Classic Winston

101 comments on “Classic Winston ”

• Comments are now closed

1. the sprout 1

   12 December 2007 at 3:27 pm

   nice move.

   $160k – that’s about how much Brady has spent on overseas trips and hotels since he’s been AG isn’t it?
2. Santi 2

   12 December 2007 at 3:39 pm

   You call that style? Put aside the fact Winston, the poodle, is your staunch ally in the House and think the issue through.

   Imagine, at individual level, trying to do the same with IRD? You’ll be taken to court and the money claimed in no time.

   Peters is posturing. He knows his days are numbered.
   Good riddance.
3. Matthew Pilott 3

   12 December 2007 at 3:49 pm

   Imagine if National did that with their GST error… oh wait.
4. Tane 4

   12 December 2007 at 3:54 pm

   Does anyone know whether National ever disclosed which charities it donated the money to?
5. Tamaki Resident 5

   12 December 2007 at 4:03 pm

   Tane – perhaps it’s something else the office manager “forgot” to do!
6. The Double Standard 6

   12 December 2007 at 4:08 pm

   Nice try at a smear Tane

   The Nats gave the money to the broadcasters and let them decide the charities

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0611/S00421.htm
7. Tane 7

   12 December 2007 at 4:08 pm

   Bit of a discussion going on over here:
   http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/nz_first_paying_back_the_money_-_but_to_star_ship.html#comment-381754

   Farrar has confirmed the money went to the b’casters, who then offered discounted advertising to charities. This is interesting, because I recall a while back Sensible Sentencing said they’d received discounted radio ad rates due to their status as a registered charity. There may be nothing to it, but it’d be quite a scandal if it turned out National’s pay it back cash had gone to one of their biggest political allies.
8. Tane 8

   12 December 2007 at 4:11 pm

   The Nats gave the money to the broadcasters and let them decide the charities

   I’m sure you did, TDS. But I’d still like to know.
9. The Double Standard 9

   12 December 2007 at 4:30 pm

   You’re sure I did what?

   I suggest you approach the broadcasters directly with your questions. Why would you expect DPF to know the answers? He is just working from the same reference material that I linked to.

   Are you suggesting that they directed the broadcasters to only use the money for certain approved causes?

   Do you recall that Teh Party blocked an law change that would have let the Nats pay the broadcasters directly?
10. the sprout 10

    12 December 2007 at 4:31 pm

    “quite a scandal if it turned out National’s pay it back cash had gone to one of their biggest political allies”

    oh wouldn’t it just
11. Tane 11

    12 December 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Are you suggesting that they directed the broadcasters to only use the money for certain approved causes?

    I’m not suggesting anything. I’m just interested to find out in the interests of transparency. Aren’t you?
12. Robinsod 12

    12 December 2007 at 4:36 pm

    Tane – DS doesn’t care about transparency. The dude won’t even be transparent about how he got his name…
13. The Double Standard 13

    12 December 2007 at 4:42 pm

    Robbo

    I’ve tried to post this link twice now

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=double standard

    Don’t glorify yourself too much. If it suits you to keep banging on about it then carry on, but its hardly an original phrase. Go back to stalking IP or something.
14. The Double Standard 14

    12 December 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Tane –

    of course I’m interested in transparency

    So where did Teh Party get the $800,000 to pay back what the stole from the taxpayer?
15. Tane 15

    12 December 2007 at 4:47 pm

    TDS – seeing as I’m not involved in Labour’s fundraising I wouldn’t know, but I hear they had some kind of ‘big whip around’.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0610/S00130.htm
16. Billy 16

    12 December 2007 at 4:48 pm

    I think that this is fantastic behaviour. Next year, instead of paying tax, I am just going to write a cheque to Starship.
17. Robinsod 17

    12 December 2007 at 4:49 pm

    DS – but I was teh first to use it in relation to this blog. Are you telling me you want me to stalk prick??? I mean I know you righties are a pack of backstabbing bastards but really…

    Oh and I heard the labour party got that money by robbing orphanages and stealing from nuns. Grrr, you go get ’em DS!
18. Sam Dixon 18

    12 December 2007 at 4:50 pm

    It raised the money from members and people who support a left government. There were fundraisers like quiz nights too, I went to one – didn’t win anything, gave $20 a I think it was.

    And I think it shows something that Labour could get so much in such little bundles from ordianry kiwis in so little time – I’d like to see National raise that kind of money from the grassroots. But they don’t of course, its all from secret donations.
19. Robinsod 19

    12 December 2007 at 4:52 pm

    Billy – you’re just recycling stupid arguments from the bog. I used to think so much more of you.
20. Matthew Pilott 20

    12 December 2007 at 4:57 pm

    I gave them my two cents (the literal kind)

    Then there was the Prius auction that rased a whole lot from recollection, mebbe fiddy kay plus…

    Oh and TDS since you told Tane to ask the Broadcasters directly why don’t you take your own advice??
21. Billy 21

    12 December 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Funny you should say that, ‘sod. I made my little contribution here, felt quite pleased with myself and then went over to Kiwiblog to see someone had already said that there. I apologise. In future, I will check there first.
22. The Double Standard 22

    12 December 2007 at 4:58 pm

    So, I hope there were no anonymous or overseas donations in the $800k then? Or you’d be outraged eh Sam? Lol. Talk about a double standard operating there.

    Actually I think they levied the sitting MP’s for a some proportion as well – those poor ordinary kiwis.

    [now I check and find that they attempted to raise half the total from MPs]

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10405897

    Tane – I hope that website wasn’t taxpayer funded (it’s gone now of course)

    Robbo – good to see you picking up the ‘teh’ meme. Fun eh? It might surprise you but I don’t read every word you spray online. Shocking eh?
23. Tane 23

    12 December 2007 at 5:02 pm

    TDS, all sounds pretty transparent to me then. Any word yet on where National’s pay it back cash ended up?
24. The Double Standard 24

    12 December 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Matthew – well I though Tane might now since apparently Teh Party accounts were handed out at the annual conference

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=657#comment-3621

    Since it was Rob that made that comment perhaps he’ll enlighten us?
25. The Double Standard 25

    12 December 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Tane – at the broadcasters of course. Do try to keep up.

    Any word yet on how much Labour has received in anonymous donations last year?
26. Matthew Pilott 26

    12 December 2007 at 5:12 pm

    Cor, we’ll get nothing done if we all do TDS’ bidding – now he wants me to go out and call David Farrar a c..t!

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=835#comment-9533
27. Tane 27

    12 December 2007 at 5:13 pm

    TDS, none of what you’re asking me is potentially scandalous. All you’re doing is demanding that I do research for you on a party I don’t even belong to.

    I can see what you’re doing – distracting from the possibility that National’s pay it back cash has gone to support the political campaigns of one of its strongest allies – but it’s not going to work.
28. Robinsod 28

    12 December 2007 at 5:28 pm

    It might surprise you but I don’t read every word you spray online. Shocking eh?

    Yes you do – it’s ‘cos you’ve no purpose in life but to stalk me. Sometimes I wonder if someone is paying you for it.
29. slightlyrighty 29

    12 December 2007 at 5:38 pm

    What questions are asked at a Labour Party Quiz Night?
30. Brownie 30

    12 December 2007 at 5:45 pm

    You’re the one asking the question, Tane. Should be up to you to reasearch it.

    BTW guys, came for a visit earlier today and IE7 came with an alert message asking to accept a data gathering file. Have you guys ever had this happen to you?
31. Policy Parrot 31

    12 December 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Why don’t you go to one and find out?

    They’re not exclusive (pun intended!) to party members.
32. Tane 32

    12 December 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Brownie I was referring to TDS’ tedious questions about Labour’s funding etc. It’s just a tactic to divert the discussion away from a topic that doesn’t look good for the Nats.

    I haven’t used IE7 to access this site but will look into it.
33. Pascal's bookie 33

    12 December 2007 at 6:11 pm

    So the broadcasters are still out of pocket from the Nat’s dumb-arse ‘mistake’ then?
34. The Double Standard 34

    12 December 2007 at 6:15 pm

    I can see what you’re doing – distracting from the possibility that National’s pay it back cash has gone to support the political campaigns of one of its strongest allies – but it’s not going to work.

    And here I was thinking that you were accusing the broadcasters of taking instructions from National, rather than addressing the actions of Labour’s poodle, Winston Peters. Running a thread-jack at KB too I see. How tediously hypocritical of you Tane.
35. r0b 35

    12 December 2007 at 6:18 pm

    “Since it was Rob that made that comment perhaps he’ll enlighten us?”

    TeDiouS – I didn’t pay much attention to the accounts stuff – not my cup of tea. I can confirm grass roots fund-raising and personal donations.

    I also recall Mike Smith mentioning that fund-raising had been so successful that Party accounts were in much better shape than usual. Jolly good eh.

    Off to a social gathering, so catch y’all – later…
36. The Double Standard 36

    12 December 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Rob – its a shame that you won’t share the accounts with the rest of us. Are you against transparency then?
37. The Double Standard 37

    12 December 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Matthew

    I though that Tane might be tired of the censorship discussion. You’re not trying to divert attention are you?

    Anyway, maybe you can confirm that you think comments like these are acceptable

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=835#comment-9381

    Meanwhile poor ‘ol D4J is censored here and banned from KB as well. I guess he might enjoy the break though.
38. the sprout 38

    12 December 2007 at 6:40 pm

    wel for all the tds wankery, the fact remains that it was a clever bit of PR. bet National wish they knew how to do it.
    the fact also remains that there’s plenty about the AG that wouldn’t stand much digging.
39. Tane 39

    12 December 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Double, you really are a worthless bore. You’ve had your arse handed to you time and again over the so-called ‘censorship’ of D4J to the point that even right-wingers were telling you to give it up. Yet you still keep on. You’re here to disrupt and nothing more.
40. Santi 40

    12 December 2007 at 6:42 pm

    “we’ll get nothing done if ..”

    Comrade Pilott, what have you ever achieved in life? other than the dubious honour of being a die-hard supporter of this corrupt government. They are infallible in your view, aren’t they?

    Your inability to avoid debating the issues is infamous on this blog. People you like embody mediocrity and what the socialists aspire to.
41. Santi 41

    12 December 2007 at 6:47 pm

    “You’re here to disrupt and nothing more.”

    Commissar Tane has spoken. What a leader you’ve become “bro”.
42. Tane 42

    12 December 2007 at 6:51 pm

    Same goes for you Santi. I actually take it as a sign you guys are getting worried about The Standard considering the amount of time you spend on here trying to disrupt. But come on, can’t you do a better job? I mean, ‘commissar’? ‘comrade’? That Soviet schtick got old a long time ago.

    Is it too much to ask for some better quality trolls?
43. the sprout 43

    12 December 2007 at 7:00 pm

    he he
44. The Double Standard 44

    12 December 2007 at 7:01 pm

    Tane – “you really are a worthless bore”

    Hey, blame the standardistas who can’t leave the subject alone, or did you miss Matthew’s snide post above.

    Double standards at the standard. What a surprise.
45. The Double Standard 45

    12 December 2007 at 7:01 pm

    Spout – “the fact also remains that there’s plenty about the AG that wouldn’t stand much digging.”

    Which fact is that? Come on man, spill the beans!
46. Tane 46

    12 December 2007 at 7:07 pm

    TDS, you’ll find the one who’s been keeping the issue alive is you. You’ve been banging on and on and on and on in defence of Dad’s right to air his illness on this site and despite being answered time and again you’ve still come back with the same old arguments.

    MP was merely taking the piss out of you for doing so.

    See, your modus operandi has been exposed: you’re here to disrupt and distract from issues that are inconvenient for the National Party. It’s clear as day to anyone who’s seen you in action. That’s why no one takes you seriously.
47. TosserTane 47

    12 December 2007 at 7:29 pm

    What a gutless wimp Tane freak , coward – you are snake – you are going down !!!!!!!!!!!!

    [Tane: I’m leaving this up to demonstrate why Dad4Justice’s comments (under various different identities) are treated as spam on this site. I’ve just had to delete half a dozen similar comments from other threads]
48. Aids infected Tane 48

    12 December 2007 at 7:29 pm

    Hi viper

    [Tane: I’m leaving this up to demonstrate why Dad4Justice’s comments (under various different identities) are treated as spam on this site. I’ve just had to delete half a dozen similar comments from other threads]
49. Barnsley Bill 49

    12 December 2007 at 7:30 pm

    Tane while we are discussing illness what are your thoughts on these comments directed at me on whaleoil by your mate robinsod;

    Submitted by Robinson on Wed, 2007-12-12 14:04.

    Nah Bill – I’m with your mum. You should hear the things she’s told me about you.
    To which I replied…
    Submitted by barnsleybill on Wed, 2007-12-12 16:43.

    That would make you one of three things Michael Porton.

    A. A pyschic

    B. A liar.

    C. Dead and speaking from beyond the grave.

    You are a fucktard of the highest order…

    and then from Michael Porten…

    Nah Bill, me and a few communist party members dug her up. The weird thing is she had your initials carved in her back. Is it a whole Norman Bates thing you’ve got going Bill?

    Lovely, your blogging constituency!
50. Tane 50

    12 December 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Bill, you know I’ve censured Robinsod for certain comments over here, but as someone who’s threatened to dismember another commenter and send them home in a wheelie bin I don’t think you’re in much of a position to complain. Don’t come squealing to me when you get yourself into fights you can’t win over at Whale’s blog.
51. Gruela 51

    12 December 2007 at 7:38 pm

    Of course, if Winston keeps up his current levels of cunning and composure, I think there’ll be a lot of people starting to ask themselves ‘Well, why shouldn’t I vote for NZ First.’

    That man is one smooooth operator. No-one can deny it.
52. Barnsley Bill 52

    12 December 2007 at 7:40 pm

    what a fucking clown you are. Show me a comment anywhere where I have threatened that and I will pay your hosting for a year. Repeating Michael Portons slanderous comments do not make them factual.
53. the sprout 53

    12 December 2007 at 7:40 pm

    well well, i was just wondering “where is Gruela”. the fascists are getting boring even by their standards
54. Tane 54

    12 December 2007 at 7:43 pm

    if you came into my house and behaved the way you do here you would be going home in a wheelie bin.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/no_prosecutions_under_the_terrorism_suppression_act.html#comment-364000
55. Gruela 55

    12 December 2007 at 7:45 pm

    I’ve had a busy few days, sprout. Sorry. Moving jobs etc…(missed you too. 🙂 )
56. Robinsod 56

    12 December 2007 at 8:00 pm

    Nah Tane, Bill’s right – it was a pretty tasteless joke and by making it I went too far. Bill, I’m sorry bro. Anyway I’ve got somewhere to be. Bill again, I’m sorry.
57. nih 57

    12 December 2007 at 8:05 pm

    Get your chequebook out BB.

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=786#comment-7167

    Tane, can I suggest moving The Standard to a datacenter now it has a benefactor?
58. Daveo 58

    12 December 2007 at 8:05 pm

    Dad has some serious issues. It’s just a pity he feels the need to inflict them on us.
59. The Double Standard 59

    12 December 2007 at 8:15 pm

    Tane “in defence of Dad’s right to air his illness on this site”

    No, I’m not. Obviously it suits your purpose to keep repeating this lie. I have repeatedly said that I’m not objecting to you banning D4J.

    Maybe you missed this comment?

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=835#comment-9225

    I’m trying to get straight where the boundary is here. If D4J has stepped over the line, then where is the line?

    You don’t seem to want to address this issue, which is your choice of course. I guess it will become clearer the next time someone here starts getting censored (if we even know about it)
60. The Double Standard 60

    12 December 2007 at 8:17 pm

    Tane – but as someone who’s threatened to dismember another commenter

    There you go, making shit up again. Do you sleep well at night?
61. roger nome 61

    12 December 2007 at 8:19 pm

    “And roger nome. you must have compromising photos of david because if you came into my house and behaved the way you do here you would be going home in a wheelie bin.”

    hehe – Thanks for keeping that one alive Tane. Also, I meant to say at the time, hey Barnsley, I’m thinking of popping around for a cup of tea at some stage this week. Maybe we could watch some cars drive around in circles on your TV or something – is that what tough right wing guys do? Or I have I got it totally wrong? Anyway, would be cool to catch up bro – get in touch on my blog hey?
62. Tane 62

    12 December 2007 at 8:24 pm

    TDS, you’re making an issue because you want to draw a moral equivalence between our treatment of Dad and DPF’s banning (and censoring) of left-wing commenters through his make believe moderators. We’re looking at a comments policy of some sort, but at the moment it’s pretty much open slather outside of defamation or extreme abuse. We made a special case for Dad because he’s obviously not sane and was simply spamming the site with abuse and nonsense. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand. Don’t worry TDS, we don’t censor political speech.

    As for your other post, if you read the thread nih linked to it’s clear Bill’s comment implied a threat of extreme violence if not dismemberment – how else do you fit someone in a wheelie bin? Nor is that the only threat of violence he’s made. But I’m not going to waste any more time arguing about Barnsely Bill.

    Anyway, I’ve just been wondering, what exactly is your problem TDS? What drives you to spend hours every day trying to disrupt The Standard? You’re obviously not enjoying yourself, and not many others appear to enjoy your company. So what gives?
63. the sprout 63

    12 December 2007 at 8:27 pm

    g, i hope the new job is everything you hoped for.

    rn, i’d guess Billy is more the Outdoors With Jeff and 4X4 World type.
64. The Double Standard 64

    12 December 2007 at 8:34 pm

    “You’re obviously not enjoying yourself, and not many others appear to enjoy your company.”

    Reverting to the personal attacks now Tane? And you were doing so well with your intelligent response too (well apart from the make believe moderator bit). I guess you really can’t help your biases, but your looseness with the truth is disappointing.

    BTW my wheelie bin is pretty big.

    Cap:unforeseen Bowl 0 was it underarm?
65. Gruela 65

    12 December 2007 at 8:35 pm

    Hey sprout,

    don’t Outdoorsy Jeff into the mix. He’s a legend. As for those 4×4 guys, yeah, they’re a fair target. How hard is it to just get out and walk up that hill?
66. the sprout 66

    12 December 2007 at 8:39 pm

    guess they never thought of that, actually never thinking is probably why they got the 4X4 in the first place.
    i have to admit a guilty taste for Jeff too.
67. Dobbin 67

    12 December 2007 at 8:39 pm

    As a regular reader of the standard I must say I don’t enjoy DS much at all. DS, you seem to be here only to disrupt and many readers are, like me, probably surprised at how much leeway Tane gives you.

    Tane, thank you for asking DS that question. It’s been on my mind for some time now.
68. roger nome 68

    12 December 2007 at 8:42 pm

    Sprout:

    Didn’t even know what “Jeff’s Outdoors” was until I looked it up just then. Guess that counts me out as being your friend then Barnsley 🙁
69. Gruela 69

    12 December 2007 at 8:48 pm

    I want to third Dobbin’s opinion. (Though, seriously, shouldn’t you be out training for Christmas?) Double Standard brings nothing to The Standard except the same old, lame arguments that have been repeatedly rebuked. I have to wonder what his purpose is, since it has so obviously nothing to do with trying to inform or enlighten others to his own opinions. Say something useful or keep quiet, buddy.
70. roger nome 70

    12 December 2007 at 8:53 pm

    I think when you run the syllables “TDS” together it says it all no? The guy/gal brings nothing factual or interesting to the debate – he just gets a kick out of being vaguely annoying to people who do.
71. Tamaki resident 71

    12 December 2007 at 9:02 pm

    Well said Dobbin. TDS – you’ve gone way beyond a joke and now you’re just plain boring.
72. The Double Standard 72

    12 December 2007 at 9:24 pm

    Roger – you are running a bit behind on that joke. It was part of my original choice of the name.

    As for the rest – well, I expect to get the shouted down treatment that anyone with a different viewpoint gets here.

    As Matthew said to Lee a little while ago

    Lee, just one point – your views are the ones in opposition to the majority here – don’t be surprised you get shouted down.
73. The Prophet 73

    12 December 2007 at 9:31 pm

    The Sock Puppets are ganging up on you TDS.

    Are you scared?

    Tane – Where was the threat to dismember again? I can’t seem to see it in the quote you put up.

    Not making things up are we?

    Or did Sod write that comment for you?
74. Gruela 74

    12 December 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Double

    We’re not against your viewpoint, (well, we are, but that’s not the issue.) We’re complaining about the tedium of having to read the same posts again and again, written slightly different ways.
75. the sprout 75

    12 December 2007 at 9:59 pm

    Profit: “The Sock Puppets are ganging up on you TDS”

    wow that’s quite breathtaking irony
76. Daveo 76

    12 December 2007 at 10:03 pm

    Prophet the Barnsley Bill thing has already been covered.

    Double you’ve found one line written by one commentator once upon a time, taken it out of any context and pretended it’s a site policy. You use that quote over and over and over again to prove your point but it proves nothing. It’s just dumb. Are you starting to see why people find you tiring?

    There are some smart and constructive righties who visit this site and people get on fine with them. But people are sick of you TDS. Lift your game or piss off.
77. nih 77

    12 December 2007 at 10:32 pm

    I thought the following pages might be interesting, if you can load them while I’m still on limited bandwidth.

    This is a comparison of Insolent Prick’s and TDS’s posting times. The post times are not coincidental. This amount of clustering and clean changes are highly unusual and cannot be accounted for by factors such as primetime and browsing habits.

    27th Nov, clustered posting
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=27&month=11&year=2007

    30th Nov, TDS logs into IP to defend a post in the middle of an argument
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=30&month=11&year=2007

    2nd Dec, clean segments of IP then TDS with no overlap
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&day=2&month=12&year=2007&compare_count=2&compare=Compare

    3rd Dec, almost every series of posts from IP is immediately followed by some from TDS. Most of these posts back each other up.
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&day=3&month=12&year=2007&compare_count=2&compare=Compare

    6th Dec, unusually clean alternation. This was the day that IP had his ass fucking handed to him.
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=6&month=12&year=2007

    7th Dec, another clean switch between accounts
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=7&month=12&year=

    8th Dec, they both take the day off
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=8&month=12&year=2007

    9th Dec, both off again
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=9&month=12&year=2007

    10th Dec, it seems the guy behind IP/TDS puts all his serious time in on Mondays.
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=10&month=12&year=2007

    11th Dec, IP had his ass soundly kicked all morning so he posts solely from the TDS account for the rest of the day
    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/compare.php?transition=yes&c0=Insolent Prick&b0=all&c1=The Double Standard&b1=all&compare_count=2&compare=Compare&search=&day=11&month=12&year=2007

    These posting habits don’t look like the other comparisons I’ve been looking at. There is a huge amount of cohesion between them both. The appear in the same threads, spouting the same crap, the same kind of abuse, the same post style with the same whiny defences when they’re outsmarted.

    So, if you’ve ever wondered why so many of The Standard and KiwiBlogBlog’s detractors are so consistently fringe-insane in the same ways, this is why. They’re the same person.
78. burt 78

    12 December 2007 at 10:37 pm

    Tane

    Instead, he announced he’d donated the money to charity and written to Kevin Brady to tell him he was wrong.

    If Kevin Bradley was wrong then Winston wouldn’t have paid the money back OR he would have challenged the ruling in court.

    So lets see if we understand Winston. He voted for retrospective legislation to validate his theft, said he would pay it back if he had to but was seeking a legal opinion. Now he pays a charity and tells us the AG was wrong. Ha ha ha, he doesn’t want it both ways, he wants it all ways and wants to be seen as the man of principal because of it.
79. nih 79

    12 December 2007 at 10:41 pm

    My last post, although held for moderation, managed to break all the long links in it, so here it is pasted up on a webpage. I hope you all find this offers some insight into our friend TDS’s behaviour online.

    http://www.theaggregator.co.nz/comparison_list.php
80. the sprout 80

    12 December 2007 at 11:01 pm

    excellent work nih. great what comparative analysis can show isn’t it? i would encourage others to take a look if you’re not convinced.

    TDS/IP piss off. try defending your bog with quality instead of attempted sabotage of its superior rivals.
81. r0b 81

    12 December 2007 at 11:53 pm

    Burt – “So lets see if we understand Winston. He voted for retrospective legislation”

    Burt, I was beginning to think you didn’t love us any more! I see you haven’t forgotten your favourite word though. Retrospective . Mmmmm – say it again – retrospective .

    So Burt – this is what – the third time I need to explain this to you? To save time, just see the following thread:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=788#comment-7187

    especially my post of Dec 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 pm.

    Do you have a substantive reply Burt?

    And re the topic of this thread, I am in no way a fan of Winston. But give the man his due – he does have chutzpah!
82. Robinsod 82

    13 December 2007 at 7:47 am

    Nih – love the aggregator. It’s gonna upset a few folk I would imagine. I had toyed with the idea prick and DS were the same person but couldn’t be arsed proving it. I guess I know who DS is now too. Oh, and I love your tag for IP – he’s hilarious, eh? Just outta interest How ofter does the aggregator refresh?
83. Prisoner Porter 83

    13 December 2007 at 8:11 am

    Does your penal work party aggregate aggression mr robunsud? Lock up sux’s eh ?
84. Robinsod 84

    13 December 2007 at 8:48 am

    Hi Dad.
85. the sprout 85

    13 December 2007 at 9:18 am

    and… no comment from Double Impotent
86. Matthew Pilott 86

    13 December 2007 at 9:23 am

    TDS we’ve already been over my comment to Lee at least three times, and every time you’ve been made to look like an idiot.

    But seeing as you take my words as proclamations from God – You Are A Waste Of Space And Shall Not Post Your Drivel Here Ever Again.

    Christ I hope that works.

    As for you, Santi:

    “Comrade Pilott, what have you ever achieved in life? other than the dubious honour of being a die-hard supporter of this corrupt government. They are infallible in your view, aren’t they?

    Your inability to avoid debating the issues is infamous on this blog. People you like embody mediocrity and what the socialists aspire to.

    Wow I’m infamous. Can I ask which issue you were debating here? I can’t say I have ever seen a constructive comment from you, although this ‘infamy’ is news to me. You guys getting a little worried and set up a blog about The Standard where you can have a little cry or something? Otherwise, well, you’re just talking complete and utter shit.

    You don’t know who I am or what I do, so spare the personal bullshit; it’s ugly, pointless and just reinforces your worthless (with respect to this blog, you may be a community hero for all I know, and I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to pretend I know) image.
87. burt 87

    13 December 2007 at 8:02 pm

    rOb

    Do you have a substantive reply Burt?

    I note you have backed off saying I didn’t reply at all, must have been a bit of an embarrassment when you claimed on two separate threads that I didn’t reply when I posted the link that showed I replied within minutes.

    Now about substantive replies, the substance is in what Winston said he would do – challenge the AG’s ruling. He’s claimed it’s wrong and has not challenged it. If he had challenged it in court (and won) then the AG’s perspective ( the one that apparently required retrospective legislation ) would have been over turned.

    So – substantive: retrospective validation was a cop-out, a cowards way that ensured the election thief’s could claim the AG was wrong and justify passing crooked laws to meet their self serving agenda. Had Winston (or Labour) had the guts to stand their ground in court rather than just in the media…. had Labour not voted to kill off Darnton vs Clark …. and finally – had you decided to address the post I made in this thread rather then trying to score points from some post you made on an entirely separate issue then…

    Who know we might have a debate and not just you shooting the messenger because you are too scared to debate how pathetic it was that Winston “validated” himself, never had the balls to take it to court and still claims that the AG was wrong.

    The man hasn’t got chutzpah – he’s just a popularist who thinks he’s smart enough when actually even a 4 year old could see through his self serving antics.
88. burt 88

    13 December 2007 at 11:39 pm

    rOb

    Also if he had any principals he would have paid it back much much sooner than this OR he would have paid it back with the interest it earned while “locked on term deposit”. WTF did he have party donations locked in term deposit for so long? Who’s interest is that – the tax payers. Who’s got it – NZ1. Who paid the charity – the tax payers in 2005, interest paid to NZ1. How the F can that be acceptable behaviour?

    If it wasn’t Winston doing it Winston would be calling it a wine box and building his career on it!
89. r0b 89

    14 December 2007 at 12:50 am

    So the short answer then burt, is no, you still have no substantive reply.

    I am asking you re retrospective validation of government spending (standard practice which occurs in most years), what you think the problem is. Because you still haven’t answered, and to save time, I refer you again to the following thread:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=788

    especially my post of Dec 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 pm.

    Do you have a substantive reply Burt?

    (Your ranting about Winston was entertaining, but it was not at all relevant to the question or your lack of an answer).
90. burt 90

    14 December 2007 at 8:47 pm

    rOb

    So are you saying that every year politicians steal money from tax payers to fund elections and pass retorspective legislation covering 14 years to validate themselves?

    Is this true – what happened in 2005 happens every year ?

    You just can’t get past the spin that the the self serving puppets used to justify their own corruption can you.
91. burt 91

    14 December 2007 at 11:00 pm

    rOb

    This is the substance Starship rejects NZ First money
92. r0b 92

    15 December 2007 at 12:43 am

    Is this true – what happened in 2005 happens every year ?

    What has happens almost every year is that governments (both National and Labour) retrospectively validate their spending. 2005 was different because, on the advice of Treasury, certain spending back to 1989 (covering both National and Labour governments) was included.

    We’ve been over this many times:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=788
    You have not proposed a single substantive reason why there is any problem with the standard practice of retrospective validation of accounts.

    Now, what was also different in 2005 was contention over Labour’s pledge card spending. I think that’s what really bothers you. But it’s a separate issue from the retrospective validation of accounts, please don’t confuse them. (The validation of accounts did not spare Labour from the financial consequences of the AGs ruling – although not required to Labour voluntarily paid the money back. Please see Peter Dunne’s letter linked to from the page linked above.)
93. burt 93

    15 December 2007 at 10:09 am

    rOb

    the standard practice of retrospective validation of accounts

    You still seem to be equating the year to year practice of validating spending that was unlawful with the validation of stealing an election. Acting against warnings and pretending the law was confusing plus claiming that others did it as well so it’s OK.

    YOU are missing the point because you are a Labour apologist. It’s OK that Labour (and others) stole tax payers money to influence an election. It’s OK to kill of Darnton Vs Clark because it’s in the publics best interest and it’s OK to ignore warnings about the spending – as long as Labour win the election…..

    You are very sad. What would Labour need to do to make you think – Hey, I’m not happy with that!

    Ooops, I forgot, they said it was normal practice to validate unlawful spending… of course there was no other option…. You’re a laugh – a gullible shell of a man/woman who believes anything as long as it fits your world view of “Labour good”.
94. burt 94

    15 December 2007 at 10:16 am

    rOb

    All that aside, it seems that Starship agree with me that Winston is being a total tosser. Guess getting your opinion on this is a little bit too much to expect?
95. r0b 95

    15 December 2007 at 12:22 pm

    You still seem to be equating the year to year practice of validating spending that was unlawful

    OK, good, we’re making progress. There is a year to year validation of spending, it has sometimes included spending which was for some reason deemed unlawful (e.g. a National government once retrospectively validated over $50m in unlawful spending). So retrospective validation is not actually the issue for you.

    with the validation of stealing an election.

    So this is the issue that actually concerns you. You think Labour “stole the election”. Naturally I disagree. That’s a separate discussion that I’m sure we’ll have some time.

    YOU are missing the point because you are a Labour apologist.

    Burt, you have a favourite complaint when you lose an argument that someone is “attacking the messenger”. But if you look back at our exchanges over this retrospective validation issue, you will see that it is you that attacks me. Feel free, I’m sure it helps you in some way to vent, and it doesn’t do me any harm at all.

    All that aside, it seems that Starship agree with me that Winston is being a total tosser. Guess getting your opinion on this is a little bit too much to expect?

    I try to remain focused on the topic, the whole Winston thing is a sideline. If you actually want my opinion of Winston, well I’ve had many over the years, some of them not printable in a family paper. Currently I think that he is in a relatively mature and productive phase, that his move to “pay it back” via a donation to Starship was classic Winston chutzpah, and that it has badly backfired on him.
96. burt 96

    15 December 2007 at 6:03 pm

    rOb

    I try to remain focused on the topic, the whole Winston thing is a sideline.

    Wharrrrp – thanks for playing. This thread is about Winston. Sorry it’s a small detail and one that seems to have escaped you. I tried to bring it to your attention when I said: “and finally – had you decided to address the post I made in this thread rather then trying to score points from some post you made on an entirely separate issue then.”.

    Attacking you… No – attacking the “Labour party line” that you have adopted as your own. You know the one, “others did it to – the law was confusing – we had no option but to validate ourselves with no penalties…”

    If you firmly believe there were no other options that to give the thief’s a get out of jail free card and pretend that it never happened (2005 stealing elections that is) then I guess by proxy I’m attacking you….

    Now, “(e.g. a National government once retrospectively validated over $50m in unlawful spending).”

    What was that for rOb? Do you know or are you just being a Labour party parrot? You know the drill – National once did something worse so what Labour did was OK… It’s just not going to cut it sorry rOb, you need a more substantive justification than that.
97. r0b 97

    15 December 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Yes Burt, the thread is about Winston, which is a bit of a sideline to our ongoing discussion of the retrospective validation issue.

    Attacking you. No – attacking the “Labour party line” […] I guess by proxy I’m attacking you..

    Burt, your words are here for all to read, so to deny them is a bit silly. In one post alone, just above, you said:

    You are a Labour apologist

    You are very sad.

    You’re a laugh – a gullible shell of a man/woman

    These are personal attacks Burt. They don’t bother me at all, I just wanted to point out the irony of you claiming that I attack you (“the messenger”) when in fact it is exactly the other way round.

    Now, “(e.g. a National government once retrospectively validated over $50m in unlawful spending).”

    What was that for rOb? Do you know or are you just being a Labour party parrot?

    The $50 million in illegal spending that the National government retrospectively validated was in the area of tourism. You can read about it where I did, in Hansard:

    http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/Documents/20060824.htm

    If you want more details I’m sure that you can look them up for yourself.

    You know the drill – National once did something worse so what Labour did was OK. It’s just not going to cut it sorry rOb, you need a more substantive justification than that.

    Once again you miss the point Burt. I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m trying to explain to you that the retrospective validation of government spending is a perfectly normal occurrence. As I think we have established above, your particular issue with 2005 is not the retrospective validation per se, but the unrelated issue that you claim that Labour “stole the election”. Naturally I disagree with that claim.
98. burt 98

    17 December 2007 at 10:48 pm

    rOb

    retrospective validation of government spending is a perfectly normal occurrence.

    For self serving purposes regarding an election? NO.

    From that link: http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/Documents/20060824.htm
    – it’s gold:

    “Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will just briefly say that there is an annual financial review bill—[Interruption]—that is the truth—that validates expenditure almost every year, and that happened under the National Government.”

    Nasty nasty National did it too – na na na nahhhh na. This is the substance to the “child with chocolate all over his face pointing at his mate saying ‘he did it to'”. This point obviously escapes you and fails your “substantive reason” test. Quite how a justification (for retrospective validation) that hangs on a child defense of “they did it to” holds substantive reason I’m yet to work out, please explain!

    Hon Tony Ryall: Is he aware of any advice from the former Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, on the Labour Party’s decision to include the cost of the pledge card in its election expenses before the election, and then, after the election, to withdraw that offer, so avoiding a negative public statement from Mr Henry before the election; and does he think any other body believes there is confusion about election expenses and corrupt practices?

    retrospective validation of government spending is a perfectly normal occurrence.

    For self serving purposes regarding an election? NO.

    From that link, it’s gold:

    Hon Tony Ryall: Is he aware of any advice from the former Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, on the Labour Party’s decision to include the cost of the pledge card in its election expenses before the election, and then, after the election, to withdraw that offer, so avoiding a negative public statement from Mr Henry before the election; and does he think any other body believes there is confusion about election expenses and corrupt practices?

    For goodness sake, this chap has completely missed the point that National did it as well and it’s OK!

    That was followed immediately by:

    Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I assume other bodies do, because the National Party has paid back some money that it thought it had spent legitimately in the first place.

    Oh, in case you forgot, the National party were also confused about what they could…. get away with.

    That was immediately followed by:

    Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister of Justice seen this paper from the then Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, which was produced following a meeting with the police to discuss Labour’s election spending and the decision of the police not to charge Labour with a corrupt practice, because the police thought there was confusion about election-spending rules; if so, has he read that Mr Henry told the police that the relevant legal provisions were clear, that they had been discussed with party administrators before the election, and that the Chief Electoral Office had obtained Crown Law advice that confirmed Mr Henry’s repeated warnings to the Labour Party that its election spending needed to be declared?

    SO: Point (3) of your original post is completely destroyed by the Hansard link you provided. That being:

    (3) The moral imperative against retrospective legislation is that it has the ability to impose penalties on people who did not know that what they were doing at the time was wrong. This imperative in no way applies here, so there is no in principle objection.

    Your point (1) re:

    (1) It is standard practice for NZ governments to retrospectively validate their spending – this happens most years. (Did you know, Burt, that a National government once retrospectively validated $50 million in illegal spending?).

    Fails under the child like defense of “they did it to”, which is not an acceptable measure to use for govt, particularly as appears to be deliberate misuse of tax payers money for electioneering.

    Your point (2) :

    (2) It was an issue that needed to be addressed for the functioning of government. Treasury had advised that on the basis of the Auditor-General’s report all party spending since 1989 had probably been unlawful, which therefore left the Government’s books for that period unlawful. Legitimate accounts, which were nothing to do with election spending, were being refused for payment. This situation had to be resolved, and Treasury advised the validating legislation.

    Much as I try, I can’t seem to get it through to you that there were other options, no accountability retrospective legislation covering 14 years was not the only option. Ignoring that National did it to – you cannot escape the fact that Labour validated expenditure they were warned not to make, with no consequences. Convention to validate unintended illegal expenditure for ‘misc’ matters

    The link ends even better:

    Hon Tony Ryall: Is he aware of any other Ministers, or those who have the responsibilities of Ministers, who have seen the letters from the former Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, sent on 2 September to the Labour Party, stating that the Helen Clark pledge card should be included as an election expense, or Mr Henry’s letter of 12 September advising that the Helen Clark fold-out brochure should be included as an election expense; if so, what action would he have expected honest Ministers to take to avoid their party committing a corrupt practice?

    Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I am personally not aware of that.

    Hon Tony Ryall: Would he have any concerns if the former Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, was invited to appear before the Justice and Electoral Committee during its inquiry into the 2005 general election, considering that Mr Henry was the key public official who warned Labour twice before the election that its Helen Clark pledge card was an election expense, and would he be concerned if Labour and Green MPs were blocking this whistleblower from coming before the select committee on the funding scandal?

    Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a matter for the select committee and its members.

    See – even Dr. Cullen knew when to give up the “National did it to” defense.
99. r0b 99

    17 December 2007 at 11:17 pm

    Goodness Burt – what a frenzied effort! Thank you at least for getting through a post without personal attacks.

    To have some hope of preserving a logical structure to the discussion I’ll stick to the original numbered points in the original order.

    Your point (1) re:

    (1) It is standard practice for NZ governments to retrospectively validate their spending – this happens most years. (Did you know, Burt, that a National government once retrospectively validated $50 million in illegal spending?).

    Fails under the child like defense of “they did it to”

    No matter how often I explain this it doesn’t sink in. I’m beginning to despair! This is not a justification or an excuse (or a “they did it too”). It’s a statement that retrospective validation of government spending is a perfectly normal occurrence. The fact that it happened in contentious circumstances in 2005 has got you all hot and bothered. But it is contentious circumstances that I think are your actual concern, not the commonplace fact of retrospective validation of spending.

    Your point (2) :

    (2) It was an issue that needed to be addressed for the functioning of government. Treasury had advised that on the basis of the Auditor-General’s report all party spending since 1989 had probably been unlawful, which therefore left the Government’s books for that period unlawful. Legitimate accounts, which were nothing to do with election spending, were being refused for payment. This situation had to be resolved, and Treasury advised the validating legislation.

    Much as I try, I can’t seem to get it through to you that there were other options, no accountability retrospective legislation covering 14 years was not the only option.

    Well, bearing in mind that retrospective validation was the explicit advice of Treasury, I’d be interested as to what, in your considered legal opinion, the alternatives were?

    SO: Point (3) of your original post is completely destroyed by the Hansard link you provided. That being:

    (3) The moral imperative against retrospective legislation is that it has the ability to impose penalties on people who did not know that what they were doing at the time was wrong. This imperative in no way applies here, so there is no in principle objection.

    And still you fail to understand this point too. Here it is again. Retrospective legislation is usually considered “automatically bad” because it is usually used to punish someone for doing X with a law that didn’t exist at the time that they did X. This particular retrospective legislation does not punish anyone, hence it does not need to be considered “automatically bad”.

    Goodnight Burt!
100. outofbed 100

     3 March 2008 at 8:24 am

     101

Links to post

1. Jessie: posted on 3 March 2008 at 4:40 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS