Thursday, August 11, 2005

What have we learned today about our elected representatives

So what have we all learned today, so far, if we were awake enough to notice?

We've all learned that Jim Neanderton, Peter Dunce and Winston Peters have between them not the slightest shred of respect for the principle of free speech, nor for the distinction between public and private property. These entities literally make my skin crawl.

I've learned where most of Neanderton's Auckland Alliance Retards have gone: to the Greens. As one former Retard told me today, "The Greens have the same policies as the Alliance used to." And so they do. Hard-core authoritarian.

What else have we learned. We've learned, courtesy of Aaron, that like his former colleague Ms Awatere-Huata Rodney Hide doesn't give a shit about spending the taxpayers money on himself when he thinks he deserves it. The little fat fuck, this overweight 'perk-buster' who once claimed to defend the taxpayer, is getting you lot to pay for his Epsom election brochures. If Dunce and Peters and Neanderton make my skin crawl, Rodney makes my very bowels revolt at his dishonesty. "We'll keep National honest," he whines... the fat fuck wouldn't know honesty if it leapt up and bit him in the scrotum. Remember how the IRD gets that money, Rodney? Remember Ian Mutton? How quickly the dead are forgotten by those who once claimed to be their defenders.

We know too that Helen Clark has today pledged 250 more policemen after the election, but it took the proximity of a close election to bring such a pledge about, and she's still claiming that crime in New Zealand is dropping. Tell that to those people that no longer bother reporting break-ins, burglaries and theft because the police can't be bothered with that 'minor' stuff any more. Tell that too to Peter Bentley and Susan Couch, and the families of Michael Choy, Marcus Doig, Beverley Bouma, Iraena Asher and countless others whom the police, corrections department and injustice system have failed in recent years.

What else do we know? We know too that day after day, today included, Don Brash is travelling around the country whipping up apathy and promising, nay pleading with us to believe , that National has no secret agenda and
no significant policy differences to Labour -- that in reality they are just Labour-lite -- Labour perhaps in pinstripes, and with just a hint of blue. The sad thing is, as I've said before, there is no secret agenda, and they really are just Labour-lite. Today he's been pleading that National's health policy is really not very radical at all. Unfortunately, I believe him.

So Parliament has been dissolved today. And with entities like these above employed there, perhaps it were best for all of us it were never ever re-opened. Here's hoping for a long hiatus. Perhaps the coalition talks might take three months this time instead of just the nine weeks it took them all last time? In any case, I'm really going to struggle to watch the Leaders Debate tonight without throwing something at the screen and having my blood pressure go through the roof. Perhaps I'll go re-read my copy of Parliament of Whores and see if makes me feel any more well disposed to the thieves, liars and charlatans being compulsorily exposed on our TV screens tonight.

In other news, we've also learned today from Fletcher Building chief executive Ralph Water that whatever extra spending on roads that the various entities promise, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the number of roads being built at present, since their just aren't enough skilled people in the country to build any more than we are now. We're at capacity with what few skilled workers we still have. There you go.

And we've also just
officially learned, if you didn't know it already unofficially, that Brent Todd was one of the so-called sports celebrities alleged to have been involved with the so-called white collar drug ring, although his lawyer says he "never bought, sold or supplied drugs." Hmmm.

Now don't say I never keep you up to date.

Labels:

26 Comments:

Anonymous James said...

Well if thats what it takes for PC to have a whine and go to pieces I say "Go hard Rodney"!!! Maybe PC fears Hide has a chance after all...gee that will upset the poor boy! :-0

8/11/2005 05:04:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

Thanks God you didn't post a picture of him... Brash has gone up in my estimation by distancing himself from Hide.

What debate tonight? It will be an infomercial at best.

8/11/2005 05:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Robin Thomsen said...

Watch Clark, Brash, Hide, Peters, Fitzsimons, Anderton and Dunne-for on TV all at once?

While I probably should watch it, Doctor Who on Prime is a hell of a lot more tempting

8/11/2005 05:58:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see your point, PC.

But please articluate to me why the Libz agreeing to take $20,000 of taxpayers money to fund their campaign is so much different.

8/11/2005 06:08:00 pm  
Blogger Blair said...

Well where would you draw the line? You may be of the opinion that it is electioneering, and it may possibly help in that regard, but if you say an MP can't use public funds to communicate policy then you create an imbalance in the democratic weight of that MP's representation as an equal member of parliament.

The fact is that if the cow is already dead you may as well eat some steak. If Rodney doesn't spend that money then Cullen will be sure to waste it somewhere else. Personally, I think advocating for lower taxes, more freedom and greater individual responsibility is quite possibly one of the best uses of my stolen money I can think of. Go Rodney.

8/11/2005 06:16:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

articulate? Does that mean explaining it using terms like "little fat fuck", "overweight", "Dunce and .. Neanderton" "fat fuck"?

That's an interesting use of the word "articulate"

Don't hold anything back Peter - you may do yourself an injury.

Is it fair to say Rodney has spent more time than you on Mutton's story, the IRD enquiry and tracking and exposing wasteful spending? I think you may have been a bit harsh given Rodney's record.

Your indignation would be better applied to the transgressions of a far grander scale executed by the current government.

Still, a dollar is a dollar.

I'll reserve judgement until I have more information.

8/11/2005 06:17:00 pm  
Blogger sagenz said...

PC - I think you were being a bit PC there. Don't hold back! Tell us what you really think.

Blair has a point. Use the system to change the system. But it would be nice to hear him condemn his own spending and the rules that allow that

8/11/2005 07:36:00 pm  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

I found it a pity the Libertarianz didn't went to court as well, just to show the farce of it all. Or just show up at the door step with all the other parties.

Sometimes you can be too principles.

8/11/2005 08:33:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

Libz need to get in the real world. Their holier than thou bullshit puts them at the joke end of the political spectrum.A pity really as many of us agree with you but hate the fact you are stupid cunts!!!

8/11/2005 09:16:00 pm  
Blogger Craig Ranapia said...

Watched Dr. Who instead. Suspect the leader's debate would have been vastly improved with a homicidal Dalek on the loose - frankly, I've decided to give Three News a miss after Mark Jennings decided to roll over and play dead in the face of blatant political meddling by judicial fiat. If Three isn't willing to stand up for its own editorial integrity & press freedom, don't expect me to support it or its advertisers.

BTW, James I regard being called a "cunt" as the highest compliment. It is a delightful organ that has contributed much pleasure and utility to the human race.

8/11/2005 10:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Robin Thomsen said...

I agree Craig, Doctor Who was a much better watch (not so sure about your cunt remarks).

I flicked over to 3 during the ad breaks, God... it was horrible. None of the "leaders" they brought in were commercially viable, Helen was performing her usual condescending service, Win-Chung Peters was looking and behaving like a rodent. I've gone completely off Brash now, he's making National look like a carbon clone of Labour, back-tracking on his once promising remarks. Dunne, Anderton, Hide and Fitzsimons achieved no change in my esteme. Poor Tariana Turia looked like the was suffering from a panic attack.

8/12/2005 12:02:00 am  
Anonymous James said...

Craig...as you are a self declared gay man I am wondering just what experiece you have with cunts,rabid Libz types or otherwise...?

8/12/2005 12:08:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

James, as you are a self-declared idiot, I wonder just what experience you might have with anybody from the human race?

Please sort yourself out if you ever plan to re-visit here, and please do so before you come back.

8/12/2005 12:25:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You really are an offensive little fucker aren't you?

8/12/2005 12:27:00 am  
Blogger Craig Ranapia said...

James:

If you don't have the wit to recognise derisive sarcasm when it's aimed in your direction... As that great feminist Scarlett O'Hara would say "fiddle dee dee".

8/12/2005 06:21:00 am  
Blogger Craig Ranapia said...

James:

If you don't have the wit to recognise derisive sarcasm when it's aimed in your direction... As that great feminist Scarlett O'Hara would say "fiddle dee dee".

8/12/2005 06:21:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter, you still haven't answered my question.

"Please articulate to me why the Libz agreeing to take $20,000 of taxpayers money to fund their campaign is so much different."

8/12/2005 10:57:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

ANONYMOUS: are you sure that was ~your~ question rather than that of another anonymite?

You can read here what we said at the time if you're interested in accuracy. See if you can work out why being prohibited from using your own money to buy broadcasting time (which is what you're asking me about about) is different from not bothering to use your own money (which is what Rodney has done).

BLAIR: What you said above is just appalling. You said as if you meant it, "[PC] may be of the opinion that it is electioneering, and it may possibly help in that regard, but if you say an MP can't use public funds to communicate policy then you create an imbalance in the democratic weight of that MP's representation as an equal member of parliament."

You have got to be kidding me.

Print your sentence out, read it out loud to yourself, and then keep it in your wallet and take it out occasionally just to remind yourself how once you had occasion to argue that taxpayers should be forced to pony up to resolve "an imbalance in the democratic weight of that MP's representation," whatever the fuck that means. If you still truly stand by that statement after a week or two of further study, then 1) it's an indication of how far from a party of principle ACT really are, and 2) you and I have nothing in common, and nothing to talk about.

If you decide to resile from it, please feel free to come back. But not until then.

8/12/2005 11:20:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it was my question.

Peter - you're still using $20,000 of tax payers money to fund a political campaign. It's that simple. You should have refused it on principle and used $20K of your own money on other campaign material such as billboards or whatever.

When the Libz' campaign budget is around $25K total, accepting another $20k and thus almost doubling your campaign fund, may just have been too hard for you to refuse.

That's government for you - I wish you didn't accept the money.

8/12/2005 11:41:00 am  
Anonymous James said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/12/2005 12:31:00 pm  
Anonymous Andrew Bates said...

Why take the $20k?

You might as well ask, "Why drive on public roads?" or "Why go to public universities?"

To expect Libertarianz to not make use of anything that the state interfers with using money that was stolen from libertarian tax payers is ridiculous. It is a typical manifestation of altruist ethics - a moral code that calls on men to do whatever is against their self-interest; that holds that the more self-destroying an action is the more moral it must be.

Most libertarians in NZ subscribe to the ideas of Ayn Rand. We believe in the principled pursuit of our rational self-interest; that there is no rational justification for "martyrdom" in the name of some principle when the ultimate standard that the principles you live by should be judged is how well they advance your life and the ends you choose.

If we rejected the money we would be turning down an opportunity to advance the ideas of liberty while taxes we contributed were spent advancing the socialism advocated by the other 19 parties. Would that be rational? Was your question rational?

8/12/2005 12:52:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If we rejected the money we would be turning down an opportunity to advance the ideas of liberty while taxes we contributed were spent advancing the socialism advocated by the other 19 parties. Would that be rational?"

Would it be rational then for any other party to reject the money that it has available to it? If it's not rational for the Libz to reject it for the purpose of pursuing their political agenda then it's not rational for any other party to reject it to pursue their political agenda. Thus in their own self-interest they don't. So by saying it's rational to accept it you can't say that "It's OK for Libz to do it" but when another party does it "they are corrupt arseholes".

"To expect Libertarianz to not make use of anything that the state interfers with using money that was stolen from libertarian tax payers is ridiculous"

Then to expect classical liberals (ACT) or Tories (National) or social democrats (Labour) not to use money that was taken from taxpayers is also ridiculous.

I think we all agree, even PC, on the point that political parties using taxpayers money is bad (even if what they use it for is completely within the "rules").

So the objection here that many commenters have had towards the vitriolic attack against Rodney Hide - is that the Libz also have accepted, (and are willing and able to justify that acceptance) of tax payers money.

Therefore **don't abuse others when they do it**.

I say again that I *wish* the Libz hadn't accepted that money. If they hadn't, you would have carte blanche to rip into every other political party. You don't now.

8/12/2005 01:46:00 pm  
Blogger Blair said...

Public funding of a parliament to disseminate ideas is probably the most crucial role that taxpayers' money can play.

If MPs have no recourse to public funds, the only people who do have it are the ruling party. That is incredibly dangerous.

Obviously electioneering with public money is corrupt, but if MPs can't put forward a policy platform with public funds we may as well all give up and appoint Helen Clark Dictator-for-Life, because that's the reality of what you are suggesting. Democracy may cost money, but dictatorships cost even more.

8/12/2005 02:13:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Blair, as you agree that "obviously electioneering with public money is corrupt" I look forward to your telling your colleague Mr Hide what you think of his decision to have the taxpayer pay for his campaigning brochures. This is not about "putting together a policy platform with public funds" as you well know, this is about a little man that decided he could get way with having the taxpayer fund part of his electorate campaign just by choosing to hav the parliamentary crest on the front page of his brochure. That's dishonest, and your dissembling shows you know it.

And the attempt by Anonymous to continue trying to blur the distinction between, as I said before, being prohibited from using your own money to buy broadcasting time, and simply not bothering to use your own money to pay for electorate brochures (because you have the taxpayers' cheque book handy) suggests he/she understands the difference too.

8/12/2005 03:26:00 pm  
Anonymous Terry said...

In my opinion the acceptance of tax-victim monies has only one morally acceptable justification: when the stolen monies - every penny - is then used by the receiver to advance the idea of abolishing, or putting into effect the ending of, compulsory taxation. The monies received must *already* have been stolen/taxed though; one could never justify legislating to tax people for this purpose.

Libertarianz policy allows it to use the broadcasting allocation (i.e. the already stolen monies) in this way. The party wants to end all compulsory taxation, plain and simple. All other parties contesting this election have self-confessed that they want to tax and redistribute, tax and redistribute, albeit in varying degrees and for the benefit of different individuals/groups. There is therefore no moral justification for *their* use of the allocated broadcasting monies (or of any other taxpaid funding for that matter), and every moral justification for the Libz's use of it

If Libertarianz were to use the funding in question to advertise party policy *other* than its anti-tax one however, then (and only then) one might be able to argue hypocrisy. Just maybe.

For what it is worth, I believe that the above explained "exception" to the don't-accept-taxpayer-money rule applies not only to political parties, but to all organisations and individuals. For instance, if a beneficiary were to use every dollar of his/her benefit to advertise the immorality of taxation and/or to pay for peaceful activities that will ultimately abolish compulsory taxation (and therefore his/her own benefit), then they too would be morally justified in accepting tax-victim monies.

So; what does the above teach us? Well, as with the application of ANY principle, *context* is what decides the rationality of putting the principle into practice.

8/12/2005 05:36:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the little fat fuck :)
haha cuteee
miranda & jess:
we dont date guys with cute haircuts and little peepees
:l

5/13/2008 06:04:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home