One of these things is not like the other VII

39 comments on “One of these things is not like the other VII ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Brett Dale 1

   20 September 2009 at 2:39 pm

   The first one is an extreme right winger who doesnt care about the disadvantage.

   The second one is a disgusting humanbeing who ripped off the disadvantage, and then played the race card.

   The third one is a disgusting human being who ripped off Tax Payers to save a few dollars.

   The fourth one is the sickest of all, a homophobic ripping off the poor, and using religion, to make his money.

   I’m guessing those most of the posters here, will adore the second guy.

   From what I can see, only the first guy hasn’t committed a crime.
2. JohnDee 2

   20 September 2009 at 3:26 pm

   Sorry, i can only see four crooks and shysters.
   • felix 2.1

     20 September 2009 at 3:56 pm

     But only one who has been held to account for his thieving, con-man ways.

     So far.
3. felix 3

   20 September 2009 at 3:46 pm

   Bill’s the only one without a funny bit in front of his real name.
   • bill brown 3.1

     20 September 2009 at 3:51 pm

     …but we’re working on that
   • BLiP 3.2

     20 September 2009 at 5:09 pm

     What about “Honourable” in front of Bill’s name? I reckon that’s pretty funny.
     • felix 3.2.1

       20 September 2009 at 5:47 pm

       Ha, yeah that’s pretty funny. Almost as funny as his name actually being “Bill”.

       Speaking of which, notice how the Nats in the house have given up on their little “whack it on the BILL, Phil” meme ever since the use of the word “BILL” started drawing the wrong kind of attention?
       • BLiP 3.2.1.1

         20 September 2009 at 5:53 pm

         Hahahaha – excellent, and, no, I hadn’t particularly noticed but that is really funny.

         . . . still chuckling.
         • mickysavage 3.2.1.1.1

           20 September 2009 at 7:49 pm

           What about Simon?
4. felix 4

   20 September 2009 at 3:57 pm

   Brian’s the only one who thinks he’s in a Bonnie Tyler video.
   • bill brown 4.1

     20 September 2009 at 4:13 pm

     I Can’t Make You Love Me?
     • felix 4.1.1

       20 September 2009 at 4:37 pm

       Turn around, shit-eyes.
5. logie97 5

   20 September 2009 at 4:03 pm

   Three of them are past leaders of political parties. One of them says he never was part of a political party. They are all economical with the truth.
6. blacksand 6

   20 September 2009 at 4:17 pm

   had to knock this together last night. The larger file (click on ‘all sizes’ ) prints off at A4 nice enough if anyone wants to use it… The parallels between Winston Peters and Blinglish at the mo’ are pretty astounding. Well, not really, but pretty obvious.
   • burt 6.1

     20 September 2009 at 7:07 pm

     blanksand

     That is funny, well done.
   • the sprout 6.2

     20 September 2009 at 9:18 pm

     nice work blacksand
7. jabba 7

   20 September 2009 at 4:34 pm

   all 4 believe they are right about the things they believe in and I don’t have a problem with that.
   I think Bill is a good man but he had a brain explosion based on his whoness .. I am senior Politician of a major party and I am intitled to claim this that and the other. Said it b4, I have major concerns on why he took his name off the family trust and the fact that he wants New Zealanders to share the pain .. well, it seems everyone but him.
   • BLiP 7.1

     20 September 2009 at 5:26 pm

     Yes – you did say it before. One comment you made was:

     I see Anderton wants an investigation on English rorting the system .. fark me, pot/kettle.
     Clark had to try and defend over a dozen of her lot .. with herself the man (sorry .. main) culprit. She set new standards in stonewalling.

     Care to name the “dozen of her lot” you refer to? What about just half a dozen?
8. BLiP 8

   20 September 2009 at 4:49 pm

   Okay. I give up – what’s the answer?
9. Akldnut 9

   20 September 2009 at 5:13 pm

   Only one isn’t/hasn’t masqueraded as a politician. (that I know of)
   • logie97 9.1

     20 September 2009 at 5:57 pm

     …but he won’t half be pulling the strings from behind the scenes and continue to be the poster boy on the hustings.
10. jabba 10

    20 September 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Bill has made a big mistake and may end up paying big time.
    Blip .. I still back the quote above. Anderton is past his use by date and even Matt McCarten has dismissed him.
    If you go back over that past 5-6 years, you will find at least a dozen labour (plus Winston) MP’s who have let down the team.
    Helen also had a thought that if you can see out 2 weeks over a dispute you will be ok which is why Trevor brings up Bills problem every 2 weeks to keep it going.
    • BLiP 10.1

      20 September 2009 at 7:59 pm

      So you can’t name one. But lets move on.

      In the lead up to the last election John Key promised “new standards” of accountability but, just last week, there he was standing up in Parliament saying Blinglish was pure as the driven snow and, no, there would be no investigation. The hypocrisy of Blinglish himself, is even more remarkable. Speaking in relation to a false claim against a labour minister, Blinglish said:

      The question is not whether he has broken the law, but whether he has behaved according to the standards of a minister.

      You will recall that Helen, on the other hand, stood Field down from his position and ordered an independent investigation into his dealings.

      Given these facts, how can you stand by your claim that Helen set new standards in stonewalling?
      • burt 10.1.1

        20 September 2009 at 11:11 pm

        BLiP soldering on blindly for the cause once again reminds us that Labour had been quite comfortable after the Ingham inquiry. It was held up and we were told to move on.

        That inquiry ‘exonerated’ Taito under it’s terms, it gave a clear tick to the ‘acceptable as a minister’ box to a man who has since been convicted on the same allegations as the inquiry was responding to. Specifically some of the same people.

        This is not a good story BLiP. I think when it comes to Taito and Labour if you can get away with low level indignation like ‘stonewalled’ or ‘protected’ then it’s time to STFU about what actually went on.
        • BLiP 10.1.1.1

          20 September 2009 at 11:53 pm

          Yadda yadda yadda . . .

          Okay, let’s play pretend – so you’ve now got one. Care to mention the other 11 instances of Helen setting new standards in stonewalling?
11. burt 11

    20 September 2009 at 7:05 pm

    OK I’ll have a guess.

    Only one of these people voluntarily said; Enough is enough.
12. dave 12

    20 September 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Douglas is the only one who is not a born again christian. The one in glasses was never an MP, the other three were leaders of political parties etc etc . One of the four had his first child out of wedlock.
13. Tim Ellis 13

    20 September 2009 at 8:03 pm

    Interesting choice of pictures sprout. I see you missed out Mr Goff who lived in a ministerial house in Wellington despite owning an apartment in the city which he then rented out. You also missed out Mr Chris Carter’s travel bill. You further seem to have missed out that Labour supported Mr Field right until he threatened to stand as an independent MP.
    • felix 13.1

      20 September 2009 at 8:47 pm

      You’re pushing it at the best of times, but when the topic doesn’t neatly fit any of your pre-arranged talking points you’re completely at a loss, “Tim Ellis”.

      So sad. Maybe the odd one out is you.
14. BLiP 14

    20 September 2009 at 8:08 pm

    Interesting choice of words, Timmy. I see you missed out:

    Crosby/Textor mole masquarading as an “auditor”
15. jabba 15

    20 September 2009 at 9:11 pm

    “You will recall that Helen, on the other hand, stood Field down from his position and ordered an independent investigation into his dealings”

    mmm yes she did .. how long after the news broke did she order the independant investigation?
    come on, we all know that she held on until she had to let him go. TPF broke the law, Bill is “guilty” of suspect dealings around the famly “trust” .. be fair.
    • BLiP 15.1

      20 September 2009 at 9:19 pm

      So you have no defence for stonewalling claim either.

      When you say, “we all know”, who’s we? Not the voices in your head I hope.
16. the sprout 16

    20 September 2009 at 9:15 pm

    LMAO 🙂 excellent suggestions

    Bonnie Tyler turn around shit-eyes… ah good times.
17. Clint Heine 17

    21 September 2009 at 8:36 am

    Fair call on Bill and that criminal Field. That Destiny guy is scum as well.

    But when ever did Sir Roger act criminally? Just asking….
18. Ron 18

    21 September 2009 at 9:13 am

    No criminality, as we know, Clint. I think, however, that most would agree about his morals. He’s someone who has made a career out of telling us that individuals should stand on their own two feet. That the government (or in his terminology the “taxpayer”) shouldn’t pay for anything in an individual’s life. Not education, not health and certainly not anything to do with developing social justice (interesting that police and army are always left out of that equation).
    Then the moment he has a chance to get his own snout in the trough he spends tens of thousands of of “our” dollars on a holiday for him and his wife.
    The High PooBah of FreeMarket and the Bishop of Destiny are on very similiar moral ground, I’d say – preaching one thing and then doing the opposite of what their doctrine demands.
19. StephenR 19

    21 September 2009 at 9:21 am

    That the government (or in his terminology the “taxpayer’) shouldn’t pay for anything in an individual’s life. Not education, not health

    School vouchers?
20. jcuknz 20

    21 September 2009 at 9:25 am

    Sir Roger led the re-organisation of the country for better, the others are still trying.
    • Maynard J 20.1

      22 September 2009 at 10:55 am

      Wrong. It is that only one of them has a surname analogous to the actions they performed upon New Zealand.
21. Clint Heine 21

    23 September 2009 at 10:21 am

    So Ron, you mean nothing except an idea that he may or may not have good morals. So Sir Roger can’t fly but Labour MPs can? I oppose this perk, but you can’t have it both ways!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS