Written By: - Date published: 11:03 am, September 25th, 2008 - 58 comments
Categories: national -
Tags:
Bob Clarkson chose not to speak during his valedictory speech. Instead, he just held up a sign saying ‘bye bye’ (in the same font as Peter’s famous ‘no’ sign). An opportunity for both hilarity and embarrassing revelations missed. After all, this was the man who thanked the Exclusive Brethren for all their help in winning Tauranga at the National conference.
Still, he couldn’t leave without displaying his mastery of the English language one last time “I don’t require to be called a dignitary” (pronouncing it “digni-Tory”) ” I don’t require to be in this place, I don’t require to dress up in a bloody suit every day.”
Farewell, you bigoted old idiot.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Joanna
Here is one link to follow. If you do a search on ‘move on helen clark’ there is a lot of links to follow. All the best.
Clark Tells Peters, Media Move On
Joanna – Another common thing for rightwing trolls is the “I used to be a labour supporter” line. It’s like that alone will put some weight behind their piss poor arguments and make their insane ramblings somehow rational.
See monkeyboy above for a perfect example.
Burt –
1. cheap trick trying to tie my comment/beliefs to the Taito Field and Winston Peters sagas.
2. Thanks for the link, if you had read my comment you would have seen i was talking about the ENTIRE quote. (but I accept Helen Clark has said “move on”)
when I red your posts monkey boy the conclusion I draw is not irrational hatred but congenital idiocy.
I get that you don’t like the EFA, MB, which is fair enough.
In my line of work change management is a big deal, and I see enough of the resisitance to any form of change to recognise what is a genuine problem, and what is resistance to something different and unknown.
As you are a former NZLP supporter I’m surprised you’d go for the intellectual snobbery line. What the right has done is to make being smart something to be denigrated, what you put forward is the most classic example – classic divisive and hate-filled tactics.
Now, a career in academia is seen as something not in the ‘real world’, and probably means you’re leeching off tax payers. (on a different note, how often have I seen a Nat supporter bitch about our lack of R & D? Think about it.)
On top of it all, if you’re smart, you probably think you’re better than everyone else, and spend a lot of time sneering and jeering the plebs.
That someone could have reasonable left-wing beliefs and fall for that hate-filled rage at alterity makes me disbelieve your former NZLP support, MB.
You may have voted for them, but to believe that I don’t think you ever supported tham.
Well, Matthew, you and several of your fellow posters have evidently come to the conclusion that I’m lying, or an idiot, or spinning a classic right-wing divisive meme of some kind. And there is no trick too low. I’ll even pretend that I ‘used to support Labour’, it appears. Just to support my arguments, because being correct at all costs is sooo important isn’t it? So much for being honest, and for intellectual rigour. I may have a massive ego, but it doesn’t extend to begging anyone to please believe me, and it appears that regardless of how consistent I have been, there is always another objection to raise rather than face the simple basic point I have striven to illustrate. That Labour is ethically and morally bankrupt, and you refuse to accept it.. Like I said. It’s a free blogosphere. If the best you can come up with is that I am suffering from some form of ingrained resistance to progress, and by implication that makes your positions appear all the more laudable, because somehow they represent progress, then so be it. I’m not here to rain on your parade, merely to invite you to question truths that you seem to hold as self-evident. If the process makes you uncomfortable then that is a good thing. as stated by your own standards.
ps ‘alterity’ !!
monkey-boy
If you were a Labour supporter you wouldn’t say these horrible things…. Labour good – National bad. There are only two choices because all other nasty parties are now supporters of National. We know they are supporters of national because they didn’t back Labour in their self serving interest to protect the poodle. The nasty National supporter parties should have accepted Labour’s grand vision of power at any price and if you liked corruption you would support Winston as well.
Sorry but it’s re-education camp for you!
Monkey-boy, if you try to blame me for comments other people have put forward yo’re not going to do much for your attempt to prove you’ve an open mind!
Nor if you state point blank that you’re right, everyone else is wrong, and people who don’t agree with you are blind to the truth.
Seems you, more than anyone else here, is so set in their ways that a debate is worth little.
“That Labour is ethically and morally bankrupt, and you refuse to accept it.. Like I said. It’s a free blogosphere.”
It’s a free blogosphere…you refuse to accept it. how is it free if I’m doing something wrong by refusing to accept your proclamations? Refusing to accept something means it must be the absolute truth. You need to rethink your position, or your manner of expressing it…
“I’m not here to rain on your parade, merely to invite you to question truths that you seem to hold as self-evident. If the process makes you uncomfortable then that is a good thing. as stated by your own standards.”
By all means. I welcome it. Some other commentators have been able to do so with varying levels of sucess. What I find utterly useless, and thoroughly incompelling are statements such as “bunch of chinless hypocrites and over-educated buffoons”, “rewriting the constitution to keep a power-hungry oligarchy in its high salaries and other associated perks” and “Labour is ethically and morally bankrupt”.
What do they prove? 5/8 of fuck all. If you state that, and get haughty because I dare disagree, what do you hope to achieve? I’d hardly call it a useful method of making me challenge truths. It’s not uncomfortable either, if that’s all you can do.
It’s more akin to saying “Your team sucks”. “No, your team sucks, and they’re gay”. Equally compelling arguments.
Burt, we’re trying to have a rational discussion. If the best you can do is crawl out of the sand-pit for another tiresome repetition of the Burt Special, “Labour good, National Bad”, then I’d ask you don’t bother. Of course you’re free to do so, but it’s bordering on pathetic.
Nice post SP. Perfectly summing up the attitude of the trendy lefty intellectual to the kind of blokes that actually built this country.
Yer not fit to clean Bob’s boots.
What the right has done is to make being smart something to be denigrated, what you put forward is the most classic example – classic divisive and hate-filled tactics
Now, a career in academia is seen as something not in the ‘real world’, and probably means you’re leeching off tax payers.
Funny thing is, the left spends an awful lot of time making out that a career in international finance is not in the ‘real world’ and probably leeching of innocent investors.
Phil – I’ve never seen it be said it’s not a ‘real job’ nor not in the ‘real world’, just pointing out the downsides of such jobs. As the current economic climate helps illustrate…
Rakaia George – perfectly summing up the backward attitude that started the ‘tall poppy syndrome’ and made being good at something a sin. You’re not fit judge what anyone else is fit to do, nor claim the attitude of ‘those who actually built this country’. Bit of a liberal tradition that must have slipped your mind. Great to see that in your eyes, build a staduim and you can be as racist as you want. Keep it up.
monkey-boy
September 25, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Last one today – ”
Oh well, my hopes weren’t high.
Felix – ho! But wait there’s more – check it out:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=476
rOb,
Please don’t call Felix a ho.
I remember this: According to the wonderful TheyWorkForYou website these five quotes have been Bob Clarkson’s scintillating and sum contribution to parliamentary debate since 21 August:
(17 Oct 2007) Interjection : “Bureaucratic!’
(10 Oct 2007) Interjection : “Tell us the end of the story.’
(19 Sep 2007) Interjection : “Force?’
(22 Aug 2007) Interjection : “A bit like the Labour Government.’
(21 Aug 2007) Interjection : “Yes, I did, actually.’
That’s 19 words in 21 sitting days – less than one word a day. And for that, we pay him $110,000 / year?
Rakaia George – Go clean clarkson’s boots, I mean italian loafers.
I hear the mouths close this year I may go for a fish.
ok r0b you got me – say farewell to another bigoted old idiot.
Excellent. Won’t be missing that dickhead. He bought nothing to politics besides bigotry and those interjections which I’m apalled we spent $110,000 a year on. Seriously, for that kind of money we could replace Clarkson with a fully serviced water cooler which would not only contribute more but be a fuckload cheaper!
QtR,
I bet we could find a lot of MP’s with the same scintillating record of 6 interjections in 21 days.
The vast majority of the work they do happens outside of the debating chamber. MP’s aren’t like the Stig…
On second thought, a lot of people might view an MP doing and saying nothing to be an awful lot better than any alternative…
Why people voted for that idiot is beyond me?
Brett Dale
The answer is obvious – because he isn’t Winston Peters.
Another reason to vote for him? He was and still is a successful businessman, with real world experience. And he wasn’t Winston Peters. A shame that the rest of NZ voted Peters back in.
Bob is certainly rough around the edges and cut from a different cloth but that cloth provided the smarts and drive to build a self made $50+ million fortune, and in turn will have made a lot of money for 1,000s of other New Zealanders.
The same can not be said for most people.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4706659a6160.html
“Rough around the edges”?
He is a f*cking moron. Tauranga must cringe in embarassment every time he speaks. That “straight talker” argument is roughly the same thing as “the case for Bush”. He talks simply because he is SIMPLE, not because he can see through all the subtlety and nuance and get to the heart of an issue.
Homosexuality is “like picking your nose in public”, and anyone wearing a burqua should go back to “Islam or Iraq”. That’s good old Bob the Bewilderer’s level of contribution.
And NO HE WOULN’T BE THE KIND OF GUY YOU CAN HAVE A BEER WITH.
You do not need “smarts” to build a self made 50mil fortune, as Clarkson more than adequately demonstrates. Who else do we know that might fall into that category… driven but not very bright… hmmmmm, think think think…
How does a “simple” person become a millionaire?
It just doesn’t work that way.