Near enough everyone by now is aware that John Key has been swallowing dead rats to make himself look the way he thinks an electable politician should look. He's swallowed enough dead rats already to make a bishop sick.
Interest-free student loans to bribe university-age voters? Me too. KiwiSaver? Me too. Foreign policy? Me too. Welfare for Working families? Me too. Waffling on about climate change and emissions trading? Me too. Privatisation? Cap on GP's fees? Bulk funding for schools? There's the faintest whiff of controversy? Oh, go on then, me too.
There is nothing National will not do for power, including abandoning whatever principles it ever had, and fooling every supporter it ever had about what it stands for and where it's really going.
But I'm not really here this morning to remind of the dead rats that Flip Flop Boy has already swallowed, I'd like to point out, or remind you, about just a few of the dead rats he's going to insist that you swallow. As Steve Pierson says at The Standard (yes, Virginia,The Standard), "It strikes me there is a disconnect between what prospective National voters expect it to do in government and what it has actually promised it would do."
"Disconnect" is the kindest way to describe the gap between what most Blue Team voters expect, and what National will deliver -- the size of that gap is the measure of cynicism of National's campaigners.
Think power prices are too high and National will know how to lower them? Think again -- it was them who signed up to Kyoto, and who introduced the RMA.
Think petrol prices are too high and expect National to slash the fuel tax? Hell, no - Maurice Wimpianson has already ruled that out.
How about reversing the anti-smacking law? Not a chance -- Flip Flop Boy has already ruled that out.
'Fixing' law and order? They've got no more clue than the Red Team what to do.
'Fixing' the RMA? Nick Smith couldn't even fix a good going-away dinner - and he should.
'Fixing' the economy? Who are you kidding.
Or 'fixing' the Electoral Finance Act? Have you any idea what they will actually introduce as a replacement, or how -- because they sure don't have a clue.
Reversing Labour's Emissions Trading Scheme? The bastards have got their own anti-industrial wet dream they want to introduce.
Think they'll fix the die-while-you-wait health system, or the state's factories of illiteracy laughingly called schools? Are you kidding -- the health and school systems are the ones they introduced.
Or make serious tax cuts -- the sort of tax cut that would leave a Treasurer crying? Hell no. Not in a million fiscal quarters.
So why would you even considering voting for the bastards? They still don't even know from one day to the next whether they're a party of compulsion or not. No wonder NZers are leaving in their droves, even with the expectation of a National Government come November.
As a commenter says at The Standard, watching National voters after the election will be like watching a friend who starts dating 'HotChickHot4U' off the internet, and she turns out to be a scam artist who ends up with half your house... Self-delusion is not compulsory, it’s a choice. And if people can’t be bothered to try and find out what they’re getting, they get what they deserve."
How many dead rats can you swallow? And why on earth would you want to?
Here's Monty Python.
UPDATE: "You vill play schport!" says Nanny Key. Jawohl, Herr Neville!
38 comments:
Flip Flop Boy has swallowed so many dead rats that he's now starting to grow whiskers and a tail.
Many of his comments seem to be to appease voters, he might me labour lite - but he is the best chance we have of getting ris of this present dishonest, corrupt government.
ACT are nothing - one seat wonders. Libz are even less. NZ1 consist of a sociopath and the Greens are a bunch of lefty nutters.
So he remains the best choice out of a bad bunch. It does not say much about the people we choose to to run our country for us - and it does not say much for the people who want to govern us.
Sorry, Mawm, but your blue-tinted spectacles are blinding your reason.
Can you explain to me the point of getting rid of this present dishonest, corrupt, nannying government only in order to replace it with another dishonest, corrupt, nannying government whose greatest boast is that they have identical policies?
1. National have never been so corrupt as to steal $800K to rob an election.
2. National have never been so corrupt as to then rewrite the law to make said stealing legal.
While the RMA is a dreadful assault on property rights, I don't think you can cite a case where National has been guilty of corruption worthy of a banana republic.
It seems pc, your rose-tinted specs are blinding your ability to see that Labour is so corrupt it deserves to be fired, irrespective of who fills the void.
Blue Balls, pray tell,
1. Where was National when Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton was taking Helen Clark to court for the crime of stealing $800K to rob an election? This was, after all, why she needed to change the law ....
2. What exactly National will do to rewrite the law that Labour rewrote? Have you seen any detail? Bet you don't see any before the election, either.
Frankly, it's not enough to just replace Labour with Labour-Lite -- it really does matter who fills the void.
And let's face it, Blue Balls, your own self-induced blindness is clearly blinding your ability to see that National is all dick and no ball-bag.
National has gone the way of the British Conservatives, *sigh*.
How can you take anybody who doesn't like Pink Floyd seriously?
I'm not saying National is in good shape under Key (Brash was my man), I am saying you're suffering from a kind of blindness of your own, as evidenced with your complete oversight of my point.
I maintain that a relatively uncorrupt Labour-Lite is better than a thoroughly corrupt Labour-Extra-Strength.
(Excellent blog by the way. Thank you.)
"..a relatively uncorrupt Labour-lite is better than a corrupt Labour-Extra-Strength".
Shit-oh-dear! Next thing he'll be telling young girls that it's better to be genitally mutilated by a member of Osama bin Ladin's outfit rather than raped by a Mongrel Mobster. See, one's not as "corupt" as the other.
Spare us fuckwits like these National Socialists dorks. Please!
LGM
Straight to the name calling LGM - very sad. I expect that kind of response from the reds at The Standard, but not on this reasonable blog.
Care to compare their corruption, and find something as Mugabean as Labour's election rort on National's rap-sheet?
Hi BB: like it or not, LG's correct. It's a sad day when you feel you're forced to accept the lesser of two evils.
Key and National have the best opportunity in years to begin to unchain NZ again - or at least shake it out of its socialist torpor. But they're not going to. They appear to happily want to go with most of it.
Socialism cannot - and NEVER will - work economically. And yet NZ'ers routinely expect it to work and are puzzled when it doesn't.
As for your challenge: counting the cost of all the RMA travesties since its inception would be right up there with anything Labour's done ... wouldn't you think?
bb
The characterisartion of the National Socialists was not specifically directed at you. Still, if the hat fits, then by all means wear it.
The shallow self-justification of support of one evil in preference to another (because it is allegedly "lesser") has been dealt with previously. In short, supporting an evil outfit of fraudsters and liars up to no good is nothing more than supporting an evil outfit of fraudsters and liars up to no good. Nothing good will come of it. It is lunacy to expect otherwise.
The National Socialists have had many opportunities in the past and have demonstrated time and time again exactly what they are about. If you seriously expect them to yield improvement over the present situation (let alone their previous antics), then you are deluding yourself.
LGM
Very disingenuous of you LGM:
"Shit-oh-dear! Next thing he'll be telling young girls that it's better to be genitally mutilated by a member of Osama bin Ladin's outfit rather than raped by a Mongrel Mobster. See, one's not as "corupt" as the other.
Spare us fuckwits like these National Socialists dorks. Please!"
Then:
"The characterisartion of the National Socialists was not specifically directed at you."
And still you fail to cite a case of National Party corruption.
Blanket philosophical examples are too easy, I know as well as most that Key is not the key. What I'm looking for is a "Mugabean" moment.
Nice try Sus. I agree the RMA is a travesty, but it hardly qualifies as corrupt. The motivations that brought it about were well intentioned, designed, as I understand it, to protect us against those who would damage our property. This was certainly not the act of a corrupt government, but certainly an utterly misguided one.
I didn't come here to debate the lesser of two evils, but rather expose one party as being worthy of a dismissal based on their corruption. If your only rebuttal to my point is 'what's the point in firing them if you're only going to get Labour-Lite" then perhaps this isn't the place to have this debate. I thought there was a higher calibre of thinker here. Maybe I'm wrong. Certainly you all seem to be wearing the same brand of rose-tinted specs that PC owns, preventing you seeing the face of true corruption.
bb
You should learn to read. That would be a good start.
As previously stated, the characterisation was not SPECIFICALLY directed at you. Nevertheless it would seem that the hat does indeed fit you after all! Your call.
BOTH parties should be dismissed. NEITHER is worthy of respect or having their utterances listened to, let alone believed. Neither should EVER have the opportunity to rule over other people's lives and resources. Both are populated by scum who expropriate that which is not theirs. Both outfits are based on theft and dishonesty.
Surely that is clear enough, even for a deluded fool such as you.
LGM
BTW are you a member of the party? Try to answer honestly.
blue balls
Are you Brendan? Or Blair?
"Nice try Sus. I agree the RMA is a travesty, but it hardly qualifies as corrupt."
You might not have that opinion if you've been on the receiving end - and I hope you haven't. I put it to you that a fine of $100,000 or a prison sentence for cutting down trees *on your property* is corrupt. And as I suggested, should you total the costs, fines and impositions, it must come to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
"The motivations that brought it about were well intentioned, designed, as I understand it, to protect us against those who would damage our property."
Ah, always 'well-intentioned', BB, if not 'for our own good'. There's the rub. Although, you'd have to wonder at the politicians who would deem the interference with, if not downright destruction of, private property rights as 'well-intentioned' ...
I accept that you were not writing in defence, per se, of Key. But it's all a matter of degree - and to date his party has done nothing to warrant ringing the bells.
LGM writes: "You should learn to read. That would be a good start... As previously stated, the characterisation was not SPECIFICALLY directed at you. Nevertheless it would seem that the hat does indeed fit you after all! Your call."
And now, adding to the disingenuity, condescension. I'll indulge your straw dog one more time LGM, just to point out your self-deceit.
Your quote again: "Shit-oh-dear! Next thing he'll -[specific]- be telling young girls that it's better to be genitally mutilated by a member of Osama bin Ladin's outfit rather than raped by a Mongrel Mobster. See, one's not as "corupt" as the other.
Spare us fuckwits like these -[reference to the specific]- National Socialists dorks. Please!"
I overlooked the first case of misrepresentation but I won't tolerate a second. You're a dung beetle LGM, and unless you've got something better than a tasty pile of poop to offer I suggest you sit down and shut up, and take a lesson in inference and comprehension.
Sus, you'll get no argument from me over the disgusting RMA - or the dismal John Key. The RMA has become a draconian piece of legislation that has caused untold pain, and needs to be ditched completely, and not just dealt to with a tinkering. But I'm sorry, it's simply not in that same league of self-serving, power-hungry corruption as stealing an election with taxpayers' money then writing law to avoid a prima facie case in court (well done Darnton). The RMA is no worse than other freedom-denying legislation drawn up by other governments in the so-called free world. But it's hardly Mugabean. The EFA on the other hand would be something Bob the Dictator would be very proud of.
So, if that's your best shot folks, I'll retire from the debate satisfied in the knowledge that ousting the utterly corrupt Labour-Extra-Strength is well deserved.
The above should read, "The RMA is just as bad as other freedom-denying legislation drawn up by other governments in the so-called free world."
I don't want you to think I'm down-playing its rottenness.
LGM is a motherfucking coward. He insults, attacks other people here at Not PC, but when asked to show up for a challenge of a man-to-man talk by Blair, the motherfucker just went quite and never replied to Blair.
LGM, If you act like an untamed vicious lion in blogosphere, then you must be prepared to face those other more aggressive lions in person who want to challenge you, otherwise just fuck off motherfucking coward.
Anon
Ah, then you must be Blair! I get you and Brendan mixed up sometimes.
Anyway, you are fibbing again.
You got your bottom whipped in a debate (because you were wrong), your tiny ego got all hurt, then you got angry and started demanding a fight (that's what you really want isn't it?- to swipe your little fists in the air while venting your frustrations and furies). What a toss pot!
Look moron, you have not got a clue. In a debate losing your temper does not make you correct. Nor does it validate your beliefs. Nor does it make you a man. What it confirms is your intellectual weakness. You are being very childish. Really lightweight stuff.
Why not behave as a sane adult? Admit to yourself that you got it wrong, go find out the facts and integrate them into your knowledge. That way you'd end up in possession of the truth...and, as is well said, that would set you free!
What you should do is some research. Try to LEARN about that which you are clearly ignorant of. One of those things would be self-control. Another would be that force/threat/violence (which is what you're lusting after- be honest) does not validate your position. Such an approach leads to failure and frustration as you've recently been demonstrating.
LGM
bb
You consistently evade the substantive issue and argue any red herring rather than what matters.
An aside: I wrote what I wrote and I recall what I was thinking at the time. I've clarified the intention for you {look at the other posts that preceeded yours- you're not the sole representative of the national party supporter group}. Clearly that's not something you care to consider or enquire about. Your choice. Since the hat fits you so well, you are welcome to it. Seems you have identified yourself.
Anyway, you've been evading the issue. What PC posits is blue mob and leader have not presented much in the way of policy. When they have, that's been followed by a flip-flop, a change of direction. They say they support one position, then they embrace the opposite. Hence the labour-lite terminology.
How can anyone trust this behaviour? What do they stand for exactly? What are their principles? Do they have any, or, like their sucessful ex-leader, do they admit to having none? What will they do? Those are questions to consider.
It is possible to look back at the previous form of those involved. It's not a good record, despite the best opportunities. In the end they continue the socialist prescription. Perhaps they alter some of the details at the margin. Perhaps they slow down the rate of introduction of new socialist prescriptions. Perhaps... So what? It's still socialism and it still does not work. Worse is that it is an evil thing to do to other people.
Now try very hard to understand. It matters not that one could argue that one mob is not quite as venal, dishonest and wrong as another. If they are both doing evil (and have so done previously), then they both are evil.
What you have been doing is trying to argue a justification for your arbitrary choice by appeal to lesser evil. It's a common approach. It's also wrong.
What is interesting lately is how people try to rationalise their choice of National Socialism over Labour Socialism. They know they don't like what one has wrought. Then they make the fundamental error of choosing another variant of the same thing, pretending that what they'll get is something else entirely. (They won't. It is wishing or exercising a type of blind faith they are doing. Reality will ignore such intellectual follies.)
The most important part of the process is the erection of means to justify the choice and maintain a deliberate blindness toward reality of the situation. It's self-delusional. As the original piece identified, there will be much disappointment when the delusions are shattered. What then? Back to Labour?
What you have accomplished is to identify Labour govt as non-desirable. Then you've chosen the blue mob and pitched in your support for that. When it's pointed out that they are also bad news, you have erected a series of rationalisations and rules in an attempt to force a conclusion, thus justifying your selection. Cart before horse stuff.
You may be correct in your contention that one mob has displayed coruption. That does not make the another arbitrarily selected mob any better or right. It certainly isn't a valid defense of your preferred mob to indicate that it is dishonest rather than corrupt (assuming they are not, in fact, corrupt- which is far from proven fact). Nor is it valid to claim a Mugabee behaviour as a defining test. That amounts to little more than name calling and smearing.
It will be most interesting to hear from you (should you still be about) should your chosen few continue with an anti-free speach EFA. Or fail to eliminate anti-smacking legislation. Or fail to respect the individual rights of property owners by tinkering the RMA so it can keep it, rather than eliminating it. Or fail to get rid of carbon trading. Or fail to eliminate all sorts of imposts and taxes and regulations and legislation and bureacracy that are known to cause injustice and impoverish people.
As I've indicated, it's all socialism and it's not something that they'll fundamentally alter. Know why? It's because they share the same ideas as those whom you lable "corrupt."
LGM
Whilst this willy waving btw the always abrasive LGM and BB is utterly fascinating, it leaves the real point of this discussion cooling on the table.
The problem is that everyone here is right.
Yes Labour is dishonest and totally incompetent (IMHO they lost the right to govern when they got rid of the RNZAF strike wing), but I have no faith the National will be any better.
That they will not be as clearly and overtly Socialist (sorry, 'Social Democratic') as Labour and at least have some idea about the economy will be cold comfort.
They will not reduce the size of the state. They will continue to interfere with your life.
The state is now a vast monothithic entity, I believe that any steps towards freedom and liberty will have to be baby ones initally.We cannot trust politicians to do it for us.
I propose that freedom fighters take a leaf from comrade Gramsci's book and 'work through the institutions'. It took them decades, we will need to do the same.Baby steps.
I'm doing my bit,slowly and in my way.
Who will join me?
EXOCET
LGM - In a debate losing your temper does not make you correct.
LGM, that is why Blair was challenging you, since you're always losing your temper. What the fuck you think abusing other commenters here is about? Abusing is losing your temper, if you don't see it that way, motherfucking coward then you're an idiot.
If you don't lose your temper here by abusing, then no one has any problem with debating & discussions in civil manner. Everyone here gets involved in civil discussion except you, because you're frustrated that everyone doesn't agree with you. I can go on and list all the names you have abused here, since you start appearing at Not PC (about a year ago) but it would be too long.
Have some fucking manners or otherwise fuck off coward.
Anon is quite right LGM, you're a coward. You don't even have the balls to admit that you were proven to have misrepresented me - specifically.
I don't usually stoop to epithet but now I feel it's time: You're a sad, dishonest little windbag, LGM, with a strange millinery fetish it seems.
I am not evading any issue here, bearing in mind this post of PCs was lifted from the communist blog, The Standard. In context of that endorsement I think I have every right to provide a little balance and question the levels of corruption of the two major contenders in the next election.
I'll repeat, I do not think John Key is the right man for the job - and what's more I think he will continue to flip-flop. But for all his misgivings he's not corrupt in the way Clark has been proven to be.
I'm satisfied that none of you has found a Mugabe in the National ranks, and maintain that there is one dictating our current government.
On a final note:
"You should learn to read. That would be a good start."
"What you should do is some research. Try to LEARN about that which you are clearly ignorant of."
Perhaps you should take some of your own advice LGM:
"See, one's not as "corupt" (sic) as the other...
The characterisartion (sic) of the National Socialists...
Nor is it valid to claim a Mugabee (sic) behaviour...
You may be correct in your contention that one mob has displayed coruption (sic)...
... like their sucessful (sic) ex-leader...
Or fail to eliminate all sorts of imposts (?) and taxes and regulations and legislation and bureacracy (sic)..."
Anonymous, or would you prefer to be addressed as Blair?
Looks like you're the one having the temper tantrum again! Go back and read your last posts. They are hilariously funny. You're a real comedian. Besides that, you're telling lies AGAIN! Yet more fibs from a weenie dribbler! That's a bad habit you have there little one. It seems you spend a lot of time wishing stuff up. What a waster. Still, it is entertaining.
Recap: In the previous debate you were shown to be wrong, without a clue about what the facts were. You did not know what you were on about. In other words, you were pig ignorant and without substance. When that was demonstrated, you erupted in an outburst of temper tantrum, and then tried to be threatening. Understand, it is very difficult to take such childish behaviour seriously.
Moving on, here is some advice. Seriously, you need to get over your ego. Put the temper away (try hard, you can do it) and direct your attention to the substantive, the issue under examination. You might eventually learn something. Perhaps.
For the record, I've enjoyed the debates very much- never lost my temper, not even close. I'm not like you, see! You should learn that not all people think and behave as you do. Some of us are better than that. Still, I do admit that moronic posters (especially the non-substantive asserters of the arbitrary) can be entertaining. It is a pleasure to be sticking the boot into such creatures.
Here is some more advice. If you don't want to get upset, you could try a different approach as an alternative to making unbacked assertions about things you have little or no knowledge about. You could try asking your elders and betters (people with the knowledge and experience you lack) to explain things to you. You could try doing the research and locating some real knowledge instead of making things up as you go. You certainly must learn to avoid evasion of substantive issues in a debate since that leaves you open to scorn and belittlement- easy meat. How about that? Try and see.
LGM
bb
You are quite the intellectual weakling. Notice how you evade the substantive EVERY TIME. Seems you'll exert great effort twisting your little mind up in knots of rationalisations to attempt justification of your arbitrary allegiance to an outfit of socialism. When that is pointed out you evade again, raising anything you can find- any red herring will do, anything you think you can hang on to. It won't work. You're getting desperate. It's obvious.
Did PC refer to corruption in his original piece? No? That was not his point was it? "Corruption" is an arbitrary test you introduced in order to allow yourself a means of prosecuting an appeal to lesser evil argument. It is an invalid approach.
Did PC indicate that there was a Mugabe in the government? That wasn't his point either, was it? That was another one of your inventions, used as a smear, to allow yourslef another means of appeal to lesser evil argument. Invalid puffery.
Look, if you want to rationally defend your position and hold your end of the debate you'll need to demonstrate why your approach is valid. That means you need to demonstrate why you identified it as addressing areas of fundamental importance, how your reasoning operates in regard to the topic and why that is the correct approach. What are your premise? How did you proceed from them? How are you addressing the substantive raised in PC's article? And so forth. You haven’t done any of that. You haven’t even made a decent attempt to properly defend your assertions by demonstrating validity at all. The conclusion must be that you can't because your assertions are arbitrary and trivial. They rest on little more than your feelings. That is, red is naughty, so blue is not naughty (well, not THAT naughty, ok then, how about naughty but not as naughty as red). Pathetic.
There is the basis for your evasions. This is why you evade (as you have previously and consistently). As I said, intellectually weak. Why not be honest with yourself?
The take home message you really do need to consider is that both mobs share premise, ideas, behaviours and actions. Don’t evade it.
LGM
LGM writes (with evermore rabidity): "You are quite the intellectual weakling. Notice how you evade the substantive EVERY TIME... Did PC refer to corruption [two Rs, well done] in his original piece? No? That was not his point was it? "Corruption" [well done again] is an arbitrary test you introduced in order to allow yourself a means of prosecuting an appeal to lesser evil argument. It is an invalid approach."
Really LCM, you "should learn to read". Let's have a look at the comment that precipitated mine.
PC: "Can you explain to me the point of getting rid of this present dishonest, corrupt, nannying government only in order to replace it with another dishonest, corrupt, nannying government whose greatest boast is that they have identical policies?
Of the three charges, corruption is by far the worst. I quite rightly rejected the accusation that the National Party is guilty of corruption - a point which nobody here has refuted, LGM, and one you have even conceded. Dishonesty, yes. Nanny Statism, absolutely. But not, as far as I'm aware, corruption. Certainly not on the Mugabean scale, which includes crimes like stealing elections, coercing the judiciary, rewriting law to stay out of court, and shutting down freedom of speech in an election year.
Whether you choose to see it or not, whether you choose to act on this information or not, is irrelevant to me. The fact remains, there is only one party that is, to its core, utterly and irredeemably corrupt. With two Rs.
[Incidentally, I'm (reluctantly) voting ACT. There you go, you foaming pup, another irrelevant bone for you to gnaw on.]
Why ACT, blue?
bb
You're being dishonest. Sure PC used the word "corrupt", but it was YOU who elevated that one word into a test to be used to evade the substantive issues he raised.
This consistent evasion tactic of yours is pretty lame. How about you lift your game and address the substantive for a change?
BTW, you never did clarify whether you previously posted as Brendan. Are you he?
LGM
To clarify (and leave you less room to evade):
As previously stated, PC did not refer to corruption in his original piece (see, not only do you need to learn to read, but also to comprehend what you read). It was not the substantive issue.
Where he did use the word was in a response to you. He used it in a particular context (which you evaded) and asked some direct questions (which you also evaded- fancy that).
As far as corruption goes, I've not addressed the topic, except in passing (in regards to your use of the word). I certainly have not conceded anything to you. Still, you have to admit that the business with the Exclusives (a corruption scandal) left both the party tainted with....corruption allegations. Seems like your test fails you. Anyway, you really should reread what PC wrote in his posting again. Try to understand the context this time. Don't evade.
LGM
LGM it is more laughable with your comment:
It seems you spend a lot of time wishing stuff up.
So, insulting/ad hominen attack of Owen McShane here at Not PC in the past is wishing up stuff, heh? How about ad hominem attack on MandM heh? How about an ad hominem attack on Eddie Visits Occasionally, on Blair Muholland, on Berend deBoer, shall I go on?
You're a pathetic motherfucking coward LGM. You think that you owned the people who come and debate here, somehow that commenters are your private property that you can abuse at will. People don't have to be subjected to your vile pathetic arrogant attitude here. Just reply to a comment in a civil manner, because PC doesn't owe me anything and I don't owe him either and so do other commenters including yourself.
What's this fucking abuse from you that somehow you think you have a God given right to educate us here? If we disagree with your points, then accept that's how anonymous internet chatting is all about. You don't have to force us to understand you, nor us forcing you to understand us. If you don't see the point I am making, then you're really really daft.
BTW, I am not Blair at all. Fuckers like you should be confronted in the strongest possible way, since your abuse is intolerable.
Learn some manners motherfucking coward.
Your character flaws are mounting with every comment, LGM.
Firstly, you're blind.
LGM wrote: "Where [PC] did use the word was in a response to you. "
No LGM, look at the order again. PC alleged National Party corruption first, THEN I responded. I came here to redress a false accusation. I didn't come here to deny that Key is making us swallow rats, I believe he is. Take off your blinkers, read my comments again and you'll see where I've put my own boot into the so-called leader of the opposition.
Secondly, you're a thicky.
LGM wrote: "You're being dishonest. Sure PC used the word "corrupt", but it was YOU who elevated that one word into a test to be used to evade the substantive issues he raised. "
You obviously don't comprehend the importance of that one word, which necessitated my objection. Let's see how the context would change if PC had left out the charge of National Party corruption:
"Can you explain to me the point of getting rid of this present dishonest, corrupt, nannying government only in order to replace it with another dishonest, nannying government whose greatest boast is that they have identical policies?"
You see, without the that word the answer to his question becomes self-evident: Because the government is corrupt and National isn't. The reason why I didn't answer his follow-up questions was because they were a diversion from my question, "What corruption?", which he still hasn't answered.
Thirdly, you're a liar.
LGM wrote: "As far as corruption goes, I've not addressed the topic, except in passing (in regards to your use of the word). I certainly have not conceded anything to you. "
LGM previously wrote: "You may be correct in your contention that one mob has displayed coruption."
That's a concession LGM, live with it.
Fourthly, you sound like a desperate Labour Party supporter.
LGM wrote: "Still, you have to admit that the business with the Exclusives (a corruption scandal) left both the party tainted with....corruption allegations."
Unlike the Labour Party who stole funds from the taxpayer to finance their election campaign, National gave the thumbs up to the Brethren who used their own money to do an anti-Green campaign. Where's the corruption in that exactly?
And if that's the worst the prosecution has your Honour, I rest my case.
(Brendan who?)
Fair question Sus. I'm voting ACT because they're still the only contender who advocates some semblance of self-responsibility and lower taxes. Sadly there's not much more to say about them other than that. I wish Rodney would regain some weight and deflate his ego by a few hundred PSi, but I'm not holding my breath.
PC, I think that LGM is destroying your nice blog. Your blog should be ranked #1 or #2 by now in the country because of the excellent contents (reason, logic, educational, art, sports, humor , architecture , general topics, etc...).
I suspect that there are readers who come here to read and love the content where they're likely to keep coming back because you have exposed them to concepts or ideas they never thought they would stumble upon by luck. Some read quietly and keep coming back and continue to do so. Some new visitors might make one comment and LGM attack them, and they never come back, I suppose.
These new comers don't need to be attacked like that, since it takes time for people who have preconceived ideas (either belong to the left or right of the spectrum) to see the promotion of reason at Not PC over a period of time. If their first experience as first time (perhaps 2nd or 3rd) commenter and be abused by LGM, the excellent points you promoted on your blog then become irrelevant to them, which drive to go away. Readers need to be nurtured by a good debate (not insulting) and promotion of civil dialog. They will come to the point that what you and the Libertarians are promoting is excellent. Some people and commenters will finally see the light at the end of the tunnel if they're not being abused. It may take time, but that is how the real world works. Did you become libertarian from birth or it took some years before you awoke and realized that you had just seen the light at the end of the tunnel?
I don't understand why LGM can't debate like you. You're a formidable debater but without insulting or ad hominen attack.
bb
Evading again. That's you to the core isn't it. Pick on non-essentials, alter context and avoid the point.
I made the error of mistaking you for mawm. Big deal. It remains correct that it was you, bb, who elevated the term "corrupt" into your central theme in order to avoid the point PC was trying to make. Further, you evaded his question. Not once did you attempt to deal with the substantive he raised.
National is not going to act much different from the present outfit. Come on! You KNOW they won't. There is plenty on the historical record that demonstrates their nature once in power. They are what they are and you are deluding yourself (as are many others) should you believe they'll suddenly grow balls (blue or otherwise), apply consistent moral principle and alter direction away from a variant of socialism.
Instead of addressing the points raised by PC (you know, the infamous flip-flops, back-downs, fibs, abandonment of their own stated core principles etc, as well as the gap between people's expectations of the party and what the party is delivering) you substituted your wee self-elevated issue.
Substitute, swap, change direction, introduce red-herrings, that behaviour remains your strategy. In your posts since you continued to duck and dive, squirm and smear- evading the issue each time. Dishonest and weak.
2/. No. You are the one who is attempting to elevate the term, treating it as more important than the substantive issue.
You keep attempting to force a conclusion. That method is for the simple minded. What you are doing is erecting arbitrary tests and rules in order to restrict application of logic and tie reason up in knots. As indicated previously, cart before horse stuff. It won't work. Never does.
Look, Nat and Lab have had exclusive control of poor NZ for decades. What has been achieved? Seriously, go back and review the record. What you'll see is destruction of value, elimination of liberties, curtailment of individual rights, consumption of wealth and, as with your behaviour, evasion of fact.
The record suggests how a new govt will behave. It'll be BAU. More big govt. More imposts. More of the same.
Take off your blinkers. Stop trying to evade the point.
3/. You're attempting to twist what was written. There is no concession to you there. That sentence (which you stupidly took out of its context) is qualified and was presented in a particular context.
You are desparate. It shows.
4/. Oh quit dribbling and get your hands out of your pockets! Stop making up excuses for them!
This was one initial example (an early indicator of how the present regime behaves). There would be no objection should it not have been treated as it was, a hidden commission accepted and denied. What was especially damaging was that the party was receiving expropriated funds from govt at the time (and intends to continue it would seem). The govt was able to whip them mercilessly over this and score some telling points. Seems they were circumventing the rules (rules they promised to uphold). The corrupion, such that it was, was in the denials and extensive cover up effort. It was in the acceptance of expropriated funds. It was in trying to fool others by pretending to obey funding rules which the party represents that it does, in fact, obey- meanwhile it was attempting a circumvention. It was in trying to fool others by denying links with specific supporters and allies (why were they so ashamed of being associated with a religion?).
All that effort to hide and they got caught. What sort of stuff will they try to hide once in power? What rorts then? As previously stated, look to the previous record for an indication.
I hope they don't turn out to be wreckers. I really do hope they don't descend into complete rorting and crookery. Trouble is, the nature of govt is based on faulty premise. The whole mess is runs on rejection of Individual Rights. They are a part of it. Always have been. They share the premise of those you excoriate as corrupt.
You lost your case. You were convicted and imprisoned by your own arbitary test!
(Brendan was a guy who posted a while back. There is a remarkable similarity in approach to debating between you two. I was interested in knowing whether you were he. Are you?)
LGM
LGM, I stopped reading your bloated waffle about four paragraphs in.
You're an imbecile.
Labour is guilty of Mugabean-style corruption. National is not. End of story.
Blue Balls,
What is Act?
Sean.
Your comment was as graceless as it was pointless
Post a Comment