Cameron Slater gets it wrong

21 comments on “Cameron Slater gets it wrong ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   10 June 2009 at 4:36 pm

   They won’t be able to stop you joining them due to who you voted for. Likely, it would be around any campaigns you support etc.
2. the sprout 2

   10 June 2009 at 4:37 pm

   nice one rocky. but don’t expect publishing the facts in plain english where anyone can see them will improve their, or the msm’s accuracy in the future!

   you have an interesting political history, one that would make you an asset to any good party.
3. mickysavage 3

   10 June 2009 at 4:40 pm

   Slater could benefit from professional help.

   He has denigrated a number of us on the basis that we are “left wing activists”. He does not seem to understand that it is actually a compliment to be called this!

   I wonder how it felt voting for Wirth. I appreciate that the desire to rid the country of the Act party can cause lefties to do unusual things but I would have to genuflect and say three hail Marys with my fingers crossed if I was ever in the position of voting National with my party or candidate vote.
   • felix 3.1

     10 June 2009 at 4:56 pm

     Yet if enough lefties in Epsom had done exactly this, Worth would never have been made a minister of the crown.

     Funny old world.
4. JK 4

   10 June 2009 at 4:41 pm

   I wouldn’t bother responding to that vile smear merchant. You only give him oxygen.
   • Ag 4.1

     10 June 2009 at 5:34 pm

     Being anaerobic, he doesn’t need it.
5. gobsmacked 5

   10 June 2009 at 4:53 pm

   I wouldn’t worry too much, Rochelle.

   I’m sure it’s very unpleasant to be the target of WhaleOil, who is NZ’s leading purveyor of sewer slime. But comfort yourself with this thought:

   The more the media use WhaleOil as their source (as they are no doubt doing again today), and the more he comes out into the open, as he did on Close-Up recently, then the more it will be understood that this really is the true face of the National Party. The links between Key, Banks, Slater & co have previously been well hidden. Now they are gradually being exposed.

   And if they think that’s what the NZ public want from their politics, they are making a serious mistake. So just relax, and let them make it.
6. Rich 6

   10 June 2009 at 5:00 pm

   Do National / ACT have strictures about being a member of one and voting for the other?

   Also, I think Wail Oyl would be an excellent candidate for the National party at a future election. If nothing else, he’ll make Ms Lee look competent.
7. Rex Widerstrom 7

   10 June 2009 at 5:01 pm

   There’s a curious Bush-like “those who are not with us are against us” outlook to NZ politics which in fact mimics the US where there are “Republican political consultants” and “Democrat political consultants” and ne’er the twain…

   It’s why people like Winston Peters couldn’t get his head round the fact I worked for him, then advised Labour, then advised Act… goodness knows what he’d have made of the fact that my first client in Australia was a union and the second was a right wing politician who had a reputation as a union-buster.

   I’m not implying rocky is quite such a political slut (though in my defence, it’s a part of how I make a living) but my philosophy is that I’ll give honest advice to anyone who’s open about their agenda.

   The more information with which voters are armed, the (hopefully) better the quality of the decisions they’ll be able to make.

   While I’d draw the line at people whose philosophies I found utterly abhorrent (and that includes a complete lack of any moral core, so no campaigning for Peter Dunne) I’ll work for anyone who’s up front with voters, and I’ll seek to work for someone I personally admire even if I don’t agree with all (or even many) of their policies because I feel we don’t have enough quality people representing us.

   rocky’s making a worthwhile contribution to democracy and the common weal. To see it as somehow sinister or remarkable simply because she’s not a card-carrying party appartchik is kind of… bizarre.

   [And if Labour does have such a rule, that’s bizarre and outdated, too, especially in the age of MMP].
8. stinkmeaner 8

   10 June 2009 at 5:15 pm

   Stinkmeaner is on his final warning on this site for being a creep.
9. Slick Rick 9

   10 June 2009 at 6:26 pm

   Friend sent this to me today. Haven’t laughed so hard in ages.

   http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whale%20Oil
   • Macro 9.1

     10 June 2009 at 10:02 pm

     Says it all really! quite appropriate too! Why would anyone choose that Handle??!!
10. infused 10

    10 June 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Who cares zzzz.
11. David Farrar 11

    10 June 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Nice to meet you tonight Rochelle.

    For teh record what I said at the time was “So Rochelle just last year was not just a member of Young Labour, but was elected onto its National Executive.”

    I never claimed you were still a member when you did the Google Bombing. I just pointed out your past and previous affiliations.
    • Pascal's bookie 11.1

      10 June 2009 at 9:41 pm

      Kind of like today then. When you asked your commenters not to actually name the complainant, on your blog, if they could identify her from the clues you gave them.

      Because that would be wrong, as she might be a victim.

      You’re all class, sometimes.
12. TC 12

    10 June 2009 at 10:13 pm

    It’s a pity the rest of your comrades don’t ‘fess up instead of hiding behind pseudonyms – they would gain more respect that way.
    • QoT 12.1

      10 June 2009 at 10:35 pm

      Maybe they’d “respect” your request if you weren’t hypocritically hiding behind a pseudonym yourself, old chap?

      Of course, I too am pseudonymous, but don’t really give a toss if other bloggers are. If their arguments are good enough, their identity is irrelevant.
    • felix 12.2

      10 June 2009 at 10:53 pm

      Bit sad that “TC” has neither a real name or an original thought.
13. millsy 13

    10 June 2009 at 11:28 pm

    As I said before. Mr Oil is a cheif reason why we need hate speech laws in this country.
14. Mondograss 14

    11 June 2009 at 12:27 pm

    It’s not against the Labour consistution to be a member of Labour and vote Greens. It’s against the constitution to be a member of both parties at the same time, or to be a member of Labour and actively campaign against Labour.

Links to post

1. Bryan Spondre: posted on 10 June 2009 at 4:55 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS