Distasteful

47 comments on “Distasteful ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   16 July 2011 at 10:51 am

   Nice thing about the net is the retention of information on these old campaigns…
2. Swampy 2

   16 July 2011 at 11:00 am

   Pot kettle black
   • r0b 2.1

     16 July 2011 at 11:51 am

     Is that right swampy.  When did I ever run a billboard campaign comparing Nats to dictators then?
      
   • bbfloyd 2.2

     16 July 2011 at 12:45 pm

     how long did you have to practice before you got those in the right order?
3. ak 3

   16 July 2011 at 11:03 am

   It’s tempting to say he’s a dagger through the heart of sensible political debate, but he’s more like a blunt two-bob pocket knife with a broken hinge…..
4. Terry 4

   16 July 2011 at 11:14 am

   There does appear to be discrimination against Hone, when compared to other sworn statements
   by Maori MP’s. The Law must be changed. I would much prefer an allegiance to the Treaty etc than one made to the Queen (what is her name?) who does not where we are on the map, the Queen who would not attend the funeral of Sir Edmund or so much as send one of those royal jerks.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     16 July 2011 at 1:32 pm

     When the Queen finally carks it, is everyone going to have to re-swear an oath to Charles?
     • kriswgtn 4.1.1

       16 July 2011 at 1:46 pm

       nah Camilla the Gorilla will be ya queen
       • QoT 4.1.1.1

         16 July 2011 at 3:17 pm

         Yay, random unnecessary attack on a person not relevant to the conversation purely in order to mock her perceived lack of “proper” femininity! I’m so glad we live in a post-feminist world where misogyny and impossible beauty standards are things of the past.
         • kriswgtn 4.1.1.1.1

           16 July 2011 at 4:26 pm

           yeah well you’re irrelevant just like your Act party
           • QoT 4.1.1.1.1.1

             16 July 2011 at 5:26 pm

             Like my … what? Oh, wait, didn’t get the Today Is Post Utterly Fucking Surreal Comments Day memo. Because this has to be performance art.
             • higherstandard …

               16 July 2011 at 7:52 pm

               I think you’ve been mistaken for Cactus Kate QoT ….. oh the irony.
               • QoT …

                 16 July 2011 at 11:29 pm

                 All I know is I want whatever kriswgtn’s smoking.
                 • kriswgtn …

                   17 July 2011 at 12:03 pm

                   oops my bad – i apologise but i dont like Camilla
                   as for wanting what i was smoking hhaha well ya cant

                   it was a cake
                   • QoT …

                     17 July 2011 at 12:14 pm

                     It’s ok, kriswgtn. I understand that your femininity-policing and lack of a clue are both natural talents which require no foreign substances whatsoever.
                   • Ari …

                     17 July 2011 at 9:29 pm

                     Next time I don’t like a straight person I’ll remember to blame it on the fact that they’re attracted to the opposite gender, rather than their personality, and stick to having queer friends instead.

                     Oh, and if someone Asian pisses me off, it’s bound to be because of their skin colour, or perhaps it’s ALSO because of their weird culture that is in no way totally understandable or cool.

                     Hint: this is the sort of shit you were just saying about women, asshole.
   • Vicky32 4.2

     17 July 2011 at 3:45 pm

     ….who does not where we are on the map,

     I presume you mean “does not know”? Don’t be an ass, she’s not an American, of course she knows.
      
5. weka 5

   16 July 2011 at 11:58 am

   I have a huge amount of respect for Idiot/Savant, but that photo is weird.
    
   Yes, Smith’s actions are nasty racist crap wrapped up in a mainstream, polite society package, but unless I/S knows something I don’t, they’re not the NZ equivalent of the organised racial terrorism that the KKK are.
   • Tigger 5.1

     16 July 2011 at 1:42 pm

     Given Lockwood’s penchant for dressing up in robes and dishing out racism I’d say the KKK comparison is spot on.
     • weka 5.1.1

       16 July 2011 at 6:28 pm

       Only if you think the important thing about the KKK is their dress, and that racism is one things instead of being many, and that all racism is same in degree and affects people in the same ways.
   • R 5.2

     16 July 2011 at 11:58 pm

     predetermined, premeditated prejudice and/or censorship, no problem?
6. Morrissey 6

   16 July 2011 at 12:13 pm

   Lockwood Smith was a member of the National Government which supported something far worse than the KKK….
   http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1999/NZJH_33_2_05.pdf
   • weka 6.1

     16 July 2011 at 1:15 pm

     What?
     • Morrissey 6.1.1

       16 July 2011 at 8:12 pm

       Our friend weka asks, in a mix of aggrievedness and bewilderment: “What?”

       Why don’t you read the link? Here it is again…

       http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1999/NZJH_33_2_05.pdf

       Now tell me which is worse—the Ku Klux Klan or the Khmer Rouge, which the National Government obediently and unhesitatingly endorsed in 1978.
       • weka 6.1.1.1

         17 July 2011 at 12:14 am

         It’s not a competition.
          
         (btw you cannot tell tone from text, especially when it wasn’t italicised).
         • Morrissey 6.1.1.1.1

           17 July 2011 at 1:27 pm

           It’s not a competition.

           Yes it is. Sometimes it’s more relaxed and friendly than other times, but it’s always a competition. Your use of the interrogative was aggressive, as if my pointing out the National Government’s support of the Khmer Rouge was irrelevant to the topic in hand.

           (btw you cannot tell tone from text, especially when it wasn’t italicised).

           Yes I can. Saying “What?” like that, whether verbally or in print, is designed to intimidate and shut down a discussion.

           Once again, so you won’t fell compelled to say “what?” next time you’re confronted with this particularly ugly open secret, here’s that link….
           http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1999/NZJH_33_2_05.pdf
           • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1

             17 July 2011 at 7:06 pm

             Actually my ‘what?’ wasn’t anything to do with the point you were making from the content of the PDF (which it’s likely I agree with). It was simply ‘what?’ as in I don’t know what you’re talking about in the context of this thread and I’m not going to read a whole PDF to try and figure it out. If someone said ‘what?’ to me in a conversation, I wouldn’t automatically jump to the conclusion that they disagreed with me, or were trying to shut me up. I might wonder if they didn’t understand.
              
             So, like I said, you can’t tell tone from text. You are of course free to take meaning from any post and interpret it in anyway you choose. In this case you were just plain wrong. There was nothing aggressive in my ‘what?’ and no intention to intimidate. I was being rude I suppose (my father always told me off when I said what like that).
              
             As for the actual point… sorry to be pedantic (and I still haven’t read the PDF), but wouldn’t it be more accurate to portray Smith as a supporter of the KKK rather than a member?
              
             Either way, it’s still a dangerous game to play. If we can’t differentiate between different racisms (or indeed different atrocities) then we may as well just call the National party Nazis and concede any intellectual credibility or power of argument.
              
             This of course doesn’t deny the very real damage that the Nats do in the world, so please don’t take my comments as either supportive of them  or lessening atrocities that they’ve been complicit in.
             • Morrissey …

               17 July 2011 at 10:00 pm

               I was being rude I suppose (my father always told me off when I said what like that).

               No, weka, you weren’t being rude, it was my fault. I misread your intention, and flew off the handle. To borrow a line from the great broadcaster Tony Veitch, that wasn’t really me.

               And, no, I don’t think Lockwood Smith is a supporter or a sympathiser of the KKK.

               Leighton Smith probably is, however.
               • weka …

                 18 July 2011 at 6:14 pm

                 No worries Morrisey. Thanks for being honest 🙂
       • Daveosaurus 6.1.1.2

         17 July 2011 at 12:46 pm

         Lockwood Smith was not a member of the 1975-1984 National Government.
         • Morrissey 6.1.1.2.1

           17 July 2011 at 1:16 pm

           Correct. Thanks for reminding me. He was actually the quizmaster for a TV children’s show caled W-3. He always sternly told the kids to call him “Sir”.
7. jackal 7

   16 July 2011 at 12:31 pm

   Ha! After the right wing David Farrar has compared left wing leaders to “brutal dictators,” Brash says people who support the RMA are “little Hitler’s” and Cathy Odger’s calls poor people the “heaving pathetic underclass,” the DF has the cheek to complain that Idiot Savant made a comparison of Lockwood Smith’s obvious racism.

   Whether or not a KKK comparison is over the top or not is defined by the occurrence. The speaker has clearly discriminated against Hone… For all intents and purposes, it appears to be racially inspired. Therefore the comparison is appropriate within the context it was made.
   
   What’s good enough for the goose, is good enough for the gander.
   • Mark M 7.1

     16 July 2011 at 1:34 pm

     jackal obviously in the mind of a leftard , expecting an MP to obey the law is racism.
     Kind of helps to explain why tommorrows polls , still show people arent listening
     • jackal 7.1.1

       16 July 2011 at 3:53 pm

       You might be interested to know that Hone was obeying the law:

       3. Form in which oath may be administered—An oath may be administered and taken in any of the manners following:

       (c) The oath may be administered and taken in any manner which the person taking it may declare to be binding on him.
       • freedom 7.1.1.1

         16 July 2011 at 4:08 pm

         that is very interesting, very interesting indeed, and begs the obvious question…

         do they not have someone in the room whose job it is to make sure the law is followed ?
         I’m no expert but I believe they are called the Speaker of the House of Representatives

         so who assesses and has authority over Lockwood’s performance ?
         • RedLogix 7.1.1.1.1

           16 July 2011 at 5:17 pm

           Yes indeed. Full credit it would appear to NRT for spotting what everyone else appears to have missed.(Is this the case?)

           I’m inclined to think it still classic shit-stirring Harawira, but ultimately his motives are not important… he was entitled to take the oath in the form that suited him…and Smith has made a bad mistake.
           • Vicky32 7.1.1.1.1.1

             17 July 2011 at 3:50 pm

             I’m inclined to think it still classic shit-stirring Harawira,

             Absolutely yes! IMO he was just being his publicity whore self, and achieved nothing but to live down to peoples’ worst expectations. He needs to learn which battles to fight!
   • higherstandard 7.2

     16 July 2011 at 2:31 pm

     What drivel [name deleted].

     Lockwood did not discriminate against Hone.

     Hone knew exactly what he was doing and got exactly the reaction he wanted a bit of PR and his face on the news.
     • jackal 7.2.1

       16 July 2011 at 3:58 pm

       Another argument based on presumptions. Hone is the only person to not be allowed a second chance to take the Oath, therefore it is discrimination. Hone has stated that he was going to give the Oath as prescribed, however he was not given a chance. Do you understand what discrimination is HS?
       • higherstandard 7.2.1.1

         16 July 2011 at 7:47 pm

         Do you understand what a self important little tosser is [name deleted] – if not either look in the mirror or ask Hone for a copy of his CV.
8. Jim Nald 8

   16 July 2011 at 12:51 pm

   With the picture, the bit that I might be quite upset as a former Nat voter
   and differ over his apparel would be
   the bit that looks like a reject from a Gilbert and Sullivan set.

   But, on overall, quite apt really, given what the party he is from has become.
9. chris73 9

   16 July 2011 at 4:56 pm

   So according the left two wrongs do make a right
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     16 July 2011 at 5:00 pm

     Yep. Because the alternative is the Right’s three, four, five wrongs in a row.
     • chris73 9.1.1

       16 July 2011 at 5:19 pm

       As opposed to Labours election over-spending, rorting of the system, corruption, continued flouting of the rules etc etc
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

         16 July 2011 at 7:51 pm

         You’re getting mixed up there. Labour pays down debt and carefully manages the economy while NAct cut taxes for the rich, cut government services and over borrows so as to give them an excuse to sell our assets.
         • dupdedo 9.1.1.1.1

           17 July 2011 at 12:38 pm

           yawn. Labour spends spends spends. carefully manages the economy… yeah, tui ad buddy.
           • mik e 9.1.1.1.1.1

             18 July 2011 at 9:52 pm

             The reason Labour were able to spend with out borrowing was they got the economy to grow 28 times faster than Bill English has managed over his 5 years as finance minister. They managed to save more $30billion on Kiwi saver and the Cullen fund. upgrade the Defence force to the tune of $5billion.etc With no more public debt and pay of govt debt, The right wing have managed to con enough of the people enough of the time because people are sucked in by image over substance hence smile and wave!He,s going back home this week a we stop in Hawaii I think not it would send the wrong message to the voters

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS