Horse racing

70 comments on “Horse racing ”

• Comments are now closed

1. George Darroch 1

   27 October 2008 at 10:43 pm

   The next few days have to be about the kinds of policies New Zealanders want – positive visions.

   I talked to my dear Gran this week, and she likes the gold card she has, and feels like Labour wouldn’t have given it without NZF. She doesn’t like the right, but Labour haven’t enunciated a clear enough vision of the things she wants, and she’s too conservative for the Greens and some of Labour’s liberal policies are uncomfortable for her. She hasn’t made up her mind.

   If Labour present a clear enough picture of the NZ they’re building in the next few days, they’ll get her vote. If not, we might be damned to another three years of purgatory.
2. Francois 2

   28 October 2008 at 7:31 am

   NZ First is left?

   I always cringe whenever anyone, especially from the left dignifies NZ First with the label. I think NZ First is just a radical populist party with strong xenophobic tendencies which survives largely due to Winston Peter’s charisma.
3. Steve Pierson 3

   28 October 2008 at 8:51 am

   No, I don’t think NZF is left but if they were to return to Parliament they would end up supporting a Labour-led govt.
4. Danny 4

   28 October 2008 at 9:01 am

   “if they were to return to Parliament they would end up supporting a Labour-led govt”

   I wouldn’t bet on that. It would require Key to stand by something he stated and Winston to not be populist, both highly unlikely.

   …also, remember ’96 …

   If NZF returns to Parliament they will give a National-led coalition confidence and supply (assuming National get the biggest chunk of any party). Winnie will cite the Greens and the Maoris bla bla bla, and Key will state how “NZ deserves a change of Govt, and he wasn’t gunna let petty politics usurp the ‘will of the people’ ” or some garbage like that.

   Rely on Winston at you peril. The guy is a joke.
5. Steve Pierson 5

   28 October 2008 at 9:18 am

   “Rely on Winston at you peril”

   exactly, as i say in the post, the Left can win without him and I’m not recommending tactical voting.
6. Janet 6

   28 October 2008 at 10:03 am

   George

   The Gold Card and the free public transport etc won’t last long under a right wing government.
7. Hoolian 7

   28 October 2008 at 10:10 am

   So even if Labour are not the largest party, they can return to office?

   A bit of deja vu really. We’ve returned to the days of FFP where it doesn’t matter if you actually win the most votes, its all down to what parties you can pile together

   What an outrage.

   If Labour wins the most votes, I’d respect NZ’s voice that put it that way and would never support National putting together a very frail looking government just so Key could remain PM. This is a travesty towards everything NZ stands for.

   But should we expect anything less?

   [learn the difference between plurality and majority – a majority can be said to be ‘NZ’s voice’, a plurality can not. Getting the most votes is not the same thing as getting the majority of votes. Only a government with majority support has the right to govern, whether or not it includes the largest party. SP]
8. burt 8

   28 October 2008 at 10:13 am

   Just out of interest, do you get a tax payer funded incentive to publish the poll results in horse race format?

   Is this one of the perks of supporting the dishonest minister of racing who did not declare donations from big business backers in his party returns?
9. r0b 9

   28 October 2008 at 10:29 am

   So even if Labour are not the largest party, they can return to office?

   Yes, it’s called MMP.

   A bit of deja vu really. We’ve returned to the days of FFP where it doesn’t matter if you actually win the most votes, its all down to what parties you can pile together

   It doesn’t matter which individual party no, it matters which grouping or coalition of parties. I know a lot of you righties are only just now coming to understand MMP, and it could be a bumpy ride, but ask your questions here, we’re here to help.

   Is this one of the perks of supporting the dishonest minister of racing who did not declare donations from big business backers in his party returns?

   So Burt, your own ACT party has just been found guilty of not declaring donations from big business backers in their party returns. Does this mean that you will no longer be supporting them?
10. Ianmac 10

    28 October 2008 at 10:50 am

    Hoolian: Do really believe that the party with the most votes automatically gets to govern or are you promoting the mischief of a poor loser? Parliament is a team “game”. The team that gets the most members in their team “wins.” If National cannot persuade enough to join their team so that they get a majority they lose to the team that does. Simple. That has been so since National was in power and created MMP in the 90’s.
11. Daveski 11

    28 October 2008 at 11:03 am

    As the resident racing expert here, I can tell you that tipsters are never 100% especially when backing their personal favourites.

    The race can be run many times before race day but the actual result can depend on multiple factors – the run of the race, track conditions, jockey’s tactics, conditioning etc.

    Chances are that the first past the post may not win the race … expect a siren and a stewards’ enquiry to sort out the winner!
12. roger nome 12

    28 October 2008 at 11:05 am

    burt – do you ever get sick of coming here to be shown up as an idiot by people who are smarter than you?
13. Matthew Pilott 13

    28 October 2008 at 11:10 am

    I wonder if I can make it simple enough for Hoolian.

    National, UF and ACT will work together. A vote for any of them is a vote for a National-led government.

    Labour, Greens and Progressives will work together. A vote for any of them is a vote for a Labour-led government.

    The MP is beholden to voters on the Maori roll (in theory). They will decide where the Maori party will go.

    Yet you are trying to say the only thing that matters is whether National or Labour get more votes than the other.

    Good luck with the 1987 election (although in saying that you clearly have no recollection nor understanding of FPP either).
14. burt 14

    28 October 2008 at 11:14 am

    rOb

    Will I stop supporting Rodney? In short “NO’ (printed on a sign and held up in defiance of all facts, logic and reason)

    You can call this a double standard if you like but it’s not. You see Rodney came clean about it. He didn’t accuse the media or making up lies, didn’t make outrageous claims about how he can clear all of this up in minutes etc. In short he did what any person who has made a mistake should do fess up and face it.

    I commented a few days ago that I was disappointed that the time limit for prosecutions is so short as to be honest I would have liked to have seen Rodney get charged over this along with all other MP’s who have broken the rules. I know I’m a bit crazy wanting accountability for this sort of thing – retrospective validation is much more expedient as we know.
15. yl 15

    28 October 2008 at 11:23 am

    Burt,

    that is a cop out.

    Rodney got caught and pulled up for doing the same thing Winnie did after spending 8 weeks having a go at Winnie. Promoting his party as ‘honest and transparent’ when he is just like all of the others.

    He may have admitted to it straight away but that doesn’t change the fact that is happened. Good on him for owning up quickly, but he is still a hypocrite.
16. r0b 16

    28 October 2008 at 11:29 am

    You can call this a double standard if you like but it’s not.

    Yes it is Burt. You are quite prepared to find any excuse to rationalise away ACTs dodgy behaviour, while joining in the crusade against Peters.

    ACT seem to be making a habit of this dodgy dealing. In 1996 they refused to supply a breakdown of their election expenses to the Electoral Commission. They were taken to court a number of times, ending on 11 June 1999 with the Court of Appeal Case CA149/98, where ACT were found to be in breach of their obligations (hat tip jaymam). What were they trying to hide Burt? Do you know? Do you care?
17. burt 17

    28 October 2008 at 11:40 am

    yl

    So if Rodney did the same thing Winston then either both are guilty or both are not ?

    One still has the support of the Labour-led govt so he can’t be guilty can he .

    The one who is not part of the Labour-led govt suddenly gets shouted about here on the standard and the other… well it’s OK because he’s keeping the corrupt govt together.

    Like I said – if one is guilty then both are – should we charge them both or let them both off because it’s not expedient to charge Winston?

    Was the law confusing and others were doing it as well so It’s OK (childish response as used by Labour in 2005/2006) or should they both be charged?

    I’d be happy to see Rodney charged over this, find one single link in the entire blog world where I support politicians being let of charges because it rocks the boat to charge them and I’ll take the cop-out comment on the chin, otherwise you owe me an apology because I don’t accept MP’s breaking the law as long as it’s MP I otherwise support unlike all you Labour-led govt supporters.

    rOb

    You still supporting Winston? Still trying to find examples where others have done similar things so you can say : Others did it too !
18. burt 18

    28 October 2008 at 11:45 am

    rOb

    Yes it is Burt. You are quite prepared to find any excuse to rationalise away ACTs dodgy behaviour, while joining in the crusade against Peters.

    I said I would have rather seen Rodney charged over this – please explain how that is finding an excuse. Might pay to keep the words short so roger nome can understand.
19. r0b 19

    28 October 2008 at 11:47 am

    Goodness Burt, slow down, pick one single line of spin and stick to it.

    find one single link in the entire blog world where I support politicians being let of charges because it rocks the boat to charge them

    Right here in this thread Burt. You are still supporting ACT despite their repeated dodgy behaviour. Despite all your wittering that they should be charged (knowing full well that they can’t be, as the legal limits have expired), you are personally letting them of charges by giving them your support.

    Oh and speaking of letting off charges – should Key be charged with misleading parliament over his Tranzrail holdings? If not, why not?
20. yl 20

    28 October 2008 at 11:47 am

    Burt,

    they are both guilty, they should both be held accountable. This 6 months ruling is rubbish.

    They both didn’t declare donations they both need to be held accountable.

    My point is that Rodney spent 8 weeks tearing into Winnie for something he was guilty of himself. He should have looked at his own party before having ago at anothers.

    This chip you have about him getting off because it is a labour led government is tiresome.
21. burt 21

    28 October 2008 at 11:52 am

    rOb

    Oh and speaking of letting off charges – should Key be charged with misleading parliament over his Tranzrail holdings? If not, why not?

    How many times rOb… All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….

    All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
22. yl 22

    28 October 2008 at 11:55 am

    Burt,

    that is unnecessary copy and pasting. You should try and make your point in a more concise way, after all, it is the sign of a good debater
23. Ari 23

    28 October 2008 at 11:59 am

    You know, isn’t it great that it now looks like we could possibly get another sensible government this term without Winston?
24. burt 24

    28 October 2008 at 12:08 pm

    yl

    rOb supports retrospective validation yet wants to see National held to account in ways he would not demand of Labour. I have been over this stuff again and again with him and he can’t understand that my position is not based on which party we are talking about. He deserved that cut-n-paste. Sorry if it bothered you.
25. yl 25

    28 October 2008 at 12:13 pm

    haha burt,

    it didn’t both me, it is just one more extra scroll of the mouse wheel.

    i wont ask you to catch me up on yours and Robs battle, but you could respond to mine and robs comments above.

    I just find it odd that you talk about not condoning MP’s breaking the law, yet you will still support Rodney (who broke the law) by way of your vote.
26. r0b 26

    28 October 2008 at 12:15 pm

    I just find it odd that you talk about not condoning MP’s breaking the law, yet you will still support Rodney (who broke the law) by way of your vote.

    I was away Burt, but there you go, yl has said it neatly there.

    Unless you’re prepared to withdraw your vote from Rodney, all your (repeated) talk about accountability is just that – (repeated) talk.
27. burt 27

    28 October 2008 at 12:26 pm

    yl/rOb

    It’s quite simple, I don’t think govt should be in the business of picking winners and losers in our economy. Targeted tax breaks & tax payer funded prize pools for the racing industry to help them out while F&P close down their manufacturing plant for example. If it’s good enough to rescue one industry then it’s good enough to rescue them all. ( Perhaps F&P should have made secret donations to Winston)

    When I hear about things like Winston/Rodney my first response is “what did they do will they be punished’. Now if Rodney voted in parliament to retrospectively validate his rent situation then he would certainly loose my vote. The fact he cannot be charged because of the time limit is something I cannot change, as much as I would like to but at least (so far) he has not been self serving enough to cover his deeds with an extremely unconstitutional misuse of parliamentary powers.
28. burt 28

    28 October 2008 at 12:28 pm

    rOb

    Can’t defend the indefensible rOb, I though you had already learned that.

    Do you think Winston will be charged or do you think the Police will say “not in the public interest”?
29. r0b 29

    28 October 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Now if Rodney voted in parliament to retrospectively validate his rent situation then he would certainly loose my vote.

    This is getting weaker and weaker Burt. So now the only misdeeds that count are the ones covered by retrospective validation? That would be none of them, since that validation applied to parliamentary services spending, not any of the parties.

    And anything else seems to be Ok with you. No matter how often Rodney and ACT break the rules you’re still going to condone it by voting for them. How can you Burt? What about your principles? Or are they all just talk?
30. burt 30

    28 October 2008 at 12:43 pm

    rOb

    Waht about my principles…. That is rich comming from you who misquotes Rodney to make it look like he is saying something really really bad when he was actualy describing the Labour party view point.

    Look, if he broke the law he should be charged – what part of that can you not understand ? I don’t give a toss what party is involved the rules are the rules – I wish you would see it the same way rather than project your partisan “anything goes if it’s my party” perspective onto me.
31. r0b 31

    28 October 2008 at 12:50 pm

    That is rich comming from you who misquotes Rodney

    Ahhh – what?

    Look, if he broke the law he should be charged – what part of that can you not understand ?

    The part where you’re still planning to vote for him. You hide behind “he should be charged” when you know full well that he can’t be. And then you condone his behaviour by voting for him. You are supporting a scoundrel Burt, and you know it full well.

    But we’re going round in circles here, so unless you have something new to add, ttfn.
32. burt 32

    28 October 2008 at 12:50 pm

    rOb

    So now the only misdeeds that count are the ones covered by retrospective validation?

    We all do “misdeeds” rOb, hell when I was younger I even smoked the ocasional joint… Ohhhhh – ahhhhhh. The issue is how we deal with misdeeds.

    I can’t make the Police not wave the “not in the public interest” get out of jail free card – but I can protest against MP’s who wave it for themself rather than face the juduciary. If Rodney gets into power and kills off a court case because it is not expedient then he will join my list of self serving basket case power at any price MP’s.

    Give up rOb, you haven’t a leg to stand on. You are on record supporting RV because it was expedient. I’m on record saying Rodney should have been charged – we both have not changed our preferences but at least I have not sold out to being so partisan I can’t see when I’m living a double standard.
33. yl 33

    28 October 2008 at 12:54 pm

    burt,

    sorry i still dont understand how you can condone Rodney by choosing to vote for him.

    yet say that you dont condone any MP’s breaking the law.

    You are condoning Rodney by voting for him.
34. yl 34

    28 October 2008 at 12:56 pm

    burt,

    i see you are living a double standard because you say that you dont condone mp’s breaking the law but will then vote for someone that has been caught breaking the law.

    that is a double standard
35. burt 35

    28 October 2008 at 1:00 pm

    yl

    There are (IMHO) no MP’s who have not abused the electoral funding laws. This is why retrospective validations were passed. The status quo was more important for the standing govt than accountability for the laws they wrote.

    If the Labour-led govt had not burried 14 years of illegal activity to get the PM out of a court case we might have had a chance to actually audit and charge them. (actually enforce accountability)

    Parliament has taken the Monty Python world view of reducing crime. ‘The only way to bring the crime rate down is to reduce the number of offences’. IE: We didn’t break the law becasue we validated our actions which alledgedly broke it.

    Show me an MP who you can assure me has never breached the electoral funding laws and they will get my vote. Remember though – the 14 years prior to 2006 are validated so we can’t tell what went on can we. (thanks Labour).
36. yl 36

    28 October 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Burt,

    so what you are saying is that you will vote Rodney because he has broken the law, just not as badly as the others?
37. yl 37

    28 October 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Burt,

    “If the Labour-led govt had not burried [sic] 14 years of illegal activity to get the PM out of a court case we might have had a chance to actually audit and charge them. (actually enforce accountability)”

    what do you mean? What illegal activity?
38. burt 38

    28 October 2008 at 1:16 pm

    yl

    No, these words you try and put in my mouth do not fit.

    I’ll vote for ACT because I like their policies. If Rodney has broken the law he should be charged. ACT would carry on without Rodney just as Labour would carry on without Helen Clark. Just as National will without John Key.

    Like I said, if Rodney (or ACT) abused the powers of parliament to get out of a court case then ACT (and Rodney) would loose my vote until such time as all the people who voted in such a self serving manner had departed the party.

    Rodney fessed up… Never ever seen that sort of integrity from Labour.

    What illegal activity? – Are you new to NZ or are you now taking the approach that there was nothing illegal because it was validated using the unconventional power of the legislature acting as the judiciary? (big no no in the Westminster system – but acceptable to Labour supporters if it keeps Labour in govt)
39. yl 39

    28 October 2008 at 1:22 pm

    burt,

    it blows me away that you can sit there and throw out corruption comments, yet will sit there and say that your own party is fine.

    I agree that we should vote of policies rather than people. So why do you sit there slagging of Helen Clark?

    You have too many double standards burt.
40. higherstandard 40

    28 October 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Burt don’t waste you time – what seems to be lost in the the whole debate is that all Rodney would be found guilty of is getting some free office space from Bob Jones – whoopee, I say good on any political party who can get something such as this for free and not delve into the public purse.
41. burt 41

    28 October 2008 at 1:24 pm

    yl

    Here is a clue: What did Helen Clark vote for in 2006?

    Another clue: Darnton vs [????] (pick the missing name)
42. r0b 42

    28 October 2008 at 1:24 pm

    If the Labour-led govt had not burried 14 years of illegal activity to get the PM out of a court case

    Ohhh bullshit, Not even ACT voted for that court case to proceed Burt, as you well know.

    Show me an MP who you can assure me has never breached the electoral funding laws and they will get my vote.

    Jim Anderton. Are you going to vote for him Burt?
43. burt 43

    28 October 2008 at 1:27 pm

    rOb

    Wrong. He may not have broken them in 2005 but then with a party of one it would be pretty hard to break them.

    Before that… there are multiple instances of abuse of parliaments resources. 1,000 envelopes franked in a parliament franking machine for his wife’s local council campaign. His wife driving around in his self drive ministerial car with her local council campaign signs on it…. Two examples of stuff recently in breach of the EFA.
44. yl 44

    28 October 2008 at 1:31 pm

    burt,

    you seemed to have ignored my post.

    you justifying your double standards intrigues me.
45. burt 45

    28 October 2008 at 1:32 pm

    rOb

    You didn’t answer what you think will happen to Winston re the police outcome due this week?

    Also, if Labour win in 2 weeks do you think they will shut down all EFA complaints by validating all actions because the law of common sense applies?

    If they do will you be proud that we will now have 17 years of uncontrolled spending that political parties cannot be held to account for?
46. burt 46

    28 October 2008 at 1:35 pm

    yl

    See: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/horse-racing/#comment-98492

    No double standard, that is for partisan people who support corruption. Rodney did not declare a “gift”. (bad and should be charged) However he did not hide actual hard cash. He did not steal the office costs from tax payers. He has not voted to make accepting gifts legal… Get some perspective.

    BTW: Has Helen said Winston can keep the money he received becasue he needs to hand all gifts over to parliament unless the PM expressly says he can keep them?
47. r0b 47

    28 October 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Goodness Burt, you’re an expert on the sins Jim Anderton. Whoda thunk. Which only makes it all the more mysterious to me that you’re playing “the others did it too” defense in condoning (by voting for them) the sins of Rodney Hide and ACT.

    You didn’t answer what you think will happen to Winston re the police outcome due this week?

    No idea Burt. But since he’s been cleared by the SFO and the other inquiry that I can’t be bothered to look up, I’d say it’s entirely likely that he’ll be cleared by the police too.

    Anyway Burt, gotta go. Just remember to tell yourself when you cast your vote for Rodney, that it’s Ok, because the others did it too…
48. burt 48

    28 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

    rOb

    Oh dear, you are mocking me for acting a tiny bit like yourself. You must feel proud that I appear to be joining you in the sewer of partisan apologists.

    But I’m not so don’t pat yourself on the back just yet – you have not converted me to being a big supporter of the status quo – not yet.

    If Rodney votes for RV over this rent and I still defend his integrity then I will have joined you at the bottom of the apologist pit. Till then….
49. yl 49

    28 October 2008 at 1:45 pm

    burt,

    again you are just justifying the situation because it is for the party you support.

    The fact that it was office space instead of cash makes no difference. We operate under a law that says that political parties need to declare donations (whether they are cash or not).

    If you get a cow as payment for a job, you still have to pay tax on the cow. The fact that it was office space means nothing.

    and again, whether he voted for or against is not the case. He has to live within the law whether he agrees with it or not
50. yl 50

    28 October 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Burt,

    “If Rodney votes for RV over this rent and I still defend his integrity”

    you are admitting to defending Rodney’s integrity. Yet you say that you dont condone any MP’s breaking the law. And you admit that rodney broke the law.

    this is why the words burt and double standards keep appearing.
51. travellerev 51

    28 October 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Hi there,

    I can’t link to the pattern of (mis) behaving post. it goes all gobbledygook on me.
52. burt 52

    28 October 2008 at 1:53 pm

    yl

    Are you voting for Labour, Green’s, NZ1, Jolly Jim or Peter Dunne?

    If so you are voting for a party that voted to give itself a get out of jail free card…

    Don’t lecture me on double standards while you are supporting any of these parties, you have no moral high ground. The best you can do is be like rOb and laugh at me for being a little bit partisan while you have made a committment to being an apologist.
53. higherstandard 53

    28 October 2008 at 1:53 pm

    yl

    Did you read Burt’s comment ?

    Burt’s words are very clear..

    “If Rodney votes for RV over this rent and I still defend his integrity then I will have joined you at the bottom of the apologist pit.”

    You then suggest Burt is admitting to defending Rodney’s integrity, this is patently absurd.
54. burt 54

    28 October 2008 at 1:57 pm

    hs

    Yes the bit where I say “he should be charged” is being ignored. Probably because MP’s being charged is something Labour supporters can’t bring themselves to think of. Must not happen – not in the public interest. Status quo is more important than accountability…. Then the dim-bulbs think they have the high ground. Go figure.
55. yl 55

    28 October 2008 at 1:59 pm

    hs,

    burt used the word still in that sentence.

    As in, if i still defend Rodney after… because he uses the word still it implies that he is currently defending his integrity.

    burt,

    i am not the one saying that i will not condone mp’s that break the law, you are. When in actual fact you are because it suits who you want to vote for

    that is why you have double standards
56. yl 56

    28 October 2008 at 2:01 pm

    burt,

    “Don’t lecture me on double standards while you are supporting any of these parties, you have no moral high ground. The best you can do is be like rOb and laugh at me for being a little bit partisan while you have made a committment [sic] to being an apologist.”

    so if i say i vote national then i can lecture you on double standards
57. higherstandard 57

    28 October 2008 at 2:03 pm

    Burt – it is indeed the twilight zone.

    What disturbs me most about politics in NZ is that many people have their “side” who they’ll back no matter what.

    In my opinion all politicians should be treated with a very large dollop of suspicion.
58. yl 58

    28 October 2008 at 2:07 pm

    hs,

    ‘What disturbs me most about politics in NZ is that many people have their “side’ who they’ll back no matter what’

    I agree, we see this happening in the blogs all the time
59. Hoolian 59

    28 October 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Democracy is rule by the majority – not the majority cut up into smaller pieces.
60. Matthew Pilott 60

    28 October 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Oh, crap guys, it’s all over. Hoolian has defined Democracy to suit himself, I’ve got no answer to that. Does any one else?

    Any other Edicts you’d like to Inform us of, your worthiness?
61. Steve Pierson 61

    28 October 2008 at 2:35 pm

    So, Hoolian. According to your definition, if National only gets a plurality, not a majority, they won’t have the automatic right to rule.
62. burt 62

    28 October 2008 at 2:38 pm

    yl

    As in, if i still defend Rodney after because he uses the word still it implies that he is currently defending his integrity.

    That would be the integrity that said – Yes we got it wrong…. Remember that way back up thread… Rodney admitted ACT had made a stuff up – no “NO” signs and no accusation of media beatup etc….

    So yes I’m defending his integrity that he can admit a mistake. I know Labour never admit anything so perhaps you can’t understand how I see this. There was no cover up and no additional lies to pretend it never happened. He stopped digging and didn’t blame everybody else for his stuff up. He didn’t scream it’s unfair because others did it too.

    Nothing Rodney has done even comes close to Winston’s constant BS claims and lies. But all that aside – in a perfect world they would both be charged.
63. yl 63

    28 October 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Burt,

    thanks for clearing up that ‘still’ comment. I read it differently the first time, i can see where you are coming from now.

    so you are not pissed about Winnie breaking the law.

    you just don’t believe that he didn’t know?
64. burt 64

    28 October 2008 at 2:56 pm

    yl

    Compare Winston’s behaviour vs Rodney’s behaviour. You guess which one had something to hide. (no pun intended)

    Do you think Labour knew about ACT’s rent debacle and sat on the info for 6 months because they had a vested interest in keeping it quiet ?

    Now get digging into ACT’s accounts, see if you can find secret donors who have received special policy considerations. If you can I’ll join you marching on parliament to get them sacked before they retrospectively validate themselves and I’ll give my vote to the Maori party.
65. yl 65

    28 October 2008 at 2:58 pm

    haha burt,

    we just seem to be looking at things from two difference sides of the fence.

    You think the labour party personally waited for 6 months before saying anything,

    who’s to say that Rodney didnt know and was waiting 6 months himself.

    like HS said earlier, we tend to back our own team
66. r0b 66

    28 October 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Are you voting for Labour, Green’s, NZ1, Jolly Jim or Peter Dunne? If so you are voting for a party that voted to give itself a get out of jail free card

    You continue to wilfully lie about this Burt. Disappointing. No party got a get out of jail free card on anything.

    The best you can do is be like rOb and laugh at me for being a little bit partisan

    “A little bit partisan” – that’s cute! Burt, you’re as partisan as any here. You have spent years viciously attacking the misdeeds of politicians on the left, while ignoring National (“not my party”) and now ACT (“others did it too!”). So let’s have an end to your attempts to claim that you want to hold all politicians to the same standards, because clearly you do not.
67. Quoth the Raven 67

    28 October 2008 at 4:10 pm

    burt – You must be glad that the EFA extends the period in which prosecutions can be brought against politicans and has harsher penalties.
68. Lampie 68

    28 October 2008 at 4:19 pm

    thought we were discussing horse racing, opps wrong page
69. burt 69

    28 October 2008 at 4:36 pm

    rOb

    I’m not defending Rodney – what part of “he should have been charged” are you missing?

    I’m not saying it was OK, I’m not saying the right thing to do was ignore it because it’s not in ACT’s best interest to do anything…..

    Wake up rOb – I’m not going to sink to your level of apologist and you are not going to drag me down there to wallow with you.
70. burt 70

    28 October 2008 at 5:22 pm

    QtR

    burt – You must be glad that the EFA extends the period in which prosecutions can be brought against politicans and has harsher penalties.

    Yes and No. Yes becasue the provisions are there – No because they are not likely to ever be used in a court of law.

    What do you think about only warnings being given to the authors of the law who must have understood it – but flout it?

    What do you think about only warnings being given to the MP’s that voted to enact the law and therefore must have understood it – but flout it?

    What is the point of having laws when they are not enforced ?

    Not even the authors or the MP’s that voted to enact the EFA are expected to follow it – it is meaningless and crooked, an assult on democracy.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS