Pigs in muck

137 comments on “Pigs in muck ”

• Comments are now closed

1. John Stevens 1

   6 November 2008 at 10:47 am

   Diddums.

   Pot calling kettle black here boys. You are the masters of sleaze.

   You can blame your looming defeat on the H-Fee stuff-up.

   Got your CV updated yet?
2. Steve Pierson 2

   6 November 2008 at 10:48 am

   Key looked pissed off last night about these tapes, and all the while he knew that is was nothing to do with labour.
3. Steve Pierson 3

   6 November 2008 at 10:49 am

   john. that thing with john key and those dodgy money deals?
4. Vinsin 4

   6 November 2008 at 10:55 am

   True. Cameron Slater is the Karl Rove of NZ politics. On a side note, and i hope i don’t get burnt for this but I need your help Standardista’s.

   I’m putting together a mail out for all my politically apathetic friends on facebook, myspace, and in general in an attempt to get some leftie viral campaigning going.

   Basically i’m trying to put everything together that smashes the rhetoric of national and provides some factual analysis that’s easy to understand – graphs, tables and all stuff would be good. I’m been through the Standard Line series, the New Zealand sux campaign, The campaign hub and am about to go grab some key policies from National, Labour and The Greens, but if anybody can point me to some other important facts and figures that might not be on this site that would be great. All work will be given the credit it deserves and of course i will be very grateful to all those who help.

   Thanks in advance
5. infused 5

   6 November 2008 at 11:01 am

   Too late Vinsin.

   Trying to turn it back on to the Nats eh. You guys really are in damage control today. If you read how he actually put it together, it’s not hard. We’re just too lazy. I like how you link him to the National party. Like anyone here isn’t linked to Labour.
6. Vanilla Eis 6

   6 November 2008 at 11:05 am

   Vinsin: Rubbish. Rove was a brilliant strategist who took Bush to the Presidency twice.

   Slater as a retard who delights in petty smears.

   I don’t approve of Rove’s tactics and wanted Bush to lose every time he was up for election, but there is no denying that Rove was incredibly intelligent, extremely motivated and highly adept at working the system to ensure a result. Slater is an intellectual worm in comparison.
7. Vinsin 7

   6 November 2008 at 11:08 am

   Infused, if the turnout on saturday is small than that’ll suit National, if it’s large like i’m hoping it will be – and trying to encourage – then it will be another 3 years of a labour led government.

   Get the feeling the ice you’re standing on could be cracking underneath you?
8. Wellingtonian 8

   6 November 2008 at 11:09 am

   Vinsin – sounds like an election advertisement to me.

   If that get’s out and someone start emailing your mail out round, then you could get into trouble.

   Be careful.
9. Vinsin 9

   6 November 2008 at 11:13 am

   Wellingtonian, will do, i’m only passing on information if that gets me in trouble then so be it.

   Vanilla, you’re right i withdraw my comparison to Rove, i didn’t realise how much of a compliment that was until you pointed it out to me.
10. Crank 10

    6 November 2008 at 11:14 am

    SP

    “that thing with john key and those dodgy money deals?”

    You know those people who say “art forger” and “speeder”? That’s you that is.

    To paraphrasing from the “Mary Whitehouse Experience”.
11. Vanilla Eis 11

    6 November 2008 at 11:17 am

    Vinsin: Indeed. Rove is the scum of the earth, but he was brilliant in his own way. Slater excels at making himself look like a tosser, but that’s about it.
12. John Stevens 12

    6 November 2008 at 11:19 am

    Clint Emufarm Smith – what money deals, please let me know………..

    [It’s ‘Emu’. Emufarm was the name of my travelblog. SP]
13. coge 13

    6 November 2008 at 11:25 am

    What’s the problem here? you lot aren’t short of hatchet men. This is the game of politics.
14. burt 14

    6 November 2008 at 11:35 am

    Coge

    It’s OK when Labour do it. This is the overriding rule in being an apologist. Your own leader eating babies is showing how important it is to have a varied diet, the opposition leader eating babies like you would expect that would be an unacceptable outrage.

    (I expect this comment will be followed immediately by a comment from Felix attacking me I like the way most of my comments are immediately followed by attacks from Felix It reassures me I’m doing his feeble apologist head in)
15. coge 15

    6 November 2008 at 11:42 am

    Burt, you are correct. Like the justification of using a false bearded operative!
16. insider 16

    6 November 2008 at 11:42 am

    I’ve heard rumours that all your base is a 9th floor staffer and a few others are paid by Labour affiliated unions to post Labour attack lines here. There was also a rumour that the LPRU were sniffing dirty underwear in and around Melbourne.

    Like him or not, isn;t the more valid point here, Slater correctly identified Keizer. He was right, and I suspect that really gripes your gizzard
17. Akldnut 17

    6 November 2008 at 11:48 am

    Vinsin go to this link for some good stats to forward
18. burt 18

    6 November 2008 at 11:55 am

    In last nights debate the issue of Mike Williams digging the dirt was put back into the minds of the voters. However what I found highly amusing and also very revealing with regard to the personalities of the two leaders was the question about flip-flops.

    John Key picked up the ball, quoted an example (two actually) where he had done the flip-flop and justified his position. He used the forum to remind people of his current stand and to show that he can admit his past mistakes. Helen Clark on the other hand didn’t want to engage with the question, she has dozens of examples she could have used to produce a positive outcome but in classic Clark style she’s never wrong is she. Never admits any mistakes ever. Surely one of her many flip-flops over the last 9 years could have been used in a positive manner she only needed one example where her end position was positive, just one.

    Oh and BTW, what on earth possessed Helen to use speeding tickets as an example of breaking the law . Bad call right up there with saying something like signing other peoples paintings.
19. Chris G 19

    6 November 2008 at 11:56 am

    insider,

    Sorry, reading your comments I’ve got no idea what your trying to prove? other than proving your wasting your time here.

    That, I find funny
20. Gina 20

    6 November 2008 at 11:56 am

    Vinsin

    There is something unpublished about National that would turn this election around 180 degrees.

    “Last year in Parliament two failed amendments were attempted trying to replace the government’s status quo nominees with anti-abortion ones. One attempted replacement was a doctor who has worked for an anti-abortion counselling service. The amendment was put forward by Peter Brown (NZ First) and supported by all the NZ First MPs who voted and 21 of the 36 National MPs who voted. His supporters included John Key, Bill English, Tony Ryall and Judith Collins ? the four hoping to be Prime Minister, Deputy PM, and Ministers for Health and Social Development. The second attempted replacement put forward by Gordon Copeland gained similar levels of support.

    If those amendments had succeeded, they would have restricted access to abortion without public discussion or comment. Restriction of abortion is only a parliamentary vote away.”

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/08/guest-column-putting-it-back-on-agenda.html#links

    John Key was asked about his personal view on BFM radio on september 11 this year and deliberately mislead listeners.
    You can download and listen to the mp3 at. The question put to key on abortion are at 6min 48 sec into the interview.

    http://www.95bfm.com/default,188611.sm

    What your own opinion on it of course is unknown to me but I can tell you the majority of NZ women will not vote National if they find out. Whatever your own view its an issue that needs to be debated and should not be allowed to procede in stealth mode.

    Abortion is still illegal as defined by the crimes act with a 14 year jail term and most abortions are approved through one of the exceptions to the act i.e. “for the mental health of the mother”. Should anti abortions doctors be appointed to the head of the abortion supervisory committee as John Key voted to do then that exception would be interpreted differently and most abortions would not be allowed thus ending 30 years of liberal abortion practices in NZ.

    This would be disasterous for rape victums as even though there is an exception in the act for rape they would have to prove that they were indeed raped. That means women who are raped will not be reporting to police if they fear pregnancy because they will be looking to be sure that they get an abortion and of course if forced to get an unsafe abortion it could kill them and if discovered land them in jail if they could not prove rape.
21. Gina 21

    6 November 2008 at 12:09 pm

    An addon to my last post. On BFM radio John Key keeps saying he wants no change to the law on abortion. He knows full well that is not neccessary. All he needs to do is what he has already voted to do in appointing anit-abortion doctors to the head of the abortion supervisory committee who will interpret the exception differently.
22. roger nome 22

    6 November 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Hah – I’ve met the “cocktail spy” a few times before. He’s old-skool dunedin. Didn’t seem like an overly serious guy – quite funny and casual actually. Certainly not involved in any radical politics when he was down here.
23. Vinsin 23

    6 November 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Gina, Thankyou! That’s exactly what i needed. Akld, thank you to.

    It’s a women’s body and therefore a women’s choice. I agree with you if enough women knew this then the election would be in the bag for labour.
24. Ianmac 24

    6 November 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Gina: Last night Key said that he saw no need to change anything in the Laws on Abortion. He implied that he was happy with the status quo. Another lack of philosophical position?
    There must be a bit of anxiety in the Gnat camp given the activity of the visiting gnats like Coge and Insider.
25. Gina 25

    6 November 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Vinson

    Theres a pdf someone sent me with all the detail i.e. links to the Hansard, crimes act etc etc. Just tell me where I can upload it.
    Lets get it out by email or any other way possible.
26. Gina 26

    6 November 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Ianmac and All

    He knows he doesn’t have to change the law to stop abortions. Hes covering what he voted to do last year.

    Can someone afford a big add with a link to the article and parlimentary votes in the Herald or other before the election.

    That would do it I reakon.
27. randal 27

    6 November 2008 at 12:35 pm

    hah the beltway boys letting their frustrations have a little boilover in public and burt set on prolix this morning. hmmm must get me one of them.
28. travellerev 28

    6 November 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Vanilla eis

    Carl Rove is a slimy corrupt piece of work who will get his comeuppance someday.
    Daddy Bush bought Bush jr. the presidency so his marauding family and friends could suck the world dry one more time.
29. coge 29

    6 November 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Ianmac, perhaps you can tell me what’s happening in the Nats camp, cos I’m not a member.

    Back to the taper. Not wanting to play the xenophobic card, but I’m hardly surprised Kees is not a New Zealand citizen. It’s simply not the Kiwi way to tresspass a conference, misrepresent yourself & violate expectations of frank privacy. Trav can back me up on the Dutch tradition of extreme politics. But Kiwi’s don’t like to dob in their neighbours.

    Frankly I’m surprised Helen Clark did not take more strident action to distance her party from this sort of activity, previously uncommon in NZ.

    [lprent: Pious bullshit. If I’d thought of it, I’d have done it. I’m also damn sure that Whale would have – in fact those young ones from Act. Before you raise the xenophobia – I tend to think that if your family hasn’t been a century that you’re a recent immigrant.]
30. Felix 30

    6 November 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Well spotted Gina.

    Vin, don’t worry about the EFA, commentary on blogs is specifically excluded and personal correspondence between people who know each other is just that, personal.

    burt you fool, you really think I’m stalking you, don’t you? Delusions of importance, my dim witted little friend. I laugh at you not because you’re particularly interesting, but because you’re a paranoid mini-brain slowly losing your flimsy grip on reality. As you confirm again and again.
31. Matthew Pilott 31

    6 November 2008 at 12:46 pm

    “It’s simply not the Kiwi way to tresspass a conference, misrepresent yourself & violate expectations of frank privacy.”

    So the person who did the same at Labour’s conference, inside a closed workshop – what foreign country were they from, coge?
32. randal 32

    6 November 2008 at 12:49 pm

    transylvania?
33. burt 33

    6 November 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Felix

    You never let me down. (hugs).
34. Matthew Pilott 34

    6 November 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Randal: Ethniklashistan, most likely.
35. Vinsin 35

    6 November 2008 at 12:52 pm

    gina, i’m not sure where you can upload it. Anywhere is fine by me, i would put my email down but i get the feeling i’d be swamped by trolls within minutes. If you’re on facebook look for vinsin vegetable.
36. coge 36

    6 November 2008 at 1:00 pm

    MP, goodness me. I hadn’t heard of that one. Maybe
    ‘cos the MSM didn’t think it a principled manner of garnering news. Do enlighten us.
37. coge 37

    6 November 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Still not the Kiwi way. Even Helen would agree.
38. burt 38

    6 November 2008 at 1:07 pm

    coge

    The Kiwi way is what Kiwi’s define it to be. 🙂

    Matthew Pilott.

    I agree there are similarities. The Labour party situation was high ranking Labour party folk suggesting ways to subvert their own laws and the high ranking National party folk were answering questions about their own views on certain contentious issues. Big difference in the subject material but similar dishonest method of getting the information into the public domain.

    Edit: Just for Felix – It’s not OK that Labour did it becasue National did it too. Either it’s bad in both cases and Labour should not have done it because National did – or it’s fine in both instances.
39. Steve Pierson 39

    6 November 2008 at 1:16 pm

    coge. Kees has been here since he was two or three. stop being a racist. next you’ll be saying polynesians’ hands are too clumsy for grape picking
40. gomango 40

    6 November 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Gina – Abortion in NZ is a conscience vote and I think both main parties strongly acknowledge that and want to keep it that way. There are members from all parties who vote on both sides of the debate. It’s a party political issue only in the sense that the individual MP’s who make up the major 2 parties have a position for or against. This is one conscience vote that will never be whipped.

    You should worry more about ensuring the exclusion of the fruit cake parties (ie NZ First plus anyone running on a Christian fundamentalist platform) as they are the only parties who will try to instigate any changes to the status quo. Both Labour and National won’t touch the issue unless forced to do so by a minor party.

    BTW, I’m not bagging Christians here- I just believe party politics should be secular.
41. Felix 41

    6 November 2008 at 1:20 pm

    I’ll be buying Kees a few beers if I see him around because that’s what real kiwis do.
42. Felix 42

    6 November 2008 at 1:24 pm

    gomango,

    The issue Gina raised was Key expressing a personal belief in public on bfm yet casting his conscience vote in a manner inconsistent with that belief.
43. coge 43

    6 November 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Good on you Felix. That’s what real Kiwis do.
44. Matthew Pilott 44

    6 November 2008 at 1:30 pm

    coge – do you mean that you hadn’t heard of the Labour Party Conference secret tapings? It was in the news for a while. I would hardly put it down to some foreign influence.

    You might as well say Key is a foriegner because he’s flying around on a chartered plane electioneering these last two days – that’s not a ‘kiwi’ thing to do either.

    Burt – that’s a pretty fair analysis, although with a touch of paritsan spin (I can spin it the other way, but it’s not really the point is it?)… Whether it’s good or bad? There’s a lot accepted in politics that wouldn’t be tolerated in other areas. I think that it does define the reality and therefore the morality of the situations.
45. burt 45

    6 November 2008 at 1:30 pm

    gomango

    BTW, I’m not bagging Christians here- I just believe party politics should be secular.

    Yes I agree – I laughed when the PM talked about tollerance for religious views, chinless scarf wearers must be an exception and the drafting of laws to exclude certain religious groups because they don’t endorse Labour must also be an exception which was in Labour’s the countries best interest.
46. burt 46

    6 November 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Matthew Pilott

    There’s a lot accepted in politics that wouldn’t be tolerated in other areas.

    What we say no to defines us :-).

    If we accept childish “they did it too” stuff from politicians then we endorse childish behaviour. I’d rather be governed by adults – so I have no problem constantly reminding them thay are behaving like children.

    Edit for Felix: I know I’ve said this before (the bit about childish behaviour – they did it too) but sadly the reality is I’m not getting use to it and accepting it. Read what I said earlier in this very comment to Matthew before you tell me I have said this before many times.
47. Felix 47

    6 November 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Whoohoo! Now do the one about Cullen.

    Oh burt, I couldn’t give a crap about politicians being recorded. They can be responsible for their own words.
48. burt 48

    6 November 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Felix

    You are a reliable attack dog – You are the best. (hugs)

    Edit: Felix – well done, some of your own views in your comment. I like that.
49. Matthew Pilott 49

    6 November 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Mmmm beer…

    So, burt, if we accept that neither taper was a party member or affilate (less is, of course, known about the earlier taper), all we have to go on is the response. Clark wasn’t happy about the incident, but didn’t react a great deal. Key piled on the abuse, and blamed Labour, calling it part of Labour’s ‘dirty tricks’ campaign, when it has now become apparent that he knew this was not the case.

    that sure as hell isn’t ok.
50. burt 50

    6 November 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Matthew Pilott

    If you are saying National taped themselves to make Labour look bad ? Have you been talking to Brian Edwards at all ?
51. Matthew Pilott 51

    6 November 2008 at 1:48 pm

    No burt, I’m saying that it’s clear National have known who it was for some time. When did whale put the post up? Some days ago. He worked with the National Party Research Unit, and with National Party MPs in order to identify the taper. That’s as reported in The Herald.

    So, when Key gave a response to the latest tape, he would have known full well that it was not a ‘Labour Dirty Trick’ and that Labour was not behind it all. He consciously chose to lie about it, or at best, state as fact something he had no way of knowing was true.

    I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion in your last post – I’m talking about their responses to their respective conferences’ incidents.
52. coge 52

    6 November 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Lprent, you make valid points, but none of the groups & individuals you mentioned “did it”, correct? Why do you suppose they did not think to do it? An innate & unspoken sense of what is proper conduct, perhaps? And not that it matters, but I’m fifth generation on both sides.

    Let’s look at what Kiwis do. They help out each other.
    Keep an eye out for their neighbours. Maybe enjoy a BBQ & beer in the weekend, deal with each other in an honest, upfront & friendly manner. Now trespassing a conference, misrepresenting ones politics, violating expectations of frank privacy & passing edited recordings to third rate journalists do not constitute normal Kiwi behaviour. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    I really hope Kees is reading this as I would like to hear what he has to say.
53. Wellingtonian 53

    6 November 2008 at 1:49 pm

    gina – the election would turn ‘180 degrees’ ? You are a wee bit naive with this.. When it comes to attempting to push through legislation about telling people what they can, and can’t do with their bodies, in their homes etc the Labour government would be made to look like hypocrites on this.

    All your email will do will continue the perception that Labour is running a negative campaign. If this got any media coverage it wouldn’t take more than 5 minutes for the story to be linked back to this thread on the standard and in turn, the standard linked to Labour.

    It will probably do more harm than good im afraid.
54. burt 54

    6 November 2008 at 2:03 pm

    Matthew Pilott

    I’ve been waiting for a long time to say this 🙂

    WTF are you talking about – I never believe a thing WhaleOil says on his blog !
55. burt 55

    6 November 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Mathew Pilott

    DPF has an interesting thread here: What a coincidence.

    Are you sure Key was telling lies ?

    Back to my previous question, have you been talking to Brian Edwards?

    captcha: up evidences ( it knows…)
56. coge 56

    6 November 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Furthermore, covert taping, of any kind is a clear violation of the open society which we enjoy here in New Zealand. The virtues of our free society is something held dear accross the NZ political spectrum. Without that freedom, this taping would likely not have been able to occur. Something that those who seek to capitalize on this violation must understand.

    [lprent: by private citizens conversing with each other – you have absolutely no idea of the law]
57. Killinginthenameof 57

    6 November 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Coge, Fuck off.

    Mattew Hotton, “Tape-Gate” hahhah chump. Can some mp get invoved in a scandal over farm gates or something we just need “gate-gate”

    Everyone else: Set your damn bebos, facebooks, myspace’s to private for goodness sake? do you really want this overweight drouling perverted fuckwit trawling though your photos and friends lists?

    Nice to see Farrar and Slater coming clean on using the National party research unit, now someone bloody name Steady Eddie
58. tracey 58

    6 November 2008 at 2:25 pm

    silly boy it’s not dirty tricks when national does it. It’s responsible educating of the electorate
59. Scribe 59

    6 November 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Gina,

    So someone who performs abortions is an impartial nominee for the ASC but someone who once worked for an anti-abortion counselling service isn’t?

    That gross conflict of interest is much more of a scandal than your “neutron bomb” that would turn the election “180 degrees”.
60. Matthew Pilott 60

    6 November 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Burt – nut sure what you mean, but I read the Herald, and it said Cameron Slater was working with the Nat research unit. I’m going on what I read in the Herald. It looks bleedingly obvious to me – Key knew who it was, and knew it wasn’t a Labour thing and that he wasn’t a “Labour Activist” when he said so. Simple.

    Or are you going to tell me the Nat Research unit doesn’t tell Key anything? I know the guy can be cluelss, but that I wouldn’t buy.
61. Wellingtonian 61

    6 November 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Hi, can any of the friends of Kees confirm that his flatmate is Stephen Day who is employed by Ministerial Services and acts as a liaison between Labour and the Greens
62. randal 62

    6 November 2008 at 2:47 pm

    scribe
    you are a dreamer and morevoer willing to incite a mob with your stupid focus on womens biology
    anatomy too probably
    but anyway
    mind your own business
    get a life
63. Wellingtonian 63

    6 November 2008 at 3:00 pm

    and now labour supporters are pushing 75 year old women.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4751942a28435.html

    how low is this going to go?
64. randal 64

    6 November 2008 at 3:06 pm

    who said that?
    epsinner or hooton
65. QoT 65

    6 November 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Wow, Wellingtonian, she sure sounds like a fragile victim of evil commie thugs, what with statements like “I’ll push them around too, I can be very vocal. I’ve been working for National since 1975 and I’m still doing it.”

    And any anti-Labour link which brings up the headline, “Key to protester: You’re an idiot” is one that’s only going to make us grin, you do realise?
66. bill brown 66

    6 November 2008 at 3:35 pm

    and now national party leader is calling random citizens idiots

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4751942a28435.html

    how low is this going to go?
67. higherstandard 67

    6 November 2008 at 3:37 pm

    You seem to be doing a fair bit of soinning and hooting yourself Randal.
68. higherstandard 68

    6 November 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Bill if you’ve read this blog over any length of time you’d be fully aware that many random citizens are idiots.
69. bill brown 69

    6 November 2008 at 3:42 pm

    Speak for yourself, HS.
70. Vinsin 70

    6 November 2008 at 3:43 pm

    HS,
    Does that statement apply to kiwipundit, or solely this site?
71. Gina 71

    6 November 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Scribe

    “So someone who performs abortions is an impartial nominee for the ASC but someone who once worked for an anti-abortion counselling service isn’t?”

    I don’t think most women will see it that way no matter how much propaganda is thrown at them. This can be confirmed so is not dirty politics. Whats dirty here is John Key deliberately misleading women by saying he doesn’t intend to change the laws regarding abortion. He is implying that abortion sevices will remain as they are. Hes a liar and his pants will be on fire if or when NZ women find out.
72. randal 72

    6 November 2008 at 3:48 pm

    hs..
    I’m having a great time
    its like an alignment of the planets
    and all that stuff
    scary eh?
73. Lampie 73

    6 November 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Burt, I have some a real scandel. I heard Goff say fuck

    ooooooooooooo
74. Scribe 74

    6 November 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Gina,

    Justice Miller has said that the abortion laws are being flouted, so to have the CS&A Act enforced — strange idea, I know — would bring about a change in practice, though not in law.

    Having said that, I don’t think Key necessarily wants the law to be enforced. I think he’s fine with the status quo of abortion on request, based on his responses to pro-life groups. And he’d have known that wouldn’t be a popular answer, so why give it if he didn’t believe it?
75. Vinsin 75

    6 November 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Oh, just found Cameron Slater on facebook. He’s got some lovely groups up and running – around 93 of them but here’s my favs: let’s be pro-life in new zealand, don’t vote greens, don’t vote labour, new zealanders for the gifting of tvnz to newscorp, i wish helen clark would get her teeth fixed and – possibly my favorite – march 14th is steak and blowjob day.

    Man was i wrong about that Karl Rove quip earlier.
76. randal 76

    6 November 2008 at 4:08 pm

    he is a bit of a ‘thing’ allright
    blerrrrrrk
    and the msm never say a word
77. Gina 77

    6 November 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Ok Scribe
    So John Key votes to appoint anti-abortion doctors means he then won’t have a say in it.
    The docs oversee it and believe me some of them ae pretty radical. they won’t be consulting him.

    Women need to know what John Key thinks before they vote.
    He’s playing this close to his chest because he knows he will not be elected if he tells female voters how his own “user doesn’t pay” consience works.
78. Scribe 78

    6 November 2008 at 4:45 pm

    The docs oversee it and believe me some of them ae pretty radical.

    We agree on that. Radical pro-abortionists have been dominating the ASC for years and look where we’ve got to: abortion on request.

    I know you and your friends want another Labour term to follow Victoria’s lead and decriminalise abortion. Shame it’s not going to happen, Gina.
79. Gina 79

    6 November 2008 at 5:00 pm

    We’ll see I guess.

    Scribe I hope that in your next life that you are landed with no money 10 babies, are declared sinful for enjoying sex with no means of support and then become pregnant with quintuplets via rape and are stoned to death for your shame while your rapist goes free.

    Better still, if it happened in this life.
    Maybe then you would have half a clue and would see the true cost of your consience i.e religious belief.

    Church has no place in state and abortion is a matter of belief not fact. No one has the right to inflict their religious beliefs on me or any other woman. Thats what been pro choice means. It means to each according to her belief.
    You are not god and do not know period!
80. Scribe 80

    6 November 2008 at 5:15 pm

    Gina,

    I hope you have a happy and prosperous life and get to achieve everything you want. I’ll pray for that.

    And thanks for your kind wishes, too.
81. Gina 81

    6 November 2008 at 6:09 pm

    Scribe

    Thats nice. I’m just trying to make the point that you with the consience will never pay the price for the ideal you seek to impose on someone else. It is your religious belief and has no place in law in a democracy.

    Your belief could well cost the lives,prosperity and happiness of many women who you put second to a foetus not even born. The foetus is tiny up intill 12 weeks has no brain no idea of its own existance.

    I see in our world that every seed does not grow, they are abundant and fall all over the place.
    The world is fast becoming overpopulated and the solution in china for that is to kill live girl babbies and old women. Yes Ive read they are exterminating old women in China now.
    Instead of opposing abortion you would be better to campaign for paying women to be mothers without the disrespect and hypocracy that is so often inflicted upon us.

    In Europe the great Catholic Church used to turn a blind eye to the killing of live girl babies yet women who had abortions were jailed.
    The words “ye are all hypocrits” was never more appropriate.
    I know I am a hypocrit also because we all are to some extent.
82. Vinsin 82

    6 November 2008 at 6:17 pm

    gina, please check your facebook messages
83. Felix 83

    6 November 2008 at 6:29 pm

    Ha, I’ll pray for you too Gina. To Beelzebub.

    That should cancel out Scribe’s voodoo.
84. Carol 84

    6 November 2008 at 6:47 pm

    These kind of issues, like abortion and LGBT issues, are some of the big reasons I don’t want Key as PM. The Nats seem to me to be a party mostly for white men, and I think Key’s attitude to abortion is a biggie for a lot of women.
85. Danny 85

    6 November 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Slater “photoshopped the face of a 15 year old labour activist onto gay porn”??!!

    You must be joking. If not, what was done to this piece of shit?
86. Killinginthenameof 86

    6 November 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Not joking at all.

    The whole abortion debate is a bit miss placed, before any one on any side goes and claims whats right and wrong, first they have to come up with a damn good reason why every one else should do as they say.
87. Vinsin 87

    6 November 2008 at 7:48 pm

    killing, are you a woman? If not i’m afraid you don’t get to comment.
88. Killinginthenameof 88

    6 November 2008 at 7:58 pm

    In addition to my comment before: Nothing was done, Slater is highly prone to throwing tantrums as you’ve probably seen, the best way to deal with it was to stay quiet and let the whole thing go away, there was several offers from Lawyers at the time of legal assistance to the victim. In summary you can call him a creep, a pervert and anything like that, but avoid calling him a pedophile or child pornographer, that will get people in trouble.
89. Danny 89

    6 November 2008 at 8:01 pm

    Who is he? Is he a member of the National Party?

    Not that National would admit it anyway, given the above.
90. Killinginthenameof 90

    6 November 2008 at 8:04 pm

    “Vinsin
    killing, are you a woman? If not i’m afraid you don’t get to comment.”

    Looks like I just did comment though haha.

    All I’m saying is I haven’t seen a good enough reason yet why any group of people should be able to force their opinions on someone else, if it makes you feel better I’m sure I could find half a dozen women who would be quite happy to come here and type it on my behalf, would that make you feel better?

    “Danny
    Who is he? Is he a member of the National Party?
    Not that National would admit it anyway, given the above.”
    Who Whale (the son of a former National Party president) or the victim?
    Hes a Labour supporter but I’m sure the victim doesn’t really want to go over it all again so I’m going to leave it at that.
91. Danny 91

    6 November 2008 at 8:05 pm

    How is it not child pornography, it is indecent and it concerns a 15 year old? It is open and shut, no? His motives for doing it are irrelevant. If what you are saying is true, it should be pushed, no questions.

    And it has nothing to do with politics. Rather, it has everything to do with punishing this pervert.
92. Carol 92

    6 November 2008 at 8:12 pm

    The whole pro-abortion argument is that a woman should have the choice as to whether she wants an abortion or not. Consequently, if a woman is against having an abortion, no-one’s telling her she should have one. So I don’t understand your point, Mr. Killing.
93. Killinginthenameof 93

    6 November 2008 at 8:21 pm

    My point is people are getting far to caught up in claiming the anti-choice protesters are wrong. When I see that near senile geriatric by the gate to parliament each morning I think “great, abortion is wrong for him, who would have thought huh?” the same with any anti-choice protester, all they are proving is that abortion is wrong for them. None of them, no one so far, has come up with any reason why they should be able to inflict their opinion on every one else.

    Looking back over the thread I actually think I agree with you both, I just think every one on the pro-choice side spends too long trying to engage in their debate and not enough time saying “well good for you, now fuck off and stop telling me what I should do”
94. randal 94

    6 November 2008 at 8:21 pm

    his point is that women should do what men tell them to
    so he can feel um err well manly..
95. Carol 95

    6 November 2008 at 8:32 pm

    Yes, but actually as the law stands, it doesn’t actually say a woman can have an abortion if she wants one. To get one requires certificates from doctor/s saying it would endanger the health of the woman to give birth to the baby. A recent report said the law is being bent at the moment to virtually make it abortion on demand. This means the law, and compliance with it is a bit dodgy.

    So pro-choicers want the law changed to make abortions available for any woman who wants one, without doctors reports etc. Anti-abortionistis are trying to limit women’s choices by either stopping any law change happening, or changing the law to make it harder to get an abortion. So they are trying to limit women’s choices, not the pro-choice campaigners.
96. Gina 96

    6 November 2008 at 8:40 pm

    We have had abortion on demand for 30 years and its been an accepted norm in our society. Whats happeining lately is not dodgy but has been accepted proptocol in NZ for a generation. If you read the article on norightturn you will see that there was a fight about this in 1977 and a compromise was reached.

    I remember my father telling me that in earlier years parlimentarians of the day were all flying their misteresses to Australia for abortions while for many years their consiences in parliament told them it should be against the law for the rest of us.
97. Carol 97

    6 November 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Gina, what I’ve been told by a woman in a local feminist group, is that the law doesn’t actually guarantee abortion on demand. In practice this has been happening. But this could change if anyone in authority decided the letter of the law should be followed.

    http://www.abortion.gen.nz/legal/index.html

    The Act outlines the procedures to be adopted by a woman seeking an abortion. First she will see her own doctor, usually her general practitioner or a family planning doctor. Her doctor will arrange a referral to a licensed clinic (for a pregnancy under 12 weeks) or to a specialist operating in a licensed hospital (for a pregnancy over 12 weeks). First an operating surgeon must be willing to perform an abortion, then the woman must obtain the approval of two certifying consultants, one of whom must have experience in obstetrics. A certificate must be issued for the performance of an abortion.

    A doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion is not required to assist in the performance of an abortion. The doctor has an obligation to refer the woman on for assessment if this is requested.

    The grounds for an abortion are not contained in the CS&A Act but in the Crimes Act 1961 (and two amendments passed in December 1977 and July 1978). These grounds are:

    * Serious danger to life
    * Serious danger to physical health
    * Serious danger to mental health
    * Any form of incest or sexual relations with a guardian
    * Mental subnormality
    * Fetal abnormality (added in the July 1978 amendment)

    In addition, other factors which are not grounds in themselves but which may be taken into account are:

    * Extremes of age
    * Sexual violation (previously rape)

    Self-abortion is an offence.

    Thus not abortion on demand, but apparently it’s pretty easy to claim one of the above.

    also see here:

    http://gaynz.com/blog/redqueen/archives/241
98. Gina 98

    6 November 2008 at 9:02 pm

    “A recent report said the law is being bent at the moment to virtually make it abortion on demand”

    Carol everything you have said is right. However the law has been bent for 30 years and successive governments Labour and National have overseen it being bent.

    The pro life people now know that they may have enough allies in the National Party and NZ first to roll back the status quo especially with the support of Nationals leaders.
99. Carol 99

    6 November 2008 at 9:07 pm

    yes, that’s the problem as I see it, and a reason to be very wary of a National government on this issue.

    Also see an Idiot/Savant guest blog pos, which begins as below:

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/search?q=abortion

    Sunday, August 10, 2008

    Guest Column: Abortion: Putting it back on the agenda

    By Anita

    Once, in staunchly Catholic Guatemala, I was asked if abortion was legal in New Zealand. In my halting Spanish I replied “Si, es legal, es un derecho”: yes, it is legal, it is a right. The conversation stayed with me and the next time I had a chance I checked whether abortion was, in fact, the right I thought it was. I was disturbed how large a lie I had told: in New Zealand abortion is not a right — it is not even truly legal.
100. randal 100

     6 November 2008 at 10:04 pm

     off topic but is Leighton Smith still voicing his fatuous opinions on his crummy little radio show?
101. Killinginthenameof 101

     6 November 2008 at 10:04 pm

     “randal
     his point is that women should do what men tell them to
     so he can feel um err well manly..”

     Excuse me, that is not at all what I think, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could retract your comment.

     My position is that it should be entirely for the women to decide, that it should not even need 2 doctors to sign off on it.
102. randal 102

     6 November 2008 at 10:14 pm

     ok
103. bobo 103

     6 November 2008 at 10:18 pm

     Talking of time for change hasn’t Leighton been doing that job way too long.
104. randal 104

     6 November 2008 at 10:33 pm

     Yep
     the whole meedia gang inNew Zealand is due for a good cleanout
     they smug and self satisfied and contribute nothing
     we deserve better than this
105. Killinginthenameof 105

     6 November 2008 at 10:40 pm

     I’m struck by how critical so many commentators are of them (me included) but how willing people are to take things as gospel until proved otherwise from the very highest level.
106. bobo 106

     6 November 2008 at 10:40 pm

     I remember Leighton on the radio many years ago if I had a day off school sick sleeping in the late 80s.. what a life being paid to moan day in day out on talkback, with the odd trip to New Orleans to sample wine and ogle mardi gra boobies… I guess its not all bad 🙂
107. randal 107

     6 November 2008 at 10:56 pm

     and worst of all the fat pompous ass thinks he should have a say in the running of the country!
108. Swampy 108

     6 November 2008 at 11:37 pm

     What goes around comes around. Slater may be one of those nutty libertarians but there are far fewer of them than grizzled old hard left socialists peddling similar lines from their side of the political fence.

     Remember Helen Clark attacking the haters and wreckers, she was talking about a more left group than Labour, same side of the fence really. Once upon a time those people would have been in the Labour party. Left wing politics is very divisive.
109. Gina 109

     7 November 2008 at 12:59 am

     Bobo

     I haven’t listened to Leighton for years and 3 times was much to much. He thinks he is a new breed of Kiwi aristocracy and probably has a wife who’s an amazing servant woman.

     One of the problems with our media right now is that the Newspaper side of things is owned largely by two large groups. One being APN publishing which is owned by Irish Billionaire “Tony Oreilly”.

     http://www.businessday.co.nz/industries/telco_it/4748149
     “Aside from the Herald, APN’s other Kiwi interests include The Listener, several regional newspapers such as The Northern Advocate and Hawkes Bay Today, plus 50 percent of the Radio Network whose stations include Newstalk ZB, Classic Hits and Radio Sport.”

     Mr Oreilly has interests in and associations with Big Oil is in partnership with The Carlyle group in his Australian interests who are big in weaponry and strongly connected with the Neocons in the USA.
     According to the article I’ve quoted from above he is looking at selling his stake in APN which I thought was more than the 39% quoted.
     Lets watch too see who buys it as we certainly don’t want the growing cartel of international corporations controlling media here in NZ. Labour need to break it up or they are writing their own obituary as a party, just like the dems did. Most of what they now have to listen to in the US is right wing talk and propaganda. left wing talk shows have been brought up and shut down. look what it has led too. Complete looting of taxpayers worldwide to bail out all these parasites.
110. Killinginthenameof 110

     7 November 2008 at 2:59 am

     This is looking more and more murky on Farrar’s side. Regardless of the fact that Kees has made himself public, it’s looking awfully like Farrar and Slater have acted illegally in identifying him, someone who knows of all the relevant tools may want to try and recreate their path and see if it can be done with out the special access the National Party has to the electrol roll (that is supposed to be for campaigning not silencing criticism).
111. Scribe 111

     7 November 2008 at 8:33 am

     Gina,

     We have had abortion on demand for 30 years and its been an accepted norm in our society.

     Well, a poll late last year or early this year said 40+ per cent of New Zealanders think abortion is morally wrong (UMR State of the Nation), so I hardly think that’s acceptance that the country have abortion on demand.
112. Swampy 112

     7 November 2008 at 8:45 am

     The electoral roll is a public document. The habitation index may not be, but I could easily cross reference an electoral roll by reading every page until I found someone else at the same address.
113. Swampy 113

     7 November 2008 at 8:47 am

     “Most of what they now have to listen to in the US is right wing talk and propaganda. left wing talk shows have been brought up and shut down. look what it has led too. Complete looting of taxpayers worldwide to bail out all these parasites”

     Absolute nonsense, research has found most of the major media in the US is left wing biased.
114. Pascal's bookie 114

     7 November 2008 at 8:48 am

     “…so I hardly think that’s acceptance that the country have abortion on demand.”

     Beside the point scribe. Even more people would say that cheating on your spouse is immoral but no one thinks that should be illegal.
115. Scribe 115

     7 November 2008 at 8:54 am

     Pb,

     It suggests that a large percentage of New Zealanders wouldn’t want there to be abortion on request (which is happening now). I’m not making the case here for abortion to be illegal.
116. Gina 116

     7 November 2008 at 9:02 am

     Scribe

     What poll was that. Please give us links and details. Was it an online poll etc.

     There needs to be open debate amoung New Zealanders about the topic not National having a secret agenda and Key misleading women about his own anti-abortion views and hiding what happened in parliament last year.
     I’ll bet most of the anti-abortionists are men who also don’t believe the state should help single mothers divorced or otherwise.

     Quite honestly if people believe it’s morally wrong they should not have an abortion. Its easy no one is forcing them to have abortions. But these people want their own religious beliefs to rule me and other women who do not hold those same beliefs.
     As I said chrurch has no place in state. Belief is just that in this case, no one knows for sure and no one is going to force me to pay for his or her religious belief when it is not my belief.

     Perhaps you would like my religious beliefs to govern your life. You are all complaining about the nanny state yet you would like to control my life as a woman. You are the supernannies of NZ and thats putting it politely.

     I also believe in God but my view is not the same as yours. I’m not trying to make you subject to my beliefs you are welcome not to have abortions.
117. randal 117

     7 November 2008 at 9:27 am

     gina you can guarantee that when Kiwi men start talking about abortion then they have an unnatural interest in womens parts, that they have only ever read one book in their lives (the bible) and their biggest fantasy is to be an old testament biblical patriarch like moses so everyone will do their bidding under fear of punishment from on high. pretty simple really
118. Pascal's bookie 118

     7 November 2008 at 9:28 am

     “It suggests that a large percentage of New Zealanders wouldn’t want there to be abortion on request ”

     No it doesn’t. But so what anyway? Even it it did, majority rules so the big ol’ minority can go pound sand.
119. Scribe 119

     7 November 2008 at 9:37 am

     Gina,

     It was the Mood of the Nation survey (State of the Nation was my mistake above) and it can be downloaded from here: http://www.umr.co.nz/Reports.php# — click on the January 08 report.

     I agree that there needs to be an open debate about abortion, and the recent High Court ruling should be the catalyst for that.

     Regarding Key, I’ve spoken to him about moral issues and I just don’t think Key is anti-abortion.

     I’ll bet most of the anti-abortionists are men who also don’t believe the state should help single mothers divorced or otherwise.

     What an incredibly unfair and inaccurate statement.

     Quite honestly if people believe it’s morally wrong they should not have an abortion

     So, in your view, nothing should be illegal. After all, just because you think something is illegal, that doesn’t mean it should be. You know, not wanting to impose on people, and all that.

     Have you read the studies about the negative impact abortions have on the mental health of women? Our Government is sacrificing the well-being of women for an ideology.
120. Gina 120

     7 November 2008 at 9:45 am

     Randall

     Yep lots of these religious creeps at the head of the pulpit turn out to be raping young girls or boys.
     If abortion becomes illegal they will be able to rape women without any complaint been laid as the victims will be worried re pregnancy and the difficulty of proving rape thus not qualifying for a legal abortion so will stay quiet so they can quietly have an illegal abortion if needed. These creeps don’t care if their victims die trying to have an illegal abortion.
     This is what John Key voted for last year. Did it even occur to him that this would be an end product of his vote. If he has half a brain then it did, which makes him a major creep. If not then he has a smaller brain than Bush.
121. Gina 121

     7 November 2008 at 9:52 am

     Scribe

     Those studies on the mental health of women are more propaganda. If you want to know what women really feel about abortion go to “I’m No Sorry. Net” at imnotsorry.net

     and read womens own accounts. Most women are made to feel bad about abortion by people like you scribe. Thats where the mental injury occurs. Harrassment about their decision which though is often difficult most women do not regret.
122. Scribe 122

     7 November 2008 at 9:54 am

     Gina,

     What nonsense and hate-filled vitriol (tautology intentional).
123. Scribe 123

     7 November 2008 at 9:57 am

     Those studies on the mental health of women are more propaganda.

     More nonsense. See the New Zealand study conducted by a pro-choice atheist on this topic: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10362476

     You’re right that most studies in this area are clouded by the researchers’ views. Prof Fergusson reckons he’s the only researcher in this field who has published a study that goes against his personal ideology.
124. Gina 124

     7 November 2008 at 10:02 am

     Scribe

     “What nonsense and hate-filled vitriol (tautology intentional).”

     Likewise.

     I’m off now so you have the floor to yourself.
125. higherstandard 125

     7 November 2008 at 10:07 am

     Gina

     What a remarkably hate filled person you appear to be.

     To smear the vast amount of today’s religious leaders as rapists is just appalling, it’s as bizarre as saying that lots of men are out there raping boys and girls. Don’t let the appalling behaviour of the very few scum slant your view of the largely good religious leaders who are the overwhelming majority
126. Scribe 126

     7 November 2008 at 10:19 am

     Gina,

     I can’t see where I’ve said anything hate-filled in this entire thread. You, on the other hand, have apparently shown your true colours.
127. Gina 127

     7 November 2008 at 10:25 am

     Higherstandard

     In the USA now are now 1 in 6 women say they have been raped but they don’t complain much to authorities because they know the odds are against them getting any sort of fair treatment. 1 in 6 women raped means there are a lot of rapists out there. Granted some men are responsible for a bigger share of it and the bulk of men don’t rape.

     Anyway my problem here is that National have a secret agenda on abortion and that John Key is not fronting up to NZ women with the truth to them as shown by his vote last year in parliament.
     That should be known by women before they vote but it looks like they are going to go to the polls with no idea of something that happened in parliament last year which is a kick in the face to their right to an informed vote.

     This is not innuendo or smearing. Key has dilberatly mislead women re his views and intent.

     Lets put this on the table before we vote and see what happens. The thing is Key knows what will happen if women find out about this before they vote. National would loose.

     Im off now probably to live in Victoria where womens rights are still strong.
128. randal 128

     7 November 2008 at 10:58 am

     scribe…any attack on womens rights is filled with hate by definition.
     If you really cared about women then you would not be going down this track
     are you so scared of women that the only way you can do anything about it is to proscribe their activities?
129. Vinsin 129

     7 November 2008 at 11:02 am

     gina, please check your facebooks again.
130. Swampy 130

     7 November 2008 at 11:33 am

     It doesn’t actually matter whether Labour is directly linked to the tapes or not. What is important is that Labour has condoned their existence and use.
     When I see people here complaining about the taping of Mike Williams in a Labour party conference, they have not condemned the taping by Keizer.
     Live by the sword, die by the sword.
131. Swampy 131

     7 November 2008 at 11:35 am

     (previous post seemed to disappear)
132. bill brown 132

     7 November 2008 at 11:36 am

     Scribe,

     The “I’ll pray for you” line that people like you spout is a form of assault.

     I, for one, wouldn’t want someone like you thinking about me while you mumble your mumbo jumbo.
133. randal 133

     7 November 2008 at 12:14 pm

     yeah scribe..pray for SWAMPY
     he needs it!
134. Scribe 134

     7 November 2008 at 12:58 pm

     bill,

     The “I’ll pray for you line” is one I use when people say hate-filled things like what Gina said:

     Scribe I hope that in your next life that you are landed with no money 10 babies, are declared sinful for enjoying sex with no means of support and then become pregnant with quintuplets via rape and are stoned to death for your shame while your rapist goes free.

     I want the best for people; others who disagree with me want me to be raped and stoned to death.

     Who’s assaulting whom?
135. bill brown 135

     7 November 2008 at 1:33 pm

     Scribe,

     I never said I wanted any ill to befall you, I’m merely stating that you sitting around with you eye’s closed, or whatever it is you do, thinking about people is creepy, and I as one, find the thought of it uncomfortable.

     I have also heard other people of your ilk use the same line and I’m fairly certain it is used to make the object feel uncomfortable. It certainly does me.
136. Scribe 136

     7 November 2008 at 1:46 pm

     bill,

     I know you didn’t wish ill on me — that’s Gina’s domain. I would never say “I’ll pray for you” to someone who I didn’t know would want that (not sure what others have done/do).

     The people I know in the pro-life movement would never seek to make women feel guilty if she’d had an abortion. They/we realise that it’s a tough decision and one that can have major repercussions — see the study I linked to above. Those women need our support.

Links to post

1. Farrar back on the PS payroll? at The Standard 2.02: posted on 6 December 2008 at 12:12 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS