Friday, 22 August 2014

Chris Trotter still “acceptably corrupt"

Chris Trotter argues when it comes to politics “(t)he options are not fair means or foul: they are foul means or fouler.” Pablo reckons this means either Chris has lost his ideological bearings or has consciously decided to join the Dark Side.
Pablo has forgotten it was Chris defending “acceptable corruption” not that many years go. Acceptable, to Chris, if it turfed out the Tories.


  1. Is anyone doing this? I mean really doing this?

    Can he name a single politician in National, Labour, Greens, Peter Dunne, ACT, or Winston First who is seriously, genuinely, doing something 'foul' at this election?

    I know that a lot of dickheads like to talk about politicians all being crooks, but is that really the case?

    Trotter seems to take the view that unless there is ideological purity (i.e.: anything not resembling Lenin's first couple of years) then it is automatically wrong "but we make allowances for them being wrong because they are crooks cutting deals to get elected".

    Similarly there are those on the other side of the spectrum who think anything deviating from "The role of government is Courts, Police and the Army" is crooked.

    And a great mass of stupid, ignorant poor people in the middle who say "Anything short of giving me someone else's money so I don't have to work is crooked"

    All are wrong.

    There is nothing whatsoever corrupt about a New Zealand Election - either in deed or thought; never has been.

    Just because nobody standing for election (and likely to get elected) is advocating your loony one-issue-nutter(ism) - or even agrees with you - doesn't make them crooks; just because no one shares your ideological purity doesn't make them crooks.

    It is interesting to note that [you] think anyone standing for election and not agreeing with you word for word (right down to where the commas are) is a crook - but those who are lifelong 'centrists' don't view [you] as a crook just because you have a bee in your bonnet about some ancient history which nobody ever voted for.

    Perhaps that is a sign that the people who do get elected are not only not crooks, but perhaps the best people to be in Parliament - due to their acceptance of other people's opinions, and their not being wild eyed fanatics.

    One wonders about the consequences for anyone disagreeing with the likes of Trotter (and some other folk at the other end of the spectrum) - god forbid anybody may actually be sane, rational, living in this century and actually taking part in day to day life rather than theorising on what day to day life should be. According to them.

    No institutions in this country are corrupt - Parliament, Courts etc - and it annoys me when losers and cynics claim they are; there are no crooks simply people who don't agree with [you]

  2. Mr Lineberry

    This, "There is nothing whatsoever corrupt about a New Zealand Election - either in deed or thought; never has been."

    You must be living in someone's sack.

    And this, "No institutions in this country are corrupt - Parliament, Courts etc"

    A sack it is.


  3. Ignoring privacy laws
    This comment on Stuff raises important points, then asks:-
    Where are the police when a crime has been committed? Which policeman do I complain to to get some action?


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.