Filth

82 comments on “Filth ”

• Comments are now closed

1. IrishBill 1

   22 February 2008 at 3:17 pm

   And before any of you little pricks start I should warn you that my tolerance for your filth on this blog is now zero.
2. outofbed 2

   22 February 2008 at 3:23 pm

   bill the 2nd link doesn’t work
3. Tane 3

   22 February 2008 at 3:26 pm

   They seem to have taken the link down. I’ll remove it.
4. mike 4

   22 February 2008 at 3:35 pm

   This sort of stuff was always just directed at the right by the left leaning media. Now things have evened up a tad and you don’t like it eh..

   IrishBill says: give me one example, Mike. Just one.
5. The Double Standard 5

   22 February 2008 at 3:38 pm

   Is that why Mickey has been so tame lately?

   It would be nice to see some zero-tolerance control of his filth.
6. Steve Pierson 6

   22 February 2008 at 3:39 pm

   Racism, sexism, homophobia, these are the calling cards of the Kiwiblog Right
7. James Kearney 7

   22 February 2008 at 3:40 pm

   You are obsessed with Robinsod aren’t you TDS? Is it because he kicks your Research Unit arse every time you show up here?
8. infused 8

   22 February 2008 at 3:43 pm

   Funny shit coming from you guys. Also the censorship here now is amazing.
9. James Kearney 9

   22 February 2008 at 3:46 pm

   Funny shit coming from you guys. Also the censorship here now is amazing.

   It’s funny- that’s the exact same line they’re running at Kiwiblog. Only no one can find anything that’s even remotely like the filth you see on the Kiwiblog Right. Even our resident attack troll TDS had to dig through the whole history of the site to find a handful of slightly rude comments (no posts though).

   You guys have a problem. You need to take a good hard look at yourselves and deal with it.
10. dave 10

    22 February 2008 at 3:47 pm

    [Tane: You’re banned for a week Dave for engaging in precisely the kind of behaviour outlined in this post. It’s a pity, because you do make good constructive points sometimes. But we’re not going to let this site get bogged down by sexist filth.]
11. Santi 11

    22 February 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Do you expect cartoonists to be Helen’s lapdogs or toe the line imposed by Labour? That’s a bit harsh, but expected given your support of the censorious EFA.

    Bloody good cartoon, by the way.
12. Robinsod 12

    22 February 2008 at 3:51 pm

    No Santi – I’d expect them to actually be funny.
13. Robinsod 13

    22 February 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Oh and while we’re pointing this sort of stuff out. I’m sure you would all like to know that is is KG ([name deleted]) of the crusader rabbit blog that is behind the consulship sale on trademe that Farrar and Whale are so excited about. I note he’s also constantly calling for a war on Islam as well as a whole lot of other bigoted and misogynistic stuff. I’m starting to think there’s only a half a dozen of these righties and their entire lives are spent promulgating their filth.
14. The Double Standard 14

    22 February 2008 at 4:07 pm

    Racism, sexism, homophobia, these are the calling cards of the Kiwiblog Right

    OK. And suggesting that people blow goats is the calling card of Teh Standard Left?

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1103#comment-18128

    And I must say that for such non-sexist place here, you seem to be lacking in a female presence in both authors and commentors. Why do you suppose that might be

    (At least I don’t think any of the authors here are female)
15. Tane 15

    22 February 2008 at 4:12 pm

    And once again TDS trots out a link to one example of a commenter crossing the line. He also conveniently ignores the one underneath it, where I ask the commenter in question to tone it down.

    This is blatant trolling TDS. I can’t figure out why you’re here – it’s certainly not to contribute or to debate in a reasonable manner. All you do these days is post off-topic links or repeat the same smears that have been discussed and disproven already. You’re on very thin ice.

    Oh, and we have several female authors, but they don’t advertise the fact because they know how they’d be treated by the Kiwiblog Right.
16. The Double Standard 16

    22 February 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Tane – I can see that you don’t like having your site’s hypocrisy pointed out.

    But hey – its your site. Ban me if it makes you feel better.

    [Tane: There is no hypocrisy, you’ve had your chance to run this line several times. You’re just trying to smear and disrupt. You are not banned but your comments are now in moderation.]
17. ghostwhowalks 17

    22 February 2008 at 4:22 pm

    So Im a “letter writer to herald” according to Whaley
    That is so funny. I wouldnt write to the Herald if my life depended on it.
    Its pain but KB is mostly it. But I seen to be a not banned but not able to post comments either.
    Just to test the the old whales stalking instincts Im actually a civil engineer
18. The Double Standard 18

    22 February 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Tane – Remember when you posted this:

    “Just today I found several of my comments deleted for supposedly being “off topic’, even in cases when I was directly responding to questions or accusations from other commenters.’

    ..

    “Now David Farrar owns his blog and he’s free to do what he likes with it. But if it is just a home for National Party lines where dissent and contradiction aren’t welcome then he needs to make that clear.’

    Anyway, speaking of filth, I have a car to clean.

    Have a good Friday night all. I hear that alcohol can be relaxing.

    Cap: Studd dancing – watch out for Robbo!

    [Tane: Yes, and at the time Farrar was banning people for dissenting. We don’t, in fact we encourage debate – it’s what makes a blog interesting. We will not, however, tolerate persistent disruption and trolling. That’s destructive and no fun for anyone. Enjoy your Friday night TDS.]
19. Marknz 19

    22 February 2008 at 4:45 pm

    And you don’t troll Farrar’s site Tane?
20. Hoolian 20

    22 February 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Ooh no, the Standard authors are using big words like filth and sexism. Someone must have donated them a dictionary and not a very good one at that.

    Since when is linking Clark with Castro sexist? Its not. It’s comparing the two insidious Socialist leaders, and very accurately it appears.

    This is not to say that sexism (and racism/homophobia etc) does not exist but whenever they are used in a Standard.org.nz context it reeks more of closing down free speech than it does of protecting civil liberties. I mean, seriously, Standard, your childish rambles of so-called decorum are pathetic. Its so easy to use sexism as a way of shutting people up yes, even when it has absolutely no relevance to the said comment and the Standard should advertise for night classes to teach its little ideological groupies the same tricks. Oh, what fun that would be.

    And I love the use of the term “Kiwiblog right” – it cracks me up. Its A, assuming that everyone who is right wing on Kiwiblog agrees with Farrar (which is plainly not true) and B, it places all the hatred, disgust and fear that the Left have for any opinion other than their own and slams it all together. So much easier than addressing the concerns of the opposition why not just close them down?

    But you’re all so intelligent and well-informed. I’m sure all of you could sit around and discuss politics with other people without resorting to lame-arsed outbursts where there is more spittle than sense. Well, perhaps not quite yet. Maybe when you’ve all left university and entered the real world.

    So is the Labour Party still funding the Standard? What’s that stink? Oh, it’s the Standards self-perpetuating sense of dignity. Yuck.
21. Inventory2 21

    22 February 2008 at 5:10 pm

    So you guys ban pretty much any dissent now, but you blithely allow Robinsod to post after post accuse IP of being a “pig-f*cker”. Where was your high horse then? Lighten up guys!
22. Steve Pierson 22

    22 February 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Hoolian. Kiwiblog Right refers to a particular brand of nasty rightwingers that frequent Farrar’s blog, attracted their by his regular dog-whistling.

    These are the Dad4Justice’s, the Redbaiters, the Michele Cablings, etc, etc, who continually spout racist, sexist, homophobic and other disgusting remarks.

    we’ve banned them here because they destroy the chance for intelligent debate, they inevitably insult and offend other commentators, who respond in kind, until a comment thread becomes nothing more than ‘fuck you’, ‘no, fuck you’.

    Farrar encourages them and their behaviour because it results in long (albeit it empty) comment threads.
23. Steve Pierson 23

    22 February 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Inv2. There’s a fine line to be walked on moderation but like I say above, we don’t want our comment threads to be like Farrar’s.

    ‘sod has been warned on his behaviour. Unlike others, he has modified it, his language is more restrained. But its not the swearing that’s ever a problem with any commentator – its the digusting racism, sexism, and homophobia, amongst other nasty prejudices that are expressed by the Kiwiblog Right that we don’t want on the Standard.

    Take Michele for example, she hardly ever swore but hardly a comment went by without her making a disgusting remark about gays or lesbians. That’s not on in decent conversation and we won’t have it on our blog. We warned her about it for weeks, we started removing the disgusting remarks and leaving the rest but eventually even that wasn’t enough.

    As for the Pig Fucker thing: as you know, its the correct term for a type of political argument, he’s not actually accusing anyone of bestiality.
24. r0b 24

    22 February 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Hoolian, Iv2, TDS. What a team. All trying to deny a fact that’s pretty obvious to anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes reading political blogs.

    Right leaning blogs are prone to sexism, homophobia, vile language, and threats of violence. The term “Kiwiblog right” is well coined.

    Left leaning blogs can suffer from the same diseases, but in general not nearly to the same extent. Attack trolls have to scratch around to find a few examples in this blog’s history.

    The game is up people. Even the media have noticed what is obvious to all: “…you get the feeling that if the blogosphere was an ecosystem, the far-Right bloggers would be bottom feeders.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4402999a13135.html
25. toms 25

    22 February 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Whenever I see the Mr. Farrar and the rest of the Kiwiblog right indulging their powerful misogyny and objectification of women I always think of this bit of dialogue from the 1988 movie “Mississippi Burning”:

    Where does it come from, all this hatred? You know, when I was a little boy there was an old Negro farmer lived
    down the road from us, name of Monroe. And he was… Well, I guess he was just a little luckier than my daddy was.He bought himself a mule. That was a big deal around that town. My daddy hated that mule. His friends kidded him that they saw Monroe ploughin’ with his new mule and Monroe was gonna rent another field now that he had a mule.

    One morning that mule just showed up dead. They poisoned the water. After that there was never any mention about that mule around my daddy… One time we were drivin’ past Monroe’s place and we saw it was empty. He’d just packed up and left, I guess. Gone up North or somethin’. I looked over at my daddy’s face and I knew he’d done it… …He looked at me and he said “If you ain’t better than a nigger,son, who are you better than?”
26. illuminatedtiger 26

    22 February 2008 at 5:32 pm

    If the kind of stuff Cameron posted went mainstream National would lose swing voters.
27. Pacman 27

    22 February 2008 at 5:38 pm

    I did not see it as sexist or filth. Put it in context – Fidel Castro is finally out of power that he had been desparately clinging to for too long. This opens an opportunity for change.

    The cartoonist links HC as someone who has Castro’s traits – clinging to power, reputation for controlling rule, will not be ousted…

    Where is the sexism?
28. Barnsley Bill 28

    22 February 2008 at 5:48 pm

    I think you guys are missing the point with regard to the cartoon.
    In Helen Clark we have had the first political science graduate to ever become PM in NZ. And it has shown up in her slick handling of her party, the media and by definition the opinions of the NZ public. Until the 2005 election she was peerless. The media called her teflon and she was.
    Although I disagree with her on almost everything she has done in the 19 years I have lived in NZ I cannot offer anything but praise for the way she has managed.
    This ended after 2005 and we have seen a slow decline in her powers. The fumbling and stumbling by herself and those around her has got steadily worse.
    This cartoon to me was trying to compare the tiredness of two leaders, showing it is time to go.
    The pathetic sight of her skulking around trying to avoid being in Camera shot with a man who saved her party and has donated an enormous sum so her husband can have a nice view from his office window IS A NEW LOW. Similar to the Waitangi skulking we now have somebody who seems to be descending into paranoia as her last term winds down.
29. r0b 29

    22 February 2008 at 5:53 pm

    The cartoonist links HC as someone who has Castro’s traits – clinging to power, reputation for controlling rule, will not be ousted

    “Clinging to power” – what does that even mean Pacman? HC is Prime Minister in a government that is serving a three year term. At the end of the year there will be an election. How is that clinging to anything exactly? “Clinging to power” is just another mindless catch phrase.

    Where is the sexism?

    HC has been attacked in the most vile terms possible by the Kiwiblog Right, as ugly, a lesbian, masculine, childless, and all the rest. This cartoon directly dog-whistles all of that sexism. If you can’t see it Pacman, you’re part of the problem.
30. Dan 30

    22 February 2008 at 5:55 pm

    The sadness of all the right wing diatribe against Clark is that they do not know the lady. She is a charmer, an intellect with the common touch. I have seen her work a room of Tory-leaning middle of the road NZers and they have come away completely won over. She does not suffer fools however, which I guess some on the right may get defensive about.
    The best thing Mike Williams and the election planners can do is get Clark to meet as many as possible over the next months. I am confident that once the Emperor’s new clothes show Key to be the hollow-man he is, then Clark is going win her fourth, well deserved term in office. When so much has been made of the courage tied up in our war medals just returned, historians will look on the Clark years as cautious but pragmatic, centrist rather than left-wing and overall courageous in fighting the neocon lobbyists and the boys’ club.
31. Santi 31

    22 February 2008 at 6:00 pm

    “their powerful misogyny and objectification of women..”

    What a load of crap! If you’re a feminist say so, but spare me the pain of reading ridiculous lines like those above.

    Are you Germaine Greer in drag maybe?

    IrishBill says: If I was going to be a feminist in “drag” I reckon I’d be Andrea Dworkin.
32. Whaleoil 32

    22 February 2008 at 6:09 pm

    The “fat, lazy, pommy, leftist slag’, will be publishing an apology toorrow to JB and SF in the same column she slagged them off in. I’m told that the settlement includes that they publish the apology online.

    Bet you don’t link to it.

    Oh and Robinsod, if you are going to go trying to name people and the lister of the auction perhaps you should learn to drive Trademe a little better so you don’t make a…..oh wait..too late.
33. MikeE 33

    22 February 2008 at 6:12 pm

    You guys need to learn to Tardme. If you clicked on the user profile you’d know who it was that set up the Auction.

    Growing a sense of humour might help to.
34. toms 34

    22 February 2008 at 6:20 pm

    MikeE, Whaleoil and Santi – the holy trinity of people who would have hated a nigger for owning a mule.

    [lprent: That comment is well over the edge. I won’t delete it as it has been referenced elsewhere. You just hit the edge of my tolerance. Not bad considering it is the first time I have seen you – moderation.]
35. r0b 35

    22 February 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Santi and Whale, folks. The Kiwiblog Right in their own words.
36. Ruth 36

    22 February 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Robinsod: I’m sure you would all like to know that is is KG ([name deleted]) of the crusader rabbit blog that is behind the consulship sale on trademe that Farrar and Whale are so excited about. I note he’s also constantly calling for a war on Islam as well as a whole lot of other bigoted and misogynistic stuff. I’m starting to think there’s only a half a dozen of these righties and their entire lives are spent promulgating their filth.

    I complained to google about his hate site last year, when he actually called for the murder of ‘lefties’ and political opponents.

    I would dearly love for him to be held accountable for his hate speech. Anything I can do, feel free to contact me.
37. r0b 37

    22 February 2008 at 6:22 pm

    You guys need to learn to Tardme

    I don’t usually do spelling pings, but that one was cute. I think the job is done already!
38. Ex Labour Voter 38

    22 February 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Is this really all you pinkos have got? Banning people right, right, and slightly to the right of centre, while allowing people who suggest gang-banging other commenters’ wives to remain?

    This post is ridiculous. That’s like saying the Labour Party hates Maoris and Islanders because they booted out John Tamihere and Phillip Field.
39. Ex Labour Voter 39

    22 February 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Oh, and Bill, do you think you could pop into the next room and ask Andrew when he’s going to make a bid for the Labour leadership? That would be a great story, now that Helen’s premiership is falling down around her ears.
40. r0b 40

    22 February 2008 at 6:26 pm

    ELV / Prophet, see above

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1205#comment-19775
41. Whaleoil 41

    22 February 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Labour doesn’t hate Maori, they just think they have no meaning.
    Culen intoned sagely in the house the following;

    “…what one might call, indigenous peoples—a term, of course, that has no meaning…”

    That is an appalling statement to make, especially from a party with such a long heritage of working with Maori.

    Oh and TomS you sanctimonious twit, I am NOT a racist. That would be a little hard coming from a family as diverse as mine where I was born in Fiji, married a Lebanese, my brother married a Filipina, my sister married a Rarotongan.
42. r0b 42

    22 February 2008 at 6:36 pm

    Whale you pathetic little man. Cullen’s full quote is: “what one might call, indigenous peoples—a term, of course, that has no meaning in a country, say, like the United Kingdom.”

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QOA/f/0/f/48HansQ_20080221_00000681-11-Terrorism-Suppression-Act-Government.htm

    Folks, this is the typical debating tactics of the Kiwiblog Right.
43. Barnsley Bill 43

    22 February 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Much like the big beat up you lot tried to make out of john key being misquoted in kerikeri. At a meeting that I and many others attended. There was much debate at the golf club today (not much play, pissing down up here) about the numpty from the bay report who got it so completely wrong.
    And Cullens comments are bizarre in the extreme. Can white people not be indigenous?
    He is, I am and many millions of other white people who hail from Britain are indigenous english, scots or welsh.
44. Ex Labour Voter 44

    22 February 2008 at 6:44 pm

    And r0b, if the Standard were ever notable enough to have an expression named after it–which it won’t be–then toms would be typical of the Standard Left.

    Gotta love this: “MikeE, Whaleoil and Santi – the holy trinity of people who would have hated a nigger for owning a mule.”

    That is one of the most vile, filthy things I’ve read on this site. The Standard is up in arms because a cartoonist compared Helen Clark to Fidel Castro. Yet Toms gets away, in the very same post, with such disgraceful racism.

    Of course, such vile behaviour is perfectly acceptable if it’s from one of the Standard’s friends. In Tane’s mind, Toms isn’t a troll. He’s expressing a valid opinion. When nih and Robinsod advocate gang-banging another commenter’s wife, Tane says their behaviour is acceptable.

    How many people have you guys banned so far? None of them have been pinkos, right?

    [lprent: I’m unhappy about that comment as well. I’ve put toms into moderation.]
45. oldhippy 45

    22 February 2008 at 7:06 pm

    HC has been attacked in the most vile terms possible by the Kiwiblog Right, as ugly, a lesbian, masculine, childless, and all the rest. This cartoon directly dog-whistles all of that sexism.

    What a load of old nonsense. It’s a caricature of Clark as Castro, nothing more. Sometimes a cigar etc. Cartoonists, bless ’em, are not required to make their subject as pretty as possible. You guys (and I use that term in a gender-inclusive way) are trying so hard to be right-on you’ve lost all sense of perspective. Save your outrage for something that matters.
46. outofbed 46

    22 February 2008 at 7:28 pm

    HC has been attacked in the most vile terms possible by the Kiwiblog Right, as ugly, a lesbian, masculine, childless, and all the rest

    What part of that statement is nonsense? she has been attacked using all those terms by the kiwiblog right
    I for one am outraged and so should any decent person
47. r0b 47

    22 February 2008 at 6:52 pm

    That is one of the most vile, filthy things I’ve read on this site.

    Oh ELV, I do love it when you do faux outrage.

    Once more from the mainstream media: ” you get the feeling that if the blogosphere was an ecosystem, the far-Right bloggers would be bottom feeders.’

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4402999a13135.html
48. r0b 48

    22 February 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Save your outrage for something that matters.

    That’s not bad advice oldhippy. So what outrages you these days?
49. dave 49

    22 February 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Is this really all you pinkos have got? Banning people right, right, and slightly to the right of centre, while allowing people who suggest gang-banging other commenters’ wives to remain?
    Hey, Im banned – I’m slightly to the left of centre…..
    [lprent: yes you are banned. Moderation – you can e-mail me if you want access.]
50. Gone By 2009 50

    22 February 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Fuck you guys [deleted].

    [lprent: goodbye dave]
51. lemsip 51

    22 February 2008 at 11:08 pm

    Emerson has leaned to the left but this cartoon is not sexiest. Poor form Irishbill.
52. lemsip 52

    22 February 2008 at 11:09 pm

    I can’t tell my left from my right tonight. Left=right.
53. Dean 53

    22 February 2008 at 11:10 pm

    Well, Irish, I’m lead to believe (and it could be quite incorrect but I seem to recall it caused quite a stir) that you called Craig an “Uncle Tom”.

    If it’s true then I don’t think your horse is all that high now, is it?
54. Dean 54

    22 February 2008 at 11:13 pm

    “Whale you pathetic little man.”

    I don’t think a truer word has been spoken in a long time. It amazes me he thought he’d actually get away without the full quote being known by other people.

    Whaleoil, you seriously need a dose of reality.
55. Rich Prick 55

    22 February 2008 at 11:17 pm

    The “organ” of Labour, banning dissenters and deleting comments so the rest of us don’t get the chance to form our own views on their comments, how very EFA.

    IrishBill says: I’ve seen Robinsod’s analysis of you RP (despite his invective he’s very good at tracking and keeps very thorough records) and I have to agree that you are PDQ. Given that I would suggest that the fact you have threatened to suffocate other posters pretty much discounts your moral high ground.
56. lprent 56

    22 February 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Sorry about the inadvertent moderation, Dean. Hopefully I’ll get that fixed this weekend.
57. lprent 57

    22 February 2008 at 11:24 pm

    RP: dave was asked nicely to take time off. Now he has little choice.

    You disapprove of a sysop controlling his site? Seems to violate your concepts of property.

    dave or whatever his alias now, spread 4 comments over as many posts in a couple of minutes. Would you describe that as anything other than trolling?
58. dave 58

    22 February 2008 at 11:39 pm

    IPrent

    this is my last comment. For the record I am not posting under any other name, I have no other alias nor do I spread 4 comments over this site in a matter of minutes. I am not “gone by 2009”, neither do I post bad language on your site.

    See you after my weeks ban.

    [lprent: my apologies if it wasn’t you.
    You will understand my suspicions when I tell you that it was 1 digit different at the B level IP address from your previous comments.
    In any case, whoever it was, it was trolling – 4 comments in 4 posts with a classic attack profile (not bad language).
    I’ll see you in a week.]
59. Rich Prick 59

    22 February 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Yes, you have a valid point, it is your cess pit afterall, let or bar whom ever you choose to deposit their burst their nappies here, its your choice. The rest of us will judge this “organ” of the Labour Party by the censorship that happens, or moreover, that which does not happen – and I think you know which rabid offensive unionist to which I refer.

    IrishBill says: I would suggest that the fact you have threatened to suffocate other posters (see earlier comment) pretty much discounts your moral high ground.
60. lprent 60

    23 February 2008 at 12:24 am

    RP: Just to clarify…

    Yes, but as a political blog, debate and dissent is encouraged. That sometimes looks a cesspool (even to me). Provided it doesn’t deteriorate to a flame war, I don’t constrain it. Heated exchanges are ok, provided they don’t get out of hand.

    I mainly look at behavior, mainly trolling behavior, but also people violating time off bans. I also get concerned when I see attacks on people who are not participants or in public life (ie civilians).

    If I see a comment (or post) that I feel is past the bounds, then I’ll take what I consider is the appropriate recourse. My solutions are usually a bit more draconian than the moderators.

    The moderators are given considerable latitude, and I will back their decisions. Challenging those decisions is subject to discourse between the moderators themselves. Comments on their decisions are accepted on the site, but not challenges.

    Personally, my wish is not to get involved. But I will, if it is required. As the bean or the sprout has previously noted, I lack the sense of humor required to participate.

    Lynn
61. Santi 61

    23 February 2008 at 6:01 am

    “Santi and Whale, folks. The Kiwiblog Right in their own words.”

    Not for long at the pace lprent is working banning people left, right and centre, although his last comment gives some cause for hope.

    Kiwiblog right? Your label, not mine. I couldn’t care less about kiwiblog.

    The fact is some lefties here are so PC that cannot neither tolerate nor accept comments beyond their limited grasp.

    Personally, I don’t give a toss and am proud to be politically incorrect. Will continue calling it as I see it.
62. Inventory2 62

    23 February 2008 at 7:28 am

    Roy Morgan anyone?

    http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4272/
63. lemsip 63

    23 February 2008 at 7:52 am

    Fairfax Media-Nielsen anyone?

    http://stuff.co.nz/4411820a10.html
64. Billy 64

    23 February 2008 at 8:01 am

    The cartoon can only be considered offensive if one considers Castro to be a monster. Tane’s recent comment that his legacy was “mixed” (“he will be remembered by the poor for providing them with education, health and a level of dignity they could not have otherwise expected..”) tends to suggest that he, at least, doesn’t think Castro’s all bad.

    The cartoon’s not that funny, but I would have thought it offensive only to the highly easily offended.

    Comparing Margaret Wilson to the Wicked Witch of the West is hardly more offensive than calling someone, I don’t know, a chinless scarf wearer. Or a “little prick”. http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1205#comment-19732
65. Billy 65

    23 February 2008 at 8:02 am

    How come I’m in moderation?

    [I’m not sure Billy, may be the D4J moderation trap. I’ll ask the others.]
66. Billy 66

    23 February 2008 at 8:39 am

    Never been caught in it before.
67. Inventory2 67

    23 February 2008 at 9:18 am

    Two rogue polls in the space of 24 hours……hmmmmmmmm

    PS Captcha = incumbent injured – more like motalyy wounded I would have thought – have a nice day (-:
68. Inventory2 68

    23 February 2008 at 9:26 am

    Whoops – should read “mortally wounded” – fingers haven’t caught up with brain yet – caffeine fix needed!!
69. Billy 69

    23 February 2008 at 9:43 am

    Interesting, isn’t it R0b. This flocking to National can really only be anti-Labour, rather than pro-National. To my eyes, Key has looked pretty ineffectual, yet Labour continues to sink like a stone.

    I think people have been turned off by the style stuff. The arrogant Muldoon-like way Clark talks to people. Cullen’s smarmy smugness. Trev. DPB. TPF.
70. toms 70

    23 February 2008 at 10:04 am

    *Sigh* Some people clearly struggle with the idea of a parable. To explain, I trying to say that the hatred for Helen Clark is from the same well spring of inferiority as the hatred of the black man who owned the mule – change negro for women and a mule for success and I’ll paraphrase:

    “If you ain’t better than a woman, son, who are you better than?’
71. Inventory2 71

    23 February 2008 at 10:31 am

    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
72. r0b 72

    23 February 2008 at 9:35 am

    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.
73. Santi 73

    23 February 2008 at 11:06 am

    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.
74. r0b 74

    23 February 2008 at 10:37 am

    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.
75. Ray 75

    23 February 2008 at 12:12 pm

    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
76. AncientGeek 76

    23 February 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Ray:

    Toms, who on another blog cliams to be a Labour Party worker…

    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.
77. Ray 77

    23 February 2008 at 5:32 pm

    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
78. Ag 78

    24 February 2008 at 8:35 am

    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.
79. John 79

    24 February 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Well siad Ag. Suspect Fidel won’t be outraged must longer as he hasn’t got much time left
80. the sprout 80

    24 February 2008 at 9:16 pm

    that cartoon is impressively low, even by the Herald’s ‘standards’ – and very Kiwiblog Right.
    perhaps tds is Tim Murphy?
81. Santi 81

    25 February 2008 at 4:04 am

    “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.
82. Matthew Pilott 82

    25 February 2008 at 10:14 am

    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?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS