. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    Tom………the PI’s are deserting Labour for Mr Craig!

    Why would I care? I don’t even vote.

    In a democracy the idiots are always the majority, no matter who wins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Serious discussion from you Tom???

    FFS, LOL.

    So far all you have contributed is the standard Liberal line that anyone not a liberal is a hate-filled bigot akin to the KKK.

    You “think” that is serious commentary?

    Get a grip! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    So Harriet, what punishment should homosexual behaviour attract?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..What do you think the punishment for homosexual behaviour should be, Harriet?…’

    They shouldn’t be punished!

    They should receive assistance rather than scorn if they want to leave the death style Tom.

    Well that is the truth according to US Gay Health :

    ” The rates of suicide, depression, drug use ect amongst gays in San Francisco [the most gay friendly place on earth] is comparable with other cities such as Paris, London, Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne…..”

    Looks to me like Gay Marriage is almost worthless to gay health Tom.

    Please show some compassion – just telling the truth is a good start Tom!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    You “think” that is serious commentary?

    Why would anyone post serious commentary on Kiwiblog? It would go over the head of anyone other than the handful of liberals who post here.

    Reid is the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson (2,134 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Why would I care? I don’t even vote.

    You should. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    They should receive assistance rather than scorn if they want to leave the death style Tom.

    So you want to waste welfare dollars on trying to convert gay people?

    Oh well…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    Depends on what you mean by “homosexual behaviour” Tom. Fashion crimes, camp sitcoms or the creation of metrosexual Justin Bieber. I mean the latter is a crime against humanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “Why would anyone post serious commentary on Kiwiblog?”

    So your a troll?

    Good to know! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Goldsmith (15 comments) says:

    The anatomy of the human body actually agrees with Colin Craig.

    The mouth was made for eating, the front sexual appendage for reproduction, and the rear orifice for releasing unwanted waste from the human body. There is also a reason why homosexuals cannot have children… because nature/God/Biology/life does NOT agree!

    Colin Craig’s brain is fine since he recognises these facts, so he’s the one that’s normal. Anybody so confused and who still doesn’t quite know what goes where should have their brain checked or seek mental counselling fast! duh!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    You should.

    Why? Democracy is a waste of time. It’s just monkeys flinging poo at each other, even more so now with the daily load of internet outrage. This thread being a good example.

    Democratic politics is not a rational enterprise, so it’s really pointless to reason about it, unless you just enjoy arguing. The best thing you can do is find ways of avoiding the influence of the mob as best you can.

    I actually feel sorry for politicians, even though they probably don’t deserve it. Fuck democracy, and fuck politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    Depends on what you mean by “homosexual behaviour” Tom. Fashion crimes, camp sitcoms or the creation of metrosexual Justin Bieber. I mean the latter is a crime against humanity.

    lol

    I admit defeat. You win the thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “Why? Democracy is a waste of time.”

    Well on that we are in total agreement. In fact, your starting to sound like Hans-Hermann Hoppe!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Why would anyone post serious commentary on Kiwiblog? It would go over the head of anyone other than the handful of liberals who post here.

    Ah, the “lefties are more intelligent” delusion. If you guys are so intelligent Tom how come whenever you’re in power you always fuck it up so very badly that when you get turfed out everyone literally hates your guts and it takes years for you to recover. This happened with both the 4th and the 5th Liarbore govts, didn’t it. Yes, it did. And now, six long years later, you’re STILL getting over Hulun’s treatment, aren’t you. Yes, you are.

    That’s more a sign of monstrous overwhelming arrogance combined with total incompetence than intelligence, I would have thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Democracy however is what we have. So some of us vote in order to get whatever political parties in who are going to do the least damage to the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..or the creation of metrosexual Justin Bieber. I mean the latter is a crime against humanity….”

    Ease up iMP

    Geez………..Bieber hardly spent last Saturday afternoon drinking with Key and his buddies.

    He’s still got a good chance at being a real man. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Looks like both Tom and the shill have buggered off. Lefties really hate it when you point out how profoundly stupid they are, their fragile confidence in their own intellects combined with their sanctimony about how they’re the only ones who weally weally care is all they’ve got but then again if you were a lefty and you had policies like they have, you’d be desperately casting around for something, anything that was in the least bit good about your own side, wouldn’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……So you want to waste welfare dollars on trying to convert gay people?…”

    I never said anything like that:

    “…..They should receive assistance rather than scorn if they want to leave the death style Tom….”

    You’re just pissed that Key is helping prisoners to live longer than gays by making them give up smoking…….and the young gays then want to be seen drinking with Key!

    If anyone hassles gay people for wanting to leave the gay lifestyle Tom……..it’s us conservatives who will support them……Key couldn’t care less as he doesn’t want to get off-side with gays by protecting the hated ex-gays!

    We are going to pass laws to protect ex-gays from gays Tom! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Ed Snack (1,535 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson, knows better than us what “the mob” (i.e. the commonality, the people, the proletariat, call it what you will) really needs, and thinks he should be appointed to make sure that they get it, good and hard !

    But on Colin Craig, he is a social conservative who, as far as I can tell, has nothing resembling a coherent policy platform at all, what he does have is money. He may even get a seat or seats at the next election, but it won’t last as he has nothing underneath, no philosophy if you like except the old one about “the old ways is best”. There is a certain market for those views, and even more for a certain protest vote; he’s more a threat to Winston First than anything else I suspect although he may peel off a bit of the more religious PI vote, and maybe the “third (or in his case seventh or eighth) way” vote from United, maybe.

    His views on homosexuality though are straight out of this “conservative” ethos, he almost certainly has no intention to criminalize it or anything of that sort, but keep out of sight of “the children” and please don’t frighten the dogs, that would be more like it. And he has a certain point, an awful lot of the impact homosexuals have in the news and in media and the like is not really a sexual issue at all, it is (as I opined in the other thread) really a political campaign with specific social goals its purpose. Most homosexuals go along with the posturing without really concerning themselves with the politics, but politics it is. And I suspect many wish it would be seen as and treated as just that.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    Fuck democracy, and fuck politics.

    And your better alternative is…?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “And your better alternative is…?”

    Anarcho-Monarchy!

    The Mcgillicuddy Serious Party were right all along! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Fuck democracy, and fuck politics.

    And your better alternative is…?

    Fucking women. How about you Scott?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……He may even get a seat or seats at the next election, but it won’t last as he has nothing underneath, no philosophy if you like except the old one about “the old ways is best”….”

    Depends when others get on board with him……the Christian and family groups are all paying attention to him – and some women’s groups!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Nostalgia-NZ (4,688 comments) says:

    What form is the form of this application to The Court take? Maybe common place but I don’t recall it.

    Secondly, how can a declaration be issued that so and so is or isn’t a liar, when Norman effectively said ‘your position on various matters points to you being like this.’ Even if the form for such a declaration exists are The Courts going to be willing to pre-occupy themselves ‘sorting’ out arguments between political leaders, or advise them on what type of language is acceptable?

    Thirdly how can Craig expect the Court to rule on how he thinks or what he doesn’t think.

    This is all space cadet stuff, and as I said last night has helped Norman get his foot out of his mouth over the ‘big’ $100 saving per year for a few thousand NZers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,484 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 2:31 pm….

    All fair and valid points but what do we do about the situation where a member of parliament, a party leader no less, can just make shit up about what a certain person thinks? are we not entitled to expect a better standard of behaviour than this?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. DJP6-25 (1,231 comments) says:

    EAD 11.55 AM. Very perceptive.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    And he has a certain point, an awful lot of the impact homosexuals have in the news and in media and the like is not really a sexual issue at all, it is (as I opined in the other thread) really a political campaign with specific social goals its purpose.

    It’s social engineering Ed. Sexuality is at the heart of human behaviour and it’s not about making straight people gay it’s about changing the nature of courtship and human relationships. They have corrupted society by telling women they have been oppressed and to get ahead they need to think and act like men. So now most women no longer see motherhood as their principle raison d’etre but rather they see a career as being that. Both men and women are designed to fulfill themselves, to actualise their manhood or womenhood, by sacrificing themselves for their children. The man is designed to do this by hunting: i.e. making a living. The woman is designed to do this by nurturing her children and providing a safe and comfortable environment for them. Women are the communicators of a nation’s culture, this is why they have so many communication skills that men don’t have. They use for example, five or six times more facial expressions than men do but they don’t do this because they learn them at school, they do it because they were born with them, as men are born with skills to facilitate hunting.

    But feminism, disguised as human wights, denies this and demands that women shouldn’t be women, they need to be men. They need to think like men, be aggressive like men, sleep around like men, drink like men, etc etc etc etc.

    There are many areas of this campaign. The design of the workforce for example where it’s now necessary to have two incomes, is not an accident. Children go to school to learn how to be wage slaves from what the state teaches them. Independent thought is discouraged, group think encouraged. How to be a good citizen, how to masturbate, put on a condom etc is now taken out of parent’s hands and put into the school’s hands. That is not an accident, either. No fault divorce was also not an accident, to take a non-sexual example. The pill was not an accident, since that encourages sex outside marriage which previously normally meant inevitable pregnancy.

    Of course it’s all sold as “social advancement,” as “fweedom from oppwession,” as “libewation.”

    Advancement, freedom and liberation from what, is the question some of us who have studied history ask. It’s interesting that the final stages of most empires normally end up in sexual degradation. The most recent was the debauchery in Germany in the final years of the Weimar Republic, where anything went and you could get children, mother and daughter acts, dwarfs, animals, whatever you wanted. And we all know about Rome and Greece don’t we. That’s because where you get sexual corruption you also get moral degradation because things like theft, murder and so forth aren’t a big deal anymore if your standard entertainment practice is to sleep with a ten year old begging for your money.

    All of this is slice the elephant territory. Of course we’re a long way from the days I just described, but that’s where we are being led to, and the current elements in place are merely another step along the road. The next step will be a gradual lowering of the age of consent, you watch.

    But that’s what social engineering is, and that’s how it’s being used in the gay rights area. All painted of course to make the above picture look like paranoid nonsense and the awful person painting it must somehow weally weally hate gay people because he’s just a gweat big meany. That’s what the media is doing with Craig, because they’re idiots who don’t understand, just like those who supported gay marriage because they thought they were pweventing discwimination. What fucking discwimination, was my constant and yet-to-be answered question during those debates.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. DJP6-25 (1,231 comments) says:

    shawnLH 12.29 PM. Damm straight!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    And he has a certain point, an awful lot of the impact homosexuals have in the news and in media and the like is not really a sexual issue at all, it is (as I opined in the other thread) really a political campaign with specific social goals its purpose. Most homosexuals go along with the posturing without really concerning themselves with the politics, but politics it is. And I suspect many wish it would be seen as and treated as just that.

    Best comment on the thread in my opinion.

    It is politics by stealth no matter which way you view it, and it is wearing very thin.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    The pill was not an accident, since that encourages sex outside marriage which previously normally meant inevitable pregnancy.

    I’ll let you in on a little secret: If you pull out before you blow your load, she won’t get pregnant. ;-)

    I don’t know what Colin thinks about that though.

    Otherwise, solid effort. Gender roles have historically been X, so they should remain X. Only fools who pronounce their Rs as Ws think differently.

    You’re on shakier ground with the stuff about how gay marriage is part of a ploy to emancipate/corrupt women, IMHO…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. DJP6-25 (1,231 comments) says:

    Reid 2.11 PM. I just scroll right past trolls and shills.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    New book ‘The Revolt Against the Masses’ reveals liberalism’s elitist roots.

    Ever wonder why liberals insist they are fighting for the middle class but look down on working people? Ever wonder why progressives talk endlessly about diversity yet can’t tolerate the slightest dissent from their orthodoxy?

    Ever wonder why Barack Obama seems more suited for a European coffee shop than the Oval Office?

    Wonder no more. Fred Siegel’s new book explains all you need to know about liberalism, a political philosophy that, despite good intentions, careened off track after World War I and hasn’t found its way back yet.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/17/revolt-against-masses-reveals-liberalisms-elitist-roots/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    So some of us vote in order to get whatever political parties in who are going to do the least damage to the rest of us.

    I didn’t know you voted for the Legalize Cannabis party.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    Mr Craig is a thin skinned, moralistic nut.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    And your better alternative is…?

    That question rests on a false assumption. The least worst political system for any society depends on that society and the state it is in. That varies between societies and times. It may or may not be democracy. Even if it is, it might be such a waste of time not to be worth bothering.

    Politics is, in general, a waste of time for the average person. Your influence is so small as to make no appreciable difference, and being informed makes no difference because most active voters are not particularly informed, so the signal to noise ratio is very low.

    Politics is for people who can afford to buy politicians or airtime, or people with very limited goals (such as gay marriage). For everyone else it’s a bit like religion. A lot of faith that doesn’t really amount to much other than making people feel better about themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson, knows better than us what “the mob” (i.e. the commonality, the people, the proletariat, call it what you will) really needs, and thinks he should be appointed to make sure that they get it, good and hard !

    No. I know who knows. There’s a difference.

    None of us, for example, should be making climate or health policy. We just don’t know enough about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    Ah, the “lefties are more intelligent” delusion. If you guys are so intelligent Tom how come whenever you’re in power you always fuck it up so very badly that when you get turfed out everyone literally hates your guts and it takes years for you to recover. This happened with both the 4th and the 5th Liarbore govts, didn’t it.

    That eventually happens with every government you clown.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Every govt eventually gets chucked out Tom. Not every govt gets their guts hated when it happens. You clown.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Norman’s lawyer is Stephen Price, he must have turned down David Parker’s offer to represent him.

    Interesting that Price has chosen to go public over this, or Norman has chosen to go public with Price’s letter/s.

    Mr Price says Mr Norman’s comments were obviously not intended to be taken literally, and notes it is not claimed they were received that way.

    “They were colourful political rhetoric, delivered to a crowd with a particular interest in diversity issues,” Mr Price says.

    “Dr Norman’s brief speech was one of several by politicians of different stripes. His comments were made in the context of an analysis of the MMP implications of a vote for the National government, and a discussion of the importance of minority rights.

    “This context colours the way the words were understood, and illustrates that they were plainly genuine political discussion.”
    Advertisement

    Mr Price says Mr Craig’s lawyer suggests the comments were taken to mean that the Conservative leader holds sexist, derogatory and offensive views about women and gay men.

    But Mr Price says it seems more natural to interpret them as a colloquial suggestion that Mr Craig’s attitudes to women and gay people are outdated and disrespectful.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/lawyers-letters-fly-craig-threatens-norman-libel-suit-5840219

    I call bullshit on that Mr Price.

    I interpreted Norman’s comments – when I first heard them as broadcast on TV news the day of the Big Gay Out – as stating that Craig though women should stay at home and work in the kitchen, and that Craig thought that homosexuals should hide their sexuality from society.

    I didn’t think anything like what Price claims is a “more natural” interpretation.

    I was well aware of Craig’s past comments on homosexuality and women, and I didn’t think Normans comments represented them anywhere near accurately.

    My natural interpretation was that Norman was trying to exaggerate Craig’s attitudes and his intent was to misrepresent to Craig to damage his political credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Tom is giving us a lesson in how to say a great deal without saying anything of substance, beyond “it’s all a waste of time, other people know better than you, and I know who they are.”

    Megalomania is never a good look.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “Mr Craig is a thin skinned, moralistic nut.”

    Yes naaska, the last thing we need is people with morals in Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Captain Pugwash (26 comments) says:

    Colin Craig may be a nice guy & a bit of a dork, but he is not cut out for politics. I can’t imagine how he will last in the bear pit of Parliament

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    Don’t know about you ShawnLH but I’ve always thought of morals as being personal. If we need parliamentarians to force them onto us through legislation then all is lost anyway.

    For what it’s worth I believe that we are here for a finite time & there is no hereafter. Therefore it follows that laws & regulations should be just sufficient for us to live in peace & security with each other in the same community.

    You & Mr Craig can celebrate your Skydaddy rubbish to your hearts’ content if it makes you happy but nothing gives you the right to dictate the living arrangements nor the morals of those who do not share your beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Ed Snack (1,535 comments) says:

    Tom’s right about the fuck-up factor, I hew to HL Menkens dictum, that the only way a journalist should look at a politician is down; but in these days of a journolist there appears to be an alternative which is the “arse kissing approach” given to certain specific almost exclusively left wing politicians; or at least socially and economically left wing anyway.

    As for not making policy because we don’t know enough, that is in fact the correct place for politicians, like them or loathe them. Scientists can provide data and studies, but don’t let them too close to policy, they’re no more proof to hubris and corruption that the common herd, possibly more prone to them if anything. Ultimately policy is a mix of what may (or may not !) be needed plus a leavening of enough common sense to make it work. Admittedly the common sense part is often or usually missing because the one thing about common sense that stands out is that it isn’t (common that is).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    My natural interpretation was that Norman was trying to exaggerate Craig’s attitudes and his intent was to misrepresent to Craig to damage his political credibility.

    I sure hope Wussel is forced to apologise since that will give Craig even more name recognition. Typical lefty, as soon as he attempts to do something simple like attacking a political opponent at a festival which every other politician does all the time and gets away with it, Wussel proves himself so incompetent that not only does he significantly strengthen and not weaken his opponent by making him a significant part of the early week political news-cycle but the great galloping mental does it in such a ham-fisted way he also weakens himself, since if he doesn’t apologise he makes himself look churlish and if he does apologise he makes himself the loser in a fight with an opponent who hasn’t even been elected yet and has a fraction of his own experience. What a loser. This on top of course of the other leader of the galloping mental party having a racist hallucination where none existed and making a complete and utter plonker of herself, as well.

    In any other party you’d expect their respective performances to lead to a hit in their ratings, but one assumes their supporters are so profoundly f..ed in the head to consider voting for them in the first place that this kind of thing is merely de rigueur from a supporter behaviour-expectation perspective. In fact, they’re probably quietly applauding the fact Wussel didn’t drop trou and moon the crowd, just to make the point quite clear, which in the context of avoiding given that particular audience, was probably, in their minds, quite an important mark of restraint and an indication to them, at least, that their co-leader weally knows what he’s doing, politics-wise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Naaska,

    “Don’t know about you ShawnLH but I’ve always thought of morals as being personal.”

    Being opposed to murder is a moral stance. Is that personal? Morals are fundamentally social.

    “If we need parliamentarians to force them onto us through legislation then all is lost anyway.”

    Parliament already does that now. If it did not, there would be no laws against murder, assault, theft or rape. Human beings cannot live with social rules, and all social rules are forms of morality.

    “For what it’s worth I believe that we are here for a finite time & there is no hereafter. Therefore it follows that laws & regulations should be just sufficient for us to live in peace & security with each other in the same community.”

    So you do want moral rules, just those that conform to your religious beliefs. And the difference between you and Craig is what exactly?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Doctors and scientists tend towards a great deal more hubris than the common herd. A technocratic state run by self appointed “experts” would just be a recipe for a re-run of the Soviet Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    The distinction between personal and social morals is meaningless, and logically flawed to say the least. Liberals, to justify overturning traditional morals in favour of liberal morals created this rhetorical nonsense, but it’s a fraudulent argument. There are of course good arguments for limiting the State’s reach into our lives, but that still beggars the question as to when and how it should, and on what moral basis. Even Libertarians insist that society should be run according to the moral code of the non-aggression principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    Part of my original statement….

    ….”laws & regulations should be just sufficient for us to live in peace & security with each other in the same community.”….

    How on Earth do you manage to twist that into a supposed objection to ” laws against murder, assault, theft or rape. “?

    ….”So you do want moral rules, just those that conform to your religious beliefs”….

    I don’t have religious beliefs….it is impossible to believe in something that you know doesn’t exist.

    Try to be honest, at least with yourself…..you are the same as the rest of the Godnutters. At some stage something has slipped a notch or two in your head & now the psychosis is telling you that you are better than the rest & your way is the only way anyone should live.

    Stage two of the fantasy is the killer….that’s when you stop believing in God & realise that you ARE God.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    That question rests on a false assumption.

    Would I be wrong in assuming that you, personally generally seek out the best alternative? If so my assumption isn’t really false.

    Apart from which, given your obvious intelligence I’m curious to know if you’ve come up with any bright ideas :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Disclaimer; I’m not a member of the Conservatives and have yet to decide who I will vote for and if I will vote at all.

    Shawn – I’m curious about this comment. You seem to specialise in commenting about Craig and the Conservatives (you certainly have with nearly a quarter of your comment count on this topic today). And you seem very protective of them and antagonistic towards anyone you deem opposed.

    Yet you try to distance yourself from Craig and his party. Something doesn’t quite seem to add up there, but perhaps you have a good explanation.

    Are you just a very interested onserver

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Something doesn’t quite seem to add up there

    Only in your head Pete. I’m exactly like Shawn. I don’t particularly care about the Conservatives, I just hate shill-ing and I recognise it when I see it. For clarity, I don’t hate you Pete, I hate your shilling when you engage in it, which you only do with Craig.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    Reid

    From the Urban Dictionary:

    Shilling
    1. a foreign type of currency that is equivelant to the U.S.A Quarter Dollar(25 cent)
    2. a word that can be used to substitute bulshitt
    1. lolipops at a convient store, cost about a Shilling now adays.

    2. stop all these lies, its total Shilling.

    Presumably you mean that PG is telling porkies about the Messiah, the Great White Hope, the know all Godwhacked bullshit artist who isn’t sure about moon landings & chem trails.

    Examples please!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. deadrightkev (176 comments) says:

    I have to laugh at some of the personal insults above.

    “Craig is a plonker, nut, thin skinned, etc” How many of those armchair experts have actually met him, know him and have a clue what he believes on this or any issue? I include David Farrar.

    I hope Craig and Act can win a seat each and drag some extra seats into parliament. We sure need someone to pull National out of the centre left or we will end up a subsidiary of the UN.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    An interesting place the Urban Dictionary. Take this description of Christian Conservatives:

    “Christians who put the Judaic values of bloodshed, revenge and hellfire over and above the virtues of compassion, empathy, poverty of spirit, rejection of material possessions and charity. One who loves to judge others but remains oblivious to their own faults. One who opposes the separation of Church and State. One who longs for the extermination of life on Earth in the name of a mythological event that will result in a large proportion of humanity being tortured for eternity by a vengeful God. A death cultist. A hypocrite. One who obsesses on sexual desire but ignore physical greed and gluttony. One who opposes the right of women to terminate pregnancy and artificial contraception but supports the death penalty for minors. One who holds racist, tribal opinions about the developing world and other cultures. one who vilifies the fundamentalist Muslims with whom they share 100% of their values. Indistinguishable therefrom. One who opposes the rights of homosexuals but supports illegal wars. A waste of moral space. An ethical hole.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    ….”I hope Craig and Act can win a seat each and drag some extra seats into parliament. We sure need someone to pull National out of the centre left or we will end up a subsidiary of the UN.”….

    Last time I checked we lived in a democracy. i.e, one man, one vote. I await, breath baited, for you to tell us how pulling National further to the Right is going to attract more of the desperately needed centrist voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    You can argue the toss as to whether it is bad politics for Mr Craig to commence legal action. It’s probably a petty move, and unwise in that respect (or at least risky). However, I’m also inclined to say “good on him”. I get sick of people with unpopular views being demagogued as racists/sexists/homophobes/bigots. It’s about time somebody stood up and fought back against that shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Reid is making things up again nasska. It’s obvious he’s wrong and I’ve proven it but he keeps pushing the same old conspiracies. he seems to have something against people who don’t suck up to his beliefs.

    Ironic that he’s a fan boy for Craig but uses persistent lying that Craig deplores (and i guess the God thing wouldn’t think much of it either). But I don’t know if Reid knows he’s lying (deliberate) or he’s a dupe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    ”I hope Craig and Act can win a seat each and drag some extra seats into parliament. We sure need someone to pull National out of the centre left or we will end up a subsidiary of the UN.”

    Hoping Craig will pull National right is likely to end in big disappointment. He’s closer to Labour-Greens on economic issues, for example anti asset sales, and pro taking people’s land off them if they don’t sell it quickly enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. eszett (2,269 comments) says:

    I get sick of people with unpopular views being demagogued as racists/sexists/homophobes/bigots. It’s about time somebody stood up and fought back against that shit.

    I get sick of people with “unpopular views” demanding that their views should go uncommented and unoppossed and cry like a baby every time they hear an opinion contrary to their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Naaska,

    laws & regulations should be just sufficient for us to live in peace & security with each other in the same community.”….

    How on Earth do you manage to twist that into a supposed objection to ” laws against murder, assault, theft or rape. “?

    I didn’t. I was simply pointing out that your first statement about regulations sufficient to live in peace and security are a statement of your moral principles, thus to be opposed to the State enforcing moral principles makes no sense. You were contradicting yourself.

    “I don’t have religious beliefs….it is impossible to believe in something that you know doesn’t exist.”

    How do you “know”?

    And you do have religious beliefs. You began your statement with the words “I BELIEVE” then proceeded to give your religious view about the finiteness of human life and the supposed non-existence of God, neither of which you can prove, thus it was a statement of your personal religion.

    Your just trying to have it both ways. Sorry, but that is hypocrisy and double standards.

    “Try to be honest, at least with yourself”

    Good advice. Try it yourself.

    And your fantasies about Christians are hilarious.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Pete

    “Yet you try to distance yourself from Craig and his party. Something doesn’t quite seem to add up there, but perhaps you have a good explanation.”

    No, I was distancing myself from democratic politics in general. The reason I was defending Craig is because I am a social conservative, and many of the attacks on Craig are attacks on social conservatives, and imo unfair and laced with hypocrisy. Thus I’m prepared to defend him against unfair attacks. That does not mean I’m going to vote for him. That should have been obvious, even to you.

    For what it’s worth I was not joking about being an Anarcho-Monarchist. I despise the modern liberal democratic state, no matter who is running it.

    http://anarcho-monarchism.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    Believing in one’s OWN opinion constitutes a personal religious conviction?

    Get real !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. eszett (2,269 comments) says:

    For what it’s worth I was not joking about being an Anarcho-Monarchist

    LOL.

    I believe (pun intended) that puts all your comments into the appropriate context.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    You must see me as a major impediment to Anarcho-Monarchy then Shawn. Or you just like hopping on the bashwagon of the day. Or something.

    98% approximately of New Zealanders don’t see great things in Colin Craig, and I suspect many see him as a bit of a nutter or more, And there’s quite a few who call his nuttiness here. Thanks for focussing on me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    I think it’s utterly wonderful that a chap like Craig, with zillions of his own cash, has called out the chinless little ginga Norman to put his weaselly little mouth on the line before he can delve into the public purse to pay his lawyer bills. Because mark my words the horrible little Aussie creep will be into the public purse like a rat up a drainpipe if the stupid of NZ ever give him the opportunity! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    ….”regulations sufficient to live in peace and security are a statement of your moral principles, thus to be opposed to the State enforcing moral principles makes no sense. “…..

    Since when does interfering in others rights re euthanasia & abortion (for instance) equate with ensuring a peaceful coexistence?

    At that point you’ve crossed over the line & are now living in “you are going to do what my Magic Man in the Sky revealed through a burning bush a couple of thousand years ago” LaLa Land.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Has anybody not noted that being out there, going over the top, is the expectation on some occasions.

    But as Craig has no appreciation of the event etc (was not there, does not go there), he misunderstands context.

    I asked the question where and when Norman made these comments – a link to TV coverage was provided, but no appreciation of the issue of context/occasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Reid (15,535 comments) says:

    Presumably you mean that PG is telling porkies about the Messiah, the Great White Hope, the know all Godwhacked bullshit artist who isn’t sure about moon landings & chem trails.,

    No I didn’t mean that at all, nasska. That is why I used a hyphen between the shill and the ing in my original post because I was conscious of the conflation with shilling, but I see you missed that because it was positioned coincidently right where the line break was, hence your misunderstanding.

    This is a shill.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

    A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

    “Shill” typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. “Plant” and “stooge” more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician’s audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).

    That is what Pete does, when he talks about Craig. He’s a shill for Dunne. That’s what I mean. And he is. He can’t deny it, everyone sees it, and has seen it since poor old Pete started doing it all these months ago. Not rocket science, is it. The fact Pete clearly thinks he’s some kind of fiendishly clever double-agent type who no-one suspects, just makes Pete amusing, on this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Hi Pete,

    “You must see me as a major impediment to Anarcho-Monarchy then Shawn.”

    Nope.

    “Or you just like hopping on the bashwagon of the day. Or something.”

    Nope. You may not be aware of who I am. I was away from this blog for a long time, but I have been posting here for years. Forgot my password and so it was easier just to create a new account. But I used to post under my middle name Lee, and if you do remember I have been a paleo-libertartarian traditionalist conservative for more than 15 years years now, of which Anarcho-Monarchy is a variant.

    I do not care one whit what most Kiwis, or people in general think. Many Kiwis think Shortland Street is a great tv drama.

    I was only focusing on you because you were, on this thread, one of the main critics of Craig, but it was not personal. I apologize if I said anything that was unfair to you.

    I’m only posting a lot at the moment because I’m recovering from surgery and have very little else to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. deadrightkev (176 comments) says:

    Anyone that is a shill for Dunne needs to have a serious look in the mirror. Now there is a well past his used by date politician with no moral compass, ethics or vision.

    Dunne is a blight on the political landscape and the quicker he is gone with his mate Peters the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Naaska,

    “Since when does interfering in others rights re euthanasia & abortion (for instance) equate with ensuring a peaceful coexistence?”

    Abortion interferes in the rights of human beings to live in peace by murdering them in the womb. That is not peaceful coexistence.

    Euthanasia is a more complex issue. I’m not opposed to those suffering long term pain with no hope of recovery choosing to end their lives. I support that right. My concern is that any law legalizing it will lead to abuse, as has happened in other countries, with the elderly being pushed to end their lives so others can get their inheritance, This has become a problem in Holland.

    By the way, I believe in God, not a man living in the sky. God is neither male nor female, and is present everywhere. And claiming your not religious, but prefacing one of your statements with “I believe” is living in la la land.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    No one goes to the event at which Norman spoke to be understated.

    Of course the position of Craig was going to be overstated/exaggerated to the point of placing him back in time to some past era stereotype.

    To misunderstand this context and call the misrepresentation “slanderous”, shows out of touch with modern society and such occasions someone like Craig is.

    Some people are just too sectarian for the democratic process and the inclusiveness of modern secular society. Their old order is declining into various sectarian worldviews, with all sorts of variant ideologies packaged together (in one part gnostic, another part
    servants to the throne elite/elite throne, another part free men/men free-superior to the order of government/common world culture).

    Yet Craig is the exception to that rule – having money means he can be involved in the democratic and try and connect the modern world to the past as a champion of those who are under the “conservative” umbrella – and our form of democracy MMP, when combined with National’s penchant to help parties below the threshold get seats enables that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, is your belief that God is not male based on the bible word? Is the Trinity an all male one, or not? Why use the term father if it does not mean male?

    Do you believe Jesus was both human and divine and if so in what sense was he son of a father? And the terms God the father and God the son mean what to you as an Anglican? Is God the son male? If so, in what sense?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Chuck Bird (4,410 comments) says:

    Naaska, should there be a law driving while drunk?

    If a person has a contagious disease has the state got a right to quarantine them?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    Not sure how one can be both a social conservative and an anarcho-monarchist at the same time.

    Perhaps that why the apparently oxymoronic term ‘anarcho-monarchist’ arose – to resolve that cognitive dissonance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. eszett (2,269 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (4,296 comments) says:
    February 18th, 2014 at 10:09 pm
    Naaska, should there be a law driving while drunk?

    Possibly in some places on the South Island and Palmy a law requiring a minimum level of alcohol might actually improve road safety. :-)

    If a person has a contagious disease has the state got a right to quarantine them?

    Does being a religious-conservative nutter qualify as contagious disease? Could we quarantine a Colin and his gang? But than again, looking at his polling numbers, it does not seem all that contagious at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    Reid at 8.52 pm – very funny, you’re getting a bit shrill about the shill thing. I disclose more about myself and my motives than most here. Far more than you do.

    Let’s go back to your first comment:

    Are Greens worried about the Conservative Party?

    No I think they just hate him, because they’re mental. Blind, irrational hatred is common in the insane and the Gweens are the most insane of all in the land of Bedlam that is called lefty politics.

    Shrill shill stuff. You calling people shills and mental and having blind, irrational hatred is more reflective of your own behaviour.

    If anyone is worried it will of course be Dunne since Craig stands in stark contrast to the lying philanderer as an ethical man without guile who is seeking a good chunk of Dunne’s own base, in the Christian conservative camp.

    UF don’t have a Christian conservative base, they huffed off when they didn’t get their own way, they tend to be intolerant like that. You would know from experience.

    I haven’t decided whether or not I support the Conservatives as I haven’t yet bothered to read any of their policies…

    So you don’t know what you’re talking about, you just use them as an excuse for your shilling.

    …but what’s interesting to me is witnessing the attacks on Craig from all camps in both the media and from politics. I think most of Craig’s issue that those people have decried can be put down to political and media inexperience and as he learns the ropes I suspect they’ll disappear and the real substance of the man will emerge…

    You can’t have been following things much then. Craig has been having a go at politics since the 2010 mayoral election, he set up a party in 2011 and contested the election then and he has been continuing in politics since. If he hasn’t got political and media experience by now how long will it take for him to get it?

    He gets criticised because he says stupid things. While I think Norman lied about him saying ““Now the thing about Colin Craig is he thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet” Craig has criticised New Zealand women for being promiscuous, and he has said some very strange things about gays.

    He sent a letter out to people in Helensville saying Key was “too gay” to represent them. He said “gay relationships aren’t normal”. In 2012 he said he could choose to be gay if he wanted to.

    Craig invites a lot of criticism because he expresses very odd ideas about things. His problem is that through his past lack of media and political experience he keeps exposing his lack of substance.

    …which will of course mean those people will bray even louder but I suspect their arrows will increasingly bounce straight off Craig’s armour as it develops. I can already see signs of it which means he’s a quick learner given the complexity of those two disciplines – politics and media. Good.

    You’ve contradicted yourself. He is a very slow learner, or he is out of his depth in politics. Probably both.

    I don’t think either ACT or National need to be concerned because I think his vote will be coming mostly from NZF, UF, those in the Maori Party with a strong Christian faith, a few Mana and a few Gweens.

    What you seem to mean there is you hope parties you don’t like will have votes taken from them.

    Mana and Greens in particular are on a different whacky planet to Conservatives, whose votes are far more likely to come from National – having about 50% support means some votes for any alternative are very likely to come from them. You don’t analyse, you make things up to suit your shilling.

    Apart from the Maori Party which I don’t think will be heavily affected, I couldn’t care less if any of the others got totally destroyed since if they were I think the country would be in a better place.

    There’s that shill thing again. You wish anyone you disagree with is “totally destroyed”. How very Christian of you /sarc. You epitomise the intolerance of whacky Christians.

    What is totally destroyed is your credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. big bruv (12,354 comments) says:

    I note that the Aussie wanker has been on Labour Party TV this morning telling us all that he does not want his children growing up in a NZ where people can make comments like those attributed to Mr Craig.

    Does that mean that should we as a nation be stupid enough to vote in a TVNZ/Green government that Norman will decided what can be said by the people of NZ?

    Does that mean if we the CCCP are part of the next government Wussel will fuck off back to Aussie?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    I don’t really support Craig – but I do support him giving Normal a bloody nose (no not physically speaking) if Norman made a dishonest and politically damaging statement against him. As Craig said, it lowers the standard of debate in the country.

    The libel laws are a poor way to administer it (better if it was some sort of electoral commission using the powers sparingly) but there should be some limits.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Mark (1,301 comments) says:

    “Craig has been having a go at politics since the 2010 mayoral election” and thankfully the electorate has seen through the thin veneer and kept him out so far. John Key must be shuddering at the thought of having to cosy up to this nutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. deadrightkev (176 comments) says:

    Mark

    Craig will be a handful for Key come the day after election day. He is not going to roll over and play dead like Dunne and the other lapdogs.

    I welcome a new style of politics where someone leading a party actually stands up for their principles and members without blaming MMP.

    I hope Jamie Whyte gets that message too because the Act members have been badly let down in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. deadrightkev (176 comments) says:

    Norman has already lost the battle because he is slowly backtracking on his intensity and explaining himself. My legal advisor thinks that Craig will win because it is clear that Norman has unfairly and unreasonably maligned his good name in a public forum. End of story.

    As for the media spinning “it is election year and that might save Norman” or “Craig has money and Norman doesn’t” you have to ask who is the retard making those statements?

    Its even worse in election year because the stakes are much higher. No amount of money equals your reputation. The Greens don’t value that principle because they just don’t give a shit about anything remotely honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    It sounds like neither is backing down so legal action seems inevitable. Both Norman and Craig must think this will help their election chances. It’s likely to appeal to their respective support bases but it’s hard to say if it will gain more support for either.

    Norman has a clash of principles here – he is standing up against people (in this case Craig) saying “offensive” things about homosexuals.

    But Craig is standing up for what used to be a Green principle – not making things up in personal attack politics.

    Russel Norman’ s clash of principles

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. stephieboy (1,127 comments) says:

    One thing is for sure is this whole fracas has made the Conservatives morph from a traditional based party espousing traditional christian family values to a more progressive one .
    The party is now apparently more inclusive willing to encourage gays to join and embrace the cause .
    Hmmm…!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    SPC,

    “ShawnLH, is your belief that God is not male based on the bible word? Is the Trinity an all male one, or not? Why use the term father if it does not mean male?”

    Father refferes to the first Person of the Trinity. The Bible uses many feminine terms to refer to God. For example, the Shekhina, the Glory of God that rested upon the Ark of the Covenent, is a feminine term. Wisdom (Shekhina) is refered to as female. However, feminine and masculine terms are metaphors.

    “Do you believe Jesus was both human and divine and if so in what sense was he son of a father?”

    He is the eternal Son in terms of His relationship to the Father.

    “Is God the son male? If so, in what sense?”

    In the incarnational sense, in that He was incarnated and born as God in the flesh, in this case male flesh. But in the eternal sense he is neither.

    Scott Chris,

    you may want to read about the history of Paleo-Libertarianism. Most early Libertarians were social conservatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    You may be assuming that “social conservative” means wanting to pass “family values” laws, but that is not the case. Apart from abortion, which paleo-libs see as a violation of the non-aggression principle, paleo-libs of all stripes take the same views on what can or cannot be criminalized as liberal libertarians. It’s more a matter of cultural goals rather than legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    A useful quote.

    “Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modern libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights (just as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives. Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental—-indeed foundational—-fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism.”

    Paleo-Libertarian Hans Hermann-Hoppe, author of ‘Democracy: The God That Failed: the economics and politics of monarchy, democracy and natural order.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. stephieboy (1,127 comments) says:

    Shawn is this some sort of an apologia for theocracy .?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Really interesting quote, Shawn. Not saying I agree with it, but nice to see some new approaches injected into the discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    stephieboy,

    No. Hans Hermann-Hoppe is not a Christian, nor “religious” in any way. It is an apologia for consistent conservatism arising from private property rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. deadrightkev (176 comments) says:

    Pete George

    “The last thing they should do is put any faith on the looney Christian vote, it is proven as unreliable.”

    So how many evil Christians are we talking about Pete? The last report I heard some time ago was that Craig had over 6000 members and supporters. I know some are Christians, Maoris and even gays. I am not a member or a Christian either by the way but I do know Colin Craig. He will make decisions on principle to match his membership and sort of doesn’t flip flop on issues, lie or prostitute himself. Its refreshing to have a politician that walks the talk.

    I look forward to CP and Act MP’s playing merry hell with the socialist agenda next term. It should be a hoot and one we should all welcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Psycho Milt (1,975 comments) says:

    Shawn is this some sort of an apologia for theocracy .?

    No, more of an apologia for oligarchy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Pete George (21,812 comments) says:

    So how many evil Christians are we talking about Pete?

    None that I’ve talked about. There’s a small number of Christians in politics who have strong ideas on a small number of issues, and have a history of party splitting if the don’t get what they want.

    He will make decisions on principle to match his membership and sort of doesn’t flip flop on issues, lie or prostitute himself. Its refreshing to have a politician that walks the talk.

    You hope that’s how Craig will be. Unless he gets the opportunity we don’t know if he will walk the talk. And remember that if he wins an electorate and gets 2-4 other MPs they will have a say and a vote too, presumably. If he believes in democracy as he says then he may get flopped by others.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Zebulon (53 comments) says:

    Colin Craig needs to study the art of the witty but cutting retort. Bob Jones, Muldoon and Lange were masters. You may have agreed with their splendid little morsels but they hit their mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.