Murky

75 comments on “Murky ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robinsod 1

   26 September 2008 at 7:38 am

   Good point – the media has gone apeshit over the details of every single phone call or meeting in the Peter’s scandal but have hardly mentioned this meeting – maybe ‘cos Rodney Hide never whispered it in their ear…
2. Monty 2

   26 September 2008 at 7:49 am

   We know you guys are so desperate to try and keep this story alive – but no one cares – Story is – Family Trust owned shares, John Keyy was starting his rapid rise to Prime Minister, and wisely sold all shares in all portfolios so there would be no conflict of interest. End of Story. As the latest poll this morning proves – the country is much more concerned about the issue of lies and corruption that surround the Labour-first axis. (Is Clark going to spend the weekend gardening?)
3. IrishBill 3

   26 September 2008 at 7:59 am

   Monty, our blog our choice of content. I want to know about the rail America meeting. Too bad if you don’t want a bit of transparency. I have a question for you: if you really think there is “nothing to see here” then why are you looking?
4. DeeDub 4

   26 September 2008 at 8:10 am

   Actually Monty, Key also had shares in his OWN name and I believe these are the shares in question. But I’m sure you already knew that. It’s just more sad and obvious Tory misdirection!

   I’d sure like to know what was discussed at this meeting?

   This won’t go away.
5. travellerev 5

   26 September 2008 at 8:14 am

   Shit yeah,

   And while we’re at it let’s discuss his “management of debt” role at Merrill Lynch in 1999 when the Glass Seagall law was repealed so Wall street could go on a rampage.

   And let’s get his opinion on all those mum and pop investment companies that went bust this year. You know all those salt of the earth investors hoping to have a little more than a pension to live off in their golden days and probably voting National because a “banker” knows about money.
6. Thomas the Unbeliever 6

   26 September 2008 at 8:19 am

   I’m sure you’re right. This is a vitally important story. Cover it in as much detail as you can … but good luck in trying to get most of NZ interested.

   It will give you something to do as Labour’s parliamentary ship is slowly scuttled by its crew.

   In the meantime – the people of NZ have moved on. They have seen, they have judged, and they find Labour in contempt. If you got out more you would hear it on the streets. So many Labour voters are struggling with the notion that, for the first time in their lives, they simply cannot stomach voting for a Labour Government.
7. travellerev 7

   26 September 2008 at 8:20 am

   he Monty,

   Again what’s with the royal “we”?
   So far I see only one name.
   And is it the “full” Monty?
8. randal 8

   26 September 2008 at 8:31 am

   actually I would like to know who the ‘we’ is monty. the nats have a very bad tendency to give directions to others and to either imply or indeed act in concert with others so speak man. who is this WE you keep banging on about?
9. Akdnut 9

   26 September 2008 at 8:34 am

   Monty “As the latest poll this morning proves” – You are as full of it as JK, read the polls link http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=3101 you’ll understand they are just a tory vote mechanism designed to catch and influence idiots like you because you actually believe that shit.
10. DeeDub 10

    26 September 2008 at 8:39 am

    Thomas – dream on buddy! Who are you to speak for the ‘people of New Zealand’?!! FFS! Talk about pompous!?!!

    Captcha: trainload on
    heh heh
11. Thomas the Unbeliever 11

    26 September 2008 at 8:46 am

    DeeDub – I speak for no one but myself.

    Hey, I could be wrong. All the “people of NZ” I meet most days could well be an insular group of crackpots mired in their own personal political prejudices – unlike those on this worthy blog. I could be misinterpreting the contempt I hear for Lanour in particular – but smeared also across polticians from all sides (and their cheerleaders).

    I suspect we will see on November 8 – not only in the vote against this government – but more importantly by the number who have lost faith in the political process and fail to vote.
12. Akdnut 12

    26 September 2008 at 8:46 am

    Thomas I am one of the people that you are speaking about and I sure don’t give you the my proxy how about a list of those who do and a reason why you should actually be the judge so we may contemplate taking you seriously.
13. randal 13

    26 September 2008 at 9:02 am

    whataloada crap ttu. any competent psychiatrist would see that you dont have enough personal contacts to form a proper sample and furthermore you are projecting your own fantasy’s onto the world at large. It is either a desperate attempt to maintain psychical reality or you are being programmed by a party operative who I guess is sufficient for you to claim ‘WE”.
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    26 September 2008 at 9:08 am

    Monty, you can’t even lie convincingly. The latest poll showed (if we are to take it at face value) that the public do not give a flying toss about what you see as “the issue of lies and corruption that surround the Labour-first axis” given NZF went up slightly, and Labour went down marginally and within the MoE.

    Either the public doesn’t care about lies or corruption, or (clearly more likely) you’re full of the proberbial and can’t see what’s going on as well as the rest of NZ.

    Not to mention the poll explicitly stated the economy was the most important issue. Maybe try to open one eye, and we’ll try for the second one if you’re sucessful with the first.
15. Monty 15

    26 September 2008 at 9:11 am

    Hi Guys – As I understand it John Key did not own any shares personally, all 100,000 were in the name of the family trust (quite usual to do that) I appreciate that this is your blog and you can post on what ever you want – as does my friend Cam Slater at Whaleoil and the lads at No Minister etc – I enjoy reading all the blogs – but mostly I enjoy commenting here and until I am banned for speaking my Mind I intend to do so right up until 8 Novemeber 2008.

    Maybe also on the 9 November when I will be a gloater.

    Dubdub and others – your problem iss that Labour have deliberately got some important facts wrong – such as dates and who owned what. The lazy and excitable media did not fact check – but rather ran blind with the story fed by the Labour Party spin machine.

    People are way more concerned about the decpetion of the Labour-First axis and the lies of Winston Peters and Labour’s continued protection – which is strange and we all need to know why she is protecting him – I think that is the bigger story. –
16. Matthew Pilott 16

    26 September 2008 at 9:13 am

    Mr Covenant – I hear the exact opposite – That People were considering National but just can’t trust them.

    I suspect it’s more the circles we move in, unless you’re taken to random samples on teh street and in the pub.

    “…by the number who have lost faith in the political process and fail to vote.”

    Given the prevalence of politics in the news as of late, and the prospect of a humdinger of a campaign, I anticipate an increase in overall polling this year. I realise that the turgid Peters affair will turn some people off, but I expect the nett effect to be inspiring people to vote against him. Do you really think there will be increasing apathy this year?
17. Dom 17

    26 September 2008 at 9:19 am

    Hey Thomas, assume you got your ‘Labour voters can’t bring selves to vote Labour’ line from a Nat-distributed list of things to say on left wing blogs since I’ve seen the exact same line on at least three different sites now.

    Gee you right-wingers, have you NO creativity?

    Oh that’s right – you don’t.

    I think this Key story was just the first act…there’s more lying about his interests to uncover…heck, maybe they have uncovered it already. Key should SO be declaring any little secrets he’s got hiding, but he’s clearly not going to. Clueless doesn’t even begin to describe this.
18. Monty 18

    26 September 2008 at 9:21 am

    No Matthew – you are wrong – the country cares deeply about the corruption of our politicians – so much so that over 50% want clark to be evicted and the majority suport for national remains strong because although he makes mistakes (as all politicians do) he actually fesses up, admits in and is believable in doing so.

    I know you must be squirming at present that you hits are not having an impact – but the country is seeing the the cynical attempts to run interference on the big stories surrounding the Labour-first axis.

    If you want to talk about the economy fine – it seems there Key is also more trusted to take NZ forward than Labour. You can establish your own reasons for than
19. Go The Right 19

    26 September 2008 at 9:22 am

    Mathew

    Someone is going to right and someone is going to be wrong. I believe personally the National , United Future, Maori, Act Government will be in. Sharples has said today that Helen is tired and needs to go so that is all good for the Nats.

    Just as a aside I believe Labour are very concerned about the results they are getting from their own internal Polling particularly in the Auckland region I’m sure you will know that as you are close to the action.
20. randal 20

    26 September 2008 at 9:28 am

    monty Keys is not more trusted than Labour to take nNew Zealand forward whatever that little slice of crosbytextorism meANS. KEYS IS A PROVEN SHYSTER and no matter how much you try and project your fantasy onto the world at large it is and always will be a delusion and if you are not careful could develop into a full blown psychosis.
21. travellerev 21

    26 September 2008 at 9:33 am

    Monty,

    No explanation as to the royal “we” and “Novemeber”?

    New Zealand is one of only three countries least corrupt.
    Deuh.
22. yl 22

    26 September 2008 at 9:35 am

    Oh Monty,

    You are counting your chickens before they are hatched.

    Corruption is such a strong word and you throw it around all to quickly. You seem to talk more about personalities with politics rather then policy. I think that is a dangerous line to take.

    As the election gets closer more people will take notice of what each party stands for rather then this current political point scoring.

    The gap is goinng to close.

    National wont have enough by themselves and the Maori party will decide who is going to form the next government.

    Captcha $169,360,542.11 Stapy (that is the strangest one i have ever gotten)
23. r0b 23

    26 September 2008 at 9:37 am

    the country cares deeply about the corruption of our politicians – so much so that over 50% want clark to be evicted

    Blah blah blah blah blah. Deliberate lies or profound stupidity, you be the judge.

    (1) NZ is the least corrupt country in the world.

    (2) National is high in the polls for various reasons, nothing to do with “corruption”. And half of all voters don’t trust National.
24. Daveski 24

    26 September 2008 at 9:41 am

    And Pita doesn’t trust Helen either 🙂
25. infused 25

    26 September 2008 at 9:42 am

    What the hell are you on about Randal. Put down that pipe!

    travellerev, it won’t be once the full scale of what Labour has done is found out over the next few years. I love how you guys keep referring to that. Going to bite you in the ass.
26. travellerev 26

    26 September 2008 at 10:03 am

    Infused,

    For what it’s worth, I don’t trust anyone who wants power and I’m sure labour has done it’s share but a Wall street lying scum bag banker has no place in new Zealand politics.
27. higherstandard 27

    26 September 2008 at 10:08 am

    Although still banned….. r0b

    NZ is ‘perceived’ as a very “non-corrupt” country – and rightly so.

    This does not however correlate to a complete lack of corruption and that occasionally things occur that shouldn’t.

    [lprent: Added you to the moderated list. Tell me in a few days when you’re out of ban.]
28. Tony Norriss 28

    26 September 2008 at 10:11 am

    I thought it was hilarious when Labour decided to campaign on trust.

    All National needs to do is run adds showing Labour’s BIGGEST EVER donor, Owen Glenn, stating how he wouldn’t want to be in the trenches with that lot, and now Pita Sharples comments about not trusting them.

    The thing is, Labour is trawling the depths trying to come up with dirt on National. However, National doesn’t need to stoop to that level. The reason is that Labour is caking itself with as much brown stuff as it possibly can right in the public view. No need for National to run a negative campaign on Labour. Labour is doing that FOR them.
29. lukas 29

    26 September 2008 at 10:18 am

    randal and eve… did you see the amount of times IB used the “royal we” in this post? I would copy and past them but that would be the whole post bar one sentence!
30. Thomas the Unbeliever 30

    26 September 2008 at 10:36 am

    It’s interesting the assumptions people make.

    I have probably voted Labour as much as National over the last 30 years. I have never been a member of a poltical party. My criteria for voting is more weighted to the personal integrity of a candidate (or at least what I perceive it to be)rather than an particular party platform.

    I am less concerned with the machinations of MMP. I would rather hold to the naive belief that if enough people of integrity are elected to parliament – it will not matter which party they belong to.

    For that reason – if I was to vote purely on political integrity in this election – I would probably be voting for the Maori Party.
31. travellerev 31

    26 September 2008 at 10:46 am

    he Lucas,

    I’m with Irishbill on this one so he has a right to say we.
    Added to that he probably speaks for the mates he blogs with on this site while you are just a lone commentator and if you still believe that John Key is something other than a used car salesman, snake oil salesman or whatever you are getting to be quit lonely.
32. Matthew Pilott 32

    26 September 2008 at 11:07 am

    Rob – what does ‘Close to the action’ mean? I haven’t been polled in South Auckland, nor am I a South Auckland voter if that’s what you mean. Or are you making an amateur attempt to play the stalking game? If so, I’ll be honest with you – you’re just not bright enough.

    “No Matthew – you are wrong – the country cares deeply about the corruption of our politicians – so much so that over 50% want clark to be evicted and the majority suport for national remains strong because although he makes mistakes (as all politicians do) he actually fesses up, admits in and is believable in doing so.”

    Monty, you still can’t lie convincingly – the polls do not say corruption is an issue. People would care about it if it were happening, but shy of the KBR, rational folk have come to a different conclusion.

    That is why people have said conclusively, and repeatedly, that the economy is their biggest issue. Followed by tax, health, education, law and order (in no particular order) and ‘corruption and lies’ don’t ever register. Ever. get your head around that one.

    Your corruption rantings aside, most or the folk out there are concerned about the economy and the effect it will have on them and their families. This is what they’re saying, based on polls (see, this is where you and I differ – you like to make things up).

    “?If you want to talk about the economy fine – it seems there Key is also more trusted to take NZ forward than Labour. You can establish your own reasons for than”

    Yep, I sure can, and a whole lot better than yourself… Labour isn’t doing well because prices are up, the economy is going through a rough patch, and people throughout the history of democratic elections will vote against an incumbent in such times. Nothing to do with 50% of people thinking National will do better – you just have no historical perspective, or choose to ignore it because it gets in the way of your little rants.

    “I know you must be squirming at present that you hits are not having an impact”

    My hits? Squirming? Uh, right. Yep despite my best efforts, ah, nothing’s happening. Who exactly do you think I am?
33. Pascal's bookie 33

    26 September 2008 at 11:09 am

    Thomas, fair enough.

    My view is that they are politicians, not role models. Every now and then you get one that can be both of course, but most often they’ll let you down if you are looking for ‘integrity’.

    The reason I say that is not that I think they are all lying scum or anything so cynical, but that integrity is a slippery thing to define.

    Ignoring policy in favour of integrity ignores the point that it is policy that is at the heart of politics. People of great integrity can disagree completely about what is the right policy. They can believe each other to be genuinely dangerous in terms of those policy differences.

    Thus their integrity to their beliefs about policy, their belief that it really is best for the Nation that their opponents not be in power, can lead them to use tactics that we might not like.

    For myself, when I see a pollie running on a platform of ‘personal inegrity’ and not much else, I get very suspicious. They are easy words to say about yourself, especially if you’ve only got a short record, and it’s even easier to find fault in your opponents record.

    But it leaves the question unanswered as to what the poltician plans on doing with the power s/he is seeking. Being clear and consistent about that question is the most integral one there is, in my view.

    Integrity with regard to the fluffy non policy aspects of politics is easy to fake.
34. lukas 34

    26 September 2008 at 11:23 am

    Eve-if you still believe that John Key is something other than a used car salesman, snake oil salesman or whatever you are getting to be quit lonely.

    No, I don’t think I am getting to be quit lonely at all (is that even possible to quit being lonely?). However, I do know what you meant to type and still find your comment amusing considering the latest polls show that of decided voters over 50% of them are going to be voting for a JK National Party… since when has 50% been lonely?
35. Felix 35

    26 September 2008 at 11:29 am

    Are bans from The Standard now respected optionally?

    Does this apply to everyone banned or just doctors?
36. Pascal's bookie 36

    26 September 2008 at 11:31 am

    Felix, it’s an honour system.
37. lprent 37

    26 September 2008 at 11:41 am

    And if the people in question don’t have any honour then I’ll enforce it. Since that takes effort, my inclination is to ban permanently and enforce that on their identity. If that doesn’t work then I start looking at IP’s.

    Of course I don’t get every instance – want to point out a comment?

    Oh I see – hs.
38. Ms M 38

    26 September 2008 at 12:06 pm

    “For that reason – if I was to vote purely on political integrity in this election – I would probably be voting for the Maori Party.”

    Thomas, I was of similar leanings towards the Maori Party, fair play, fair go. But recent events have my ‘integrity meter’ screeching “warning Will Robinson”, so I did some digging.

    Ask yourself, why does National want to scrap the R&D Fast Forward Fund, lower the amount of R&D tax credits for businesses, a Labour policy hailed by business and most welcome, and instead fund a $20 million a year research centre aimed at reducing farm-produced greenhouse gases, according to Key’s policy statement with, “scientists and researchers from Crown and private sector agencies working together on a commonly agreed work programme?”

    Then take a good hard look at the 30 investors who will receive $17 million pay out for their Tranz Rail shares.

    Mark my words, if National make the next government, the Maori Party will sell their waka emissions to the highest off shore carbon credit trader.
39. Lyn 39

    26 September 2008 at 12:36 pm

    To second PB and add my own spin – looking at a politician’s position on the left-right spectrum will often give you a good steer about their concience voting (just have a look at this break-down – finally SPUC is good for something), while the position of the candidate’s party itself obviously gives an indication about what kinds of legislative change they will try to get through while they are in government. I could never vote for someone on the right just because they had integrity. As PB says – they could perfectly integritously put bills before the house I found completely repugnant.

    What voting with the political spectrum uppermost doesn’t allow you to do is vote to put someone you think will be a good electoral MP into the house. But I figure, in an environment where people move, there is heavy urbanisation, an increasingly cosmopolitan population and MMP, this is far less important than it used to be. I’m more interested in legislative trends than in what my local MP can do for me personally.
40. Chris 40

    26 September 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Are you referring to this Ms M?.
41. Quoth the Raven 41

    26 September 2008 at 12:42 pm

    the country is much more concerned about the issue of lies and corruption that surround the Labour-first axis.

    Monty – Axis? Do you get all your lines from Hooton?
42. rave 42

    26 September 2008 at 1:08 pm

    A bit of light relief from the Hooton wanabees
    Wanda Sykes on the Bailout and Palin
    http://www.marxmail.org/msg49259.html
43. Felix 43

    26 September 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Cheers rave, that was hilarious. And she’s 100% right about everything too.

    p.s. those marxists really know how to rock a web page!
44. Go The Right 44

    26 September 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Sorry Mathew I thought I was clear enough in what I was saying you are close to the Action the Labour Party so you would know about the very poor Polling coming out of Auckland.

    I heard last week about it so I thought you would know especially about the party vote falling away in Key areas.

    In regards to Intelligence sorry to deflate your Ego Mathew but I never picked you as an Intellectual heavy weight maybe you are just a legend in your own mind.

    My darkness has been filled with the light of intelligence, and behold the outer daylit world was stumbling and groping in Social blindness (very apt for the Labour Party I think)

    Children are remarkable for their intelligence and ardor, for their curiosity, their intolerance of shams, the clarity and ruthlessness of their vision (Could do with a few more Children in the Labour Party I believe but need a vision first)

    I have always felt that a person intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he / she can entertain simultaneously on the same topic. (Mathew Im afraid you fail terribly in this area as you dont entertain conflicting point of views which is sad because it shows a closed mind not a good place to be in) Not just you but many from The Standard

    Cheers Mathew have a good day
45. jo zinny 45

    26 September 2008 at 3:18 pm

    good call.. but murky meets darkside with the following clip from Hickey’s recent entry at interest —

    Citigroup also estimated ANZ had US$11.6 billion worth of credit default swap exposure that could be endangered if a counterparty was downgraded or got into trouble.
    “We have concerns that in the current environment there is substantial risk of further counterparty credit rating downgrades which could result in further material impairment charges for ANZ,’ Citigroup wrote.

    Some of this credit default swap(CDS) — it’s a kind of company-to-company insurance(each party writing its own IOU, the intermediary broker/banker/whoever taking fees both ways. Lucrative. Very, when the figures go big – would relate to enzed. Intra or the bank et al would wish it solely internal biz though as you see above that wish is hardly credible to the public gaze.

    So who is the self-professed expert in this kind of thing, the politician with such a ‘clean’ image and staunch leader for integrity (aka uprightness, probity)..? Yes, it really is time for the revelation of his skills in these areas..
46. jo zinny 46

    26 September 2008 at 3:24 pm

    it would be useful in making comments more readable if I knew how to code blockquotes here..

    ideas/help welcome

    [lprent: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?page_id=1938#quoting ]
47. Matthew Pilott 47

    26 September 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Rob if you’re trying to pretend you know me personally then you’re making a fist of it, but seriously, don’t play the stalking game with me beause I choose to use my real name.

    Can’t recall saying that I am an intellectual heavyweight but I suppose it could be construed as saying so by default by mocking your lack of said intelligence. Given your propensity to steal other people’s comments, pretend they’re yours and pose absolutely no contrition whatsoever I reckon it’s a justified call.

    Were you getting evangelical for a minute there, Rob? I quite liked it.

    Huh, wait, you’re just quoting other people’s comments as yours again, to sound intelligent. You think you’d have learned. See, the bits where you sound smart stick out like morning wood against the rest of your comments. Maybe you should quote comments that aren’t as floral in future, if you want to be able to pass them off as your own.

    For everyone’s edification, Rob has been using Brainyquote.com. He sure as hell needs it.

    Children are remarkable for their intelligence and ardor, for their curiosity, their intolerance of shams, the clarity and ruthlessness of their vision.

    My darkness has been filled with the light of intelligence, and behold the outer daylit world was stumbling and groping in Social blindness

    I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view she can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.
    Lisa Alther

    Here’s one of my favoiurite quotes (note that I am making it plain and clear to those who are reading this that it is not my quote, this I avoid your dirty tag of being a plagiarist, AGAIN) for you, Rob:

    “There he goes. One of God’s own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.’
48. DeeDub 48

    26 September 2008 at 3:36 pm

    All this talk of the Maori Party going with the Nats has me wondering which planet I just woke up on?!! WTF?

    In my opinion, if the Maori Party form any part of a government with the Nats they can kiss goodbye to a large part of their core support for a long, long time. Supporting the party that will (among a myriad of other policies that will adversely affect the poor, where Maori are still over-represented) remove ALL control on what GPs charge would be political suicide for them. The Nats must be pinching themselves in disbelief at the Maori Party’s political naivety. That or the Maori Party are playing some cunning long game that I can’t figure out?
49. Go The Right 49

    26 September 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Mathew Please favourite is spelt like that not favoiurite. I never said it was mine I said it was one of my favourites Mathew any Intellectual pygmy can work that out come on get on task here!!
50. Pat 50

    26 September 2008 at 3:46 pm

    150 years after the King Movement comes the Kingmaker Movement! Finally the Maori voice in Parliament will have some power to go with it.

    Kia Kaha Pita
51. Matthew Pilott 51

    26 September 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Rob, I’m sorry for my misspelling of ‘favourite’. Shall I have a go at critiquing your towering English skillz? That’ll take all day, perhaps not.

    “I never said it was mine I said it was one of my favourites.”

    You, Rob, are incredibly stupid. You’ve passed off three quotes as your own, been called up on it and are AGAIN trying to pretend that’s not what happened.

    Rob, in case you didn’t realise, we are not having a spoken conversation. I can scroll up, and read your comment. There is no mention before any of the three quotes that they are not yours.

    You have not said that ‘it was one of your favoutites’. That was me.

    Given that one starts with a posessisive adjective, and the other starts with “I”, it would not be unreasonable to assume that they were your comments.

    So again, you’ve tried to pass off someone else’s work as your own, without attributation or reference.
52. Go The Right 52

    26 September 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Mathew I take it that you have heard of Labours evaporating party vote in Auckland because you arent commenting on it So it must be a sore point with you.

    Its funny how word gets round I know someone who is related to a Labour MP and there you have it. So what do you put that party vote evapouration donw to Mathew? I know its a real concern for them
53. jo zinny 53

    26 September 2008 at 4:14 pm

    muchos gracias, iprent

    For others the Hickey quote (my earlier comment) runs off the second link here. Which readers will find below the blog post.
54. randal 54

    26 September 2008 at 4:16 pm

    the maori party is going nowhere. basically they are angry people who think if they get 2000 acres, a landrover and a falcon then they will be as good as white people. NUp they will just be maoris with a big mortgage and a bank manager who doesnt care what colour they are as long as he gets his money. thier policy is to send as many maori as they can to accountancy and lawyer school when they should be aiming at anthropology, history and philosophy but I guess that is too spiritual for the materialists.
55. Matthew Pilott 55

    26 September 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Rob, no I hadn’t heard of that from Labour’s internal polling, though isn’t that what public polling is also showing? Your ‘insider’ ain’t much of one I’m afraid. I’m also not talking about it because I’m not going to discuss anything personal (true or otherwise) in a public domain such as this, there are a lot of dodgy people out there, which is why so few choose to post without a pseudonym. Don’t contribute to that, Rob.

    Are you going to apologise this time, for plagiarism and refusing to acknowledge it, or can I safely assume anything intelligent you put forth forthwith is copy & pasted?

    I could equally, Rob, suggest you aren’t commenting on your nasty herpes because it is a sore point for you (literally and otherwise). Your not commenting on something doesn’t make it true, of course, as I hope this illustrates to you, though I suspect a logical fallacy is beyond your grasp.
56. Swampy 56

    26 September 2008 at 5:10 pm

    We know that the John Key trust took a loss of $100,000 in total on all their Tranz Rail shares
57. Swampy 57

    26 September 2008 at 5:14 pm

    The Tranz Rail share issue is sooo old and soooo trivial as we can see by the amount of time the mainstream media are not giving to it. In fact that you guys are still flogging a dead horse days later begs a lot of questions, like is there really nothing else happening out there?
58. Tim Ellis 58

    26 September 2008 at 5:20 pm

    In this climate of leaks and counter-leaks it’s sometimes hard to know what is real and what isn’t. There is an interesting apparent leak of an excerpt of John Key’s diary at http://whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/day-life-john-key

    It looks quite damning. Is it correct that Cam has scooped you guys for this?
59. Matthew Pilott 59

    26 September 2008 at 5:37 pm

    We also know that the trust would have take a far greater loss had Key not bought the second lot of shares.

    Just because he lost money doesn’t make it ok.

    Nice “move along” attempt.
60. jo zinny 60

    26 September 2008 at 5:52 pm

    update: call it lucky, call it surprise surprise but right after my last post here – thanking iprent – i received a blogpost about Warren Buffett’s US$5bn buy into Goldman Sachs which folks may have seen in the news this week. He called it The Great Betrayal, explaining how the deal was to ‘pump’ confidence back into US markets. Also at buys like this the stock discounted nicely with the result he (WB) bought more. Yet the kicker was what did WB get.. Answer:—

    In the deal Buffett gets 10% interest, that’s a credit default swap, that says he doesn’t trust it..

    My point being to say right here and now how the business of CDS is more about DISTRUST. Between companies, firms. corporations.. and so on.. The in-between figure, as previously mentioned, making sizeable bucks out of it..

    And an additional local question would be which enzed politician has claimed expertise in this business of distrust..? Could the above illustration explain why to date he has not been forthcoming about this..?
61. Anita 61

    26 September 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Go The Right,

    I heard last week about it so I thought you would know especially about the party vote falling away in Key areas.

    Only yesterday I heard that the Large Hadron Collider has already created a black hole which is eating away Switzerland as we type.

    “I heard it from a guy who got it from this other guy who…” is not evidence.
62. Felix 62

    26 September 2008 at 6:37 pm

    (GTR) = (Rob)
63. Anita 63

    26 September 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Felix,

    This is what I am thinking, yes :-/

    At least he hasn’t cited talkback as evidence (yet).
64. randal 64

    26 September 2008 at 7:06 pm

    no. We and I mean most of us not privy to John Keys share dealings do not know how much he lost on his transactions. WE only have his word and that aint worth much these days no matter how much the main stream media try and and prove how hip they are in this post modern world by only focussing on John Keys Truths and not his lies.
65. jo zinny 65

    26 September 2008 at 7:13 pm

    buddies tell me there’s guy commenter here(TE) in the ‘apparent’ biz.. and they advise how an explanation like google ads on the right say it.

    Apparents come and go.. and for the good folks here the sooner they are gone the better..
66. randal 66

    26 September 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Is that the guy saying like dude WE should not be concentrating on Keys shonkey share dealing because there is other stuff happening out there. Well what. tell us all.WE want to know. NOW! whip it out.
67. jo zinny 67

    26 September 2008 at 8:13 pm

    randal,

    wherefore art thou.. — you look decidedly better on longer short words..

    Here’s another.. meek. Go, seek, get biblical if you must, but the time to inherit is next soon.. not NOW!
68. jo zinny 68

    26 September 2008 at 8:16 pm

    oops! that should have been longer and next (= strikethroughs) just testing your understand.
69. Felix 69

    26 September 2008 at 8:43 pm

    jo, you are totally testing my understand.
70. Matthew Pilott 70

    26 September 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Jeez Tim, hadn’t picked you to whore for him…

    Felix, he responds to Rob, and copy and pastes other people’s work. Only a few are that low. Of course it is Rob.

    Anita, did you notice I mentioned Rob’s herpes and he didn’t deny it? Must be true…coz I heard it from this guy…
71. Felix 71

    26 September 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Yeah, the fact that he responds to “Rob” is really funny. I’m quite sure he’d deny it if it were put to him too.
72. Pascal's bookie 72

    26 September 2008 at 9:10 pm

    I’m Not sure if it’s a code, but I like the way Rob uses capital letters to let us Understand his Thoughts.

    Works better in Crayon though.
73. Tim Ellis 73

    26 September 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Jeez Tim, hadn’t picked you to whore for him

    Not often MP, but I thought that post had so many in-jokes it was worth sharing.
74. Felix 74

    27 September 2008 at 10:07 am

    Pb,

    Ha! I never noticed that – not Consciously anyway. Oh shit, this might be hard to Stop.
75. Matthew Pilott 75

    29 September 2008 at 10:09 am

    Do you feel dirty, Tim?

    Joking aside, it was a bit weak (I did have a look. Also feel dirty).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS