Written By: - Date published: 3:15 pm, February 22nd, 2008 - 82 comments
Categories: scoundrels -
Tags: scoundrels
It looks like the nasty little insecure creeps who inhabit the Kiwiblog Right are creeping into the mainstream. I mean, take a look at this from today’s Herald:
This follows Cameron Slater’s description of a female columnist who pointed out how weird his obsession with Clark is as “a fat, lazy, pommy, leftist slag”, Clint Heine’s photoshopping of Clark’s face onto a transsexual porn shot (I’m not linking this little gobshite’s work), and now today Farrar is implicitly calling retiring speaker Margaret Wilson a witch.
And as anyone who frequents the blogs knows this behaviour is not just acceptable amongst the National Party’s blogosphere activists, it’s become their norm.
I agree entirely with Deborah’s post on this sort of filth from several weeks ago, but I’ll add this to it: boys (because that’s all you are, at best) your hatred of women in power shows only how weak and vile you are. Go back to your dirty little single bedrooms and leave politics to the adults. Sickening.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
rOb – when I talked about rogue polls, tongue was firmly pressed against cheek. I was merely pondering the PM’s likely response to Paul Henry & Paul Holmes on Monday
Two rogue polls in the space of 24 hours hmmmmmmmm
They’re probably not rogue polls Iv2, they probably reflect a substantial majority of support for National.
The electoral pendulum swings. One day Labour will lose an election, maybe even the next election. And maybe not.
But win or lose, one thing won’t change. Labour has the policies that are better for NZ and better for 95% of Kiwis.
toms, you’re so sanctimonious to the point of being boring.
You are so touchy on racial and gender issues that I firmly believe yours to be a bogus outrage.
No surprise: the left-wingers of today are so pathetic.
Interesting, isn’t it R0b. This flocking to National can really only be anti-Labour, rather than pro-National.
It’s really hard to tell, because one’s perceptions are always clouded by one’s own opinions, but I think that’s largely true.
To my eyes, Key has looked pretty ineffectual, yet Labour continues to sink like a stone.
In terms of substance Key is absolutely ineffectual, but clearly for large numbers of voters (at this stage of the electoral cycle, which is an important qualification) it isn’t about substance.
I think people have been turned off by the style stuff.
I agree. And I think it’s a pity that elections are largely decided on style, but there it is. The media bandwagon has a large part to play in this. Why are there so few pieces like this?:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/02/22/time-to-tell-us-about-your-donors-national
Anyway, I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, that I don’t get too excited about polls. Their sampling methods seem increasingly irrelevant (polls for the 2005 election were hugely contradictory), they don’t include information from the roughly 70% who refuse to participate, they can’t tell us whether support is hard or soft, they don’t allow for the fact that many voters make up their minds in the last week. There’s a good piece on the complexities of polling here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10347022
All that being said, of course, I would much rather that Labour was ahead than National, but for now they aren’t, so there it is. Whatever the polls, Labour have the best policies for NZ, and I for one will be working and voting for the policies.
But for now, time to mow the lawns.
Toms, who on another blog cliams to be a Labour Party worker says (I have changed this as it is offensive)
“MikeE, Whaleoil and Santi – the holy trinity of people who would have hated a poor person for owning a mule”
While in the real world his socalist party would rather the mule was owned by the government and we all know how that ends
Hint look at Russia or Cuba
Strikes me that the right would like to encourage the pp to own their on mules, not the other way round
Ray:
There is a considerable difference between a volunteer and a paid worker. I’ve been a volunteer working for the labour party for over 30 years. It is a very large group, measured in thousands. That in itself is a subset of the membership of the NZLP, and includes people who aren’t even members.
On the other hand, I believe that the number of paid workers for the NZLP are probably less than 20.
Volunteers for any organization hold an incredibly wide range of views. So what you are attempting to ascribe is the view of a single volunteer to an entire party or movement.
I could as easily use that same argument to say that Whale’s habit of photoshopping peoples heads on to pornographic images, is habit of pornographic tendencies shared by all of the right. Perhaps that is true, perhaps it isn’t.
The short version of that is that generalising from a single data point demonstrates a very high level of stupidity by you.
Toms didn’t claim to be a volunteer he claimed to be a worker. There is nothing wrong with that in fact he is to be commended as it is to easy to sit on the sidelines
Presumably he is a socalist and so it follows mule ownership etc etc
captcha You Kirksey
Big Norman must be spinning in his grave, in fact I will pop down and see after tea
Is anyone surprised? Cartoons like this are the stock in trade of authoritarians. When I last followed NZ politics online there was a guy called Redbaiter who used to pull this stuff all the time.
How anyone could compare a social democrat to Fidel is beyond me. Fidel would be outraged at being compared to a bourgeois politician like Clark, as would any communist.
Well siad Ag. Suspect Fidel won’t be outraged must longer as he hasn’t got much time left
that cartoon is impressively low, even by the Herald’s ‘standards’ – and very Kiwiblog Right.
perhaps tds is Tim Murphy?
“Fidel would be outraged at being compared to a bourgeois politician like Clark, as would any communist.”
100% right. As outraged as her supporters at The Standard who cried: Filth.
I can conclude the tireless editors here are communists.
Santi fails Philosophy 101 again!
All A’s are B’s, but it does not follow that all B’s are A’s.
C’mon buddy, if a spotty 17 year-old can get that, surely you can too?