National lies, again

69 comments on “National lies, again ”

• Comments are now closed

1. sean 1

   1 October 2008 at 12:30 pm

   Its pure semantics – don’t get your knickers in a twist – she’s not worth defending. You’ve done nothing to even slightly prove that National are lying here – all you’ve helped do is affirm that Helen Clark is full of it.
2. burt 2

   1 October 2008 at 12:33 pm

   So if we are talking about quotes, who was it that saidf this?

   My view is that tax cuts are largely offered as a political bribe, not because of beneficial economic or social effects.
3. Steve Pierson 3

   1 October 2008 at 12:33 pm

   sean. it’s not semantics. Clark said that 2000 wasn’t the time for tax cuts. Not the same as saying no time is the right time.
4. r0b 4

   1 October 2008 at 12:35 pm

   Tune in next week to see sean argue that black is white.
5. Steve Pierson 5

   1 October 2008 at 12:37 pm

   burt – see the word ‘largely’

   incidentally, I jsut watched Key’s interview on Breakfast this morning. Henry just helps him along when he gets into trouble. Key’s being to technical and evasive on power prices, Henry says ‘you’re losing people here’
6. AndrewE 6

   1 October 2008 at 12:40 pm

   Hmm…I seem to recall one/many of the Standard’s authors misquoting John Key about Kyoto but it was ok then?

   Personally I’m not too bothered. The gist of both arguments has been communicated. JK not too fond of the Kyoto Protocol. HC not too fond of tax cuts.
7. r0b 7

   1 October 2008 at 12:44 pm

   Personally I’m not too bothered.

   Congratulations, you’re qualified to be a National voter.
8. Steve Pierson 8

   1 October 2008 at 12:47 pm

   AndrewE. Key said he was ‘somewhat suspicious’ of climate change and Kyoto was a hoax. Clark said 2000 was not the time to cut taxs.

   Our contraction to ‘climate change is a hoax’ accurately represents Key’s position. Saying Clark opposed all tax cuts does not.
9. burt 9

   1 October 2008 at 12:51 pm

   2006 was the time for tax cuts – but only for special friends of the Labour party.
10. Steve Pierson 10

    1 October 2008 at 12:54 pm

    burt – you mean when working for families came in?
11. burt 11

    1 October 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Steve P.

    Yes that too. But I was meaning the racing industry. Lucky that NZ1 didn’t have any large donations declared from big business backers in the racing industry or we may have wondered about cash for policies – Doooh!..
12. Tane 12

    1 October 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Burt, you really are a dreadful bore.
13. Glenn 13

    1 October 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Hey, how come Labour MPs get context around their quotes?
14. Phil 14

    1 October 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Our contraction to ‘climate change is a hoax’ accurately represents Key’s position.

    No, it doesn’t.
15. Rakaia George 15

    1 October 2008 at 1:31 pm

    “the circumstances in 2008 are very different.”

    Damn right, Labour are 15% behind in the polls as they have been for the last year or more and are desperate.

    Oh, and there is no such thing as a climate change model that fits the observed data.
16. Steve Pierson 16

    1 October 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Phil. Yes it does.
17. Tane 17

    1 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Oh, and there is no such thing as a climate change model that fits the observed data.

    That’s because it’s a complete and utter hoax. I’m certainly somewhat suspicious of it.
18. Felix 18

    1 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

    It’s interesting how the meaning changed completely with the insertion of a single “a”.

    Tane,
    I liked burt’s old stuff better than his new stuff. He used to do this great bit where he types “Cullen”, then crosses it out and types “Muppet”. Hilarious.
19. Tane 19

    1 October 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Really? I was more a fan of retrospective in bold. Wee fella sure was excited when he discovered those html tags.

    Good point about the ‘a’ – I hadn’t noticed that.
20. Billy 20

    1 October 2008 at 1:50 pm

    SP: Our contraction to ‘climate change is a hoax’ accurately represents Key’s position.

    How is saying Kyoto is a hoax the same as saying climate change is a hoax?

    [nope, saying you are somewhat suspicious of something is substantively the same as saying you think it’s a hoax. SP]
21. Billy 21

    1 October 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Oh, Steve, puhlease. Thta’s just weak.
22. vto 22

    1 October 2008 at 2:37 pm

    SP

    How about applying your ‘standards’ from here;

    “saying you are somewhat suspicious of something is substantively the same as saying you think it’s a hoax. SP”

    to here;

    “My view is that tax cuts are largely offered as a political bribe, not because of beneficial economic or social effects.” After which you pointed to the word “largely” as some sort of genuine qualifier.

    Honestly, like your standards over having Peters and his lies in your govt because it was politically necessary but complaining if it is another govt, your standards have here been shown again to flex depending on your political haggard baggage.

    You exhibit, on a regular basis, malleable morality.
23. vto 23

    1 October 2008 at 2:43 pm

    National lies… ha ha ha ha.

    Applying the same criteria – Clark lied when she said it was not possible to organise a smacking referendum to coincide with the election. Liar.

    Countless other examples.

    And this labour govt has a proven liar in Peters. Liar.

    And lets not forget Benson-Pope, Taitoman, Dalzell, etc. Liars.

    As far as I’m concerned you lie yourself when you selectively highlight ‘lies’. Liars.
24. r0b 24

    1 October 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Applying the same criteria – Clark lied when she said it was not possible to organise a smacking referendum to coincide with the election. Liar.

    Debatable at best. That’s your best shot?

    Countless other examples.

    No there aren’t. Perhaps your moral compass is a bit confused. Here, let me remind you what an actual lie, caught on tape live as it happened, what an actual lie looks like:

    Mold: “How many shares exactly did you and your family own in Tranz Rail?”

    Key: “Fifty thousand at the maximum point. Sometimes 25,000, sometimes 50,000.”

    Spot that? That’s a lie. Key has gone in to this recently, knows there is incorrect information on record, has chosen no to correct it, and has now chosen to lie about it.

    Mold: “Did you personally buy 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in 2005 and sell them five weeks later…”

    Key: “Oh look actually maybe 100,000 from memory, yes. Sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000 yep”…

    Mold: “Isn’t that an issue you should be clear about?”

    Key: “Well, sorry, yeah, it was 100,000 in total.”

    Caught out lying he quickly changes his story. Pathetic.
25. vto 25

    1 October 2008 at 3:24 pm

    r0b, whatever. The point is that SP despairs to the heavens about Key’s lies yet turns a blind eye to Clark’s lies. Pathetic. Lacks credibility. And what were you just saying on another thread about stopping the negative whingeing carry-on and engaging constructively?

    Clark is a liar. Peters is a liar. Benson-Pope, Taitoman, etc all lied. While in govt.

    On the set of justice scales this labour govt has redlined the red-faced-lying-meter.
26. r0b 26

    1 October 2008 at 3:29 pm

    r0b, whatever.

    Yeah OK vto, good for you. Key should get a free pass shouldn’t he. He’s got such a nice suit.

    The point is that SP despairs to the heavens about Key’s lies yet turns a blind eye to Clark’s lies.

    The point is that Key’s lies are real, and Clark’s debatable or total beat ups.
27. Steve Pierson 27

    1 October 2008 at 3:33 pm

    On the smacking referendum. Have you read the Ministry of Justice advise on this? I’m pretty sure we posted it. The MoJ said a postal ballot would cost bascially the same amount as a concurrent referendum at the genreal election and was preferable for operational reasons – you don’t have to train 15,000 polling staff to handle the referendum as well as the election. In 1999, runnig two referenda with the election lead to significant delays. I was a polling clerk that election, it was a mess.
28. Steve Pierson 28

    1 October 2008 at 3:35 pm

    yeah r0b, whatever. You only ever want to talk about whether Key is honest, competent and has good policies. You never want to talk about how cool he is for making all that money.
29. higherstandard 29

    1 October 2008 at 3:39 pm

    “The point is that Key’s lies are real, and Clark’s debatable or total beat ups.”

    Ha ha outstanding …… yet more of the same old National is bad Labour is good argument and about as valid as the opposite view taken on other blogs.
30. higherstandard 30

    1 October 2008 at 3:45 pm

    SP

    The main reason the PM doesn’t want the referendum at the same time as the election is that she and her government have been closely linked to the bill (even though it was the Greens/Bradford’s).

    In my opinion it would be unfairly taint the election against Labour if it was held on election day but for the MOJ to suggest it is due to operational reasons is somewhat staggering – are people so thick that they can’t read a statement and tick a Yes/No.

    [it’s not the voters, its the operational issues of running concurrent votes. SP]
31. r0b 31

    1 October 2008 at 3:50 pm

    What can I say Steve, you caught me red handed. Don’t tell my Mom, she’d be so ashamed.
32. vto 32

    1 October 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Clark lied about the smacking referendum timeframe. Clark lied when she claimed the Peters PC hearing was politically tainted. Clark lies all the time – it’s what politicians do (according to the criteria on this thread). But according to you people only the nats lie…. I mean really, are you serious??

    SP, not sure what you’re getting at there. But good effort on avoidance and diversion on my other points in relation to your standards.
33. Felix 33

    1 October 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Wasn’t it the Electoral Commission who “lied” about the timeframe vto?
34. vto 34

    1 October 2008 at 4:02 pm

    did they “lie” too felix? Maybe its a wellington problem
35. Felix 35

    1 October 2008 at 4:04 pm

    vto: “Clark lied when she claimed the Peters PC hearing was politically tainted.”

    Not sure what you’re getting at there – surely that’s her opinion.
36. vto 36

    1 October 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Felix, it is a lie when the opinion is different from the statement. Do you seriously believe her opinion was that the “right” on the PC were tainted and by implication labour and NZF not tainted? I don’t. Labour and NZF PC members were the tainted ones (and she tainted it herself by commenting on it, contrary to her earlier claim about the nats comenting on it). Lie on top of lie. It is why she is drifting down down down. Sad. Such a waste (sort of).
37. randal 37

    1 October 2008 at 4:53 pm

    vto its daytime and you are whistling to keep your spirits up. I f everybody lied like like national then it would be impossible to conduct any business whatsoever because nobody would be able to tell what was false and what was true but after parsing natoinals proclamations then anything that is the opposite must be true.
38. higherstandard 38

    1 October 2008 at 4:56 pm

    So Randal when Key said Helen Clark was extremely hardworking and that Michael Cullen would be remembered for the Cullen fund/Kiwisaver the opposite must be true ……. ok then
39. randal 39

    1 October 2008 at 5:06 pm

    hs..hold your breath and spin round till you turn blue in the face and fall on the floor…ok?
40. travellerev 40

    1 October 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Randal,

    It was a good thing I read Steve’s advise on not having something liquid in my mouth because I would have had to clean my keyboard for sure. LOL.
41. randal 41

    1 October 2008 at 5:11 pm

    he knows what he is talking about…
42. higherstandard 42

    1 October 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Birds of a feather flock together….. let’s just hope they don’t procreate.
43. travellerev 43

    1 October 2008 at 5:23 pm

    HS,

    That’s true, you must be lonely without d4j and other banned trolls. Funny how all of you are angry males. Good thing really.
    No procreating.

    Never mind one of these days you’ll probably say something stupid again and we’ll have another blissful week of intelligent discourse without you interspersing it with inane baiting remarks.
44. r0b 44

    1 October 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Ha ha outstanding yet more of the same old National is bad Labour is good argument and about as valid as the opposite view taken on other blogs.

    Yeah righto HS – when you find me an example from Clark that is as blatant, self serving, obvious and contemptuous as Key’s lie (quoted above), you just let me know please.
45. r0b 45

    1 October 2008 at 5:37 pm

    correct tags (wherefore art thou edit):

    Ha ha outstanding yet more of the same old National is bad Labour is good argument and about as valid as the opposite view taken on other blogs.

    Yeah righto HS – when you find me an example from Clark that is as blatant, self serving, obvious and contemptuous as Key’s lie (quoted above), you just let me know please.
46. higherstandard 46

    1 October 2008 at 5:54 pm

    r0b

    1. No I think it would be against human nature.

    2. They’re both honourable gentleman.

    3. Well no-one asked me.

    Eve

    Angry males – No I’m not angry are you ?

    Intelligent discourse and yourself don’t tend to inhabit the same space such is the case for Randal if you weren’t so rabidly anti Key you would have been evicted from this blog some time ago.
47. r0b 47

    1 October 2008 at 6:05 pm

    HS

    1. Pathetic example.

    2. Pathetic example.

    3. Pathetic example.

    Let’s compare with an actual lie:

    Mold: “How many shares exactly did you and your family own in Tranz Rail?”

    Key: “Fifty thousand at the maximum point. Sometimes 25,000, sometimes 50,000.”
48. higherstandard 48

    1 October 2008 at 6:21 pm

    r0b

    1. you’re in denial

    2. you’re in denial

    3. you’re in denial

    Let’s compare the actual lie……. why bother ?

    Show me a politician I’ll show you an “unmitigated falsifier of veracity”

    edit I exclude the smaller parties (not NZ First) from that barb – many of their members have shown themselves to be quite honourable.
49. Felix 49

    1 October 2008 at 6:34 pm

    vto

    I’m seriously having trouble following your train of thought today and I usually find you very lucid. I think I’ll get drunk.

    hs

    whether you intend it or not, you do come across as a bit angry and sexist when you communicate with ladies. You seem to be showing your true colours a bit more lately in many ways though. Which is a good thing IMO. No point holding it all in.
50. lprent 50

    1 October 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Show me a politician I’ll show you an “unmitigated falsifier of veracity’

    edit I exclude the smaller parties (not NZ First) from that barb – many of their members have shown themselves to be quite honourable.

    That is probably because there is a real disjunction in the expectations of the public. They want increased social services like health, while also having tax cuts, when the population is aging.

    On the campaign trails politicians say what they’d like to do. In power they have to look at the costs of their promises. Of course the minor parties come off well – they never have to look at the costs.

    Labour has managed to either achieve or get considerable progress on their promises in the last 9 years. That is because they under-promise and try to over-deliver.

    National these days just seems to over-promise in their policies by never having anything clear in their A4’s. They also never bother to think about how to pay for it. It appears to be too hard for them. In fact you’d almost say that their ‘policy’ is to get the treasury benches and then start making policy. Same as in 1990
51. higherstandard 51

    1 October 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Felix

    Tis the problem with email and blogs – we all tend to place a persona and voice behind the persons text we read.

    I read your comments with a voice over of James Brown in my head…. no offence intended if you’re not a fan.

    [lprent: being remiss in my duties – forgot to remove you from moderation – now done.]
52. vto 52

    1 October 2008 at 7:25 pm

    travellerev, time to get over your prejudices re white males (only middle class ones too apparently). You just look silly.

    felix, sometimes I just fire things down quickly without too much checking hence being lucid-lite I guess.

    There were really only two points I was trying to make, both very similar. First is this insane idea that the nats lie and labour doesn’t. Second is this malleable morality which gets shaped to both fit into labours less than honourable actions from time to time and to exaggerate the nats less than honourable actions from ttime to time.
53. travellerev 53

    1 October 2008 at 7:52 pm

    HS,

    That’s hilarious coming from you. Denial. The man going “lalala, I can’t hear you” with his fingers in his ears and eyes closed.

    Buildings reinforced to withstand nuclear blasts do not collapse into their own footprint into dust in 6.5 sec. after only a couple of office fires.

    This is what US fire fighters have to say about it and this what <a href=’http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.phpveterans have to say about it and this is what <a href=’http://www.ae911truth.org/Architects and Engineers have to say about it. You see I’m in good company whereas you have to do with the likes of d4j and vto.

    vto,

    I said angry man. And yes, you both sound angry and condescending and patronising.
54. vto 54

    1 October 2008 at 8:03 pm

    see. just silly.

    perhaps you could point out something I have said that “sounds angry and condescending and patronising”.
55. r0b 55

    1 October 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Let’s compare the actual lie . why bother ?

    HS – Because a person who lies with such glib facility is not fit to be PM. It is you who is in denial old chap.
56. travellerev 56

    1 October 2008 at 8:23 pm

    vto,

    see. just silly.
    Condescending and patronising

    get fucked
    angry
57. vto 57

    1 October 2008 at 8:32 pm

    travellerev, something obviously has affected you in the past to turn you into such a racist, sexist, angry and quite frankly brainless (or should that be headless) chook.

    unless you find some things that I have said that “sound angry and condescending and patronising” (other than to you, which have only EVER been in retaliation) then we need never speak again.

    There you go – I’m sure you will find something in there to get your bigoted fangs into (as I’m sure there will be no evidence to back up assertions).
58. travellerev 58

    1 October 2008 at 8:33 pm

    F*&k,

    This is what US fire fighters have to say about it and this what veterans have to say about it and this is what Architects and Engineers have to say about it. You see I’m in good company whereas you have to do with the likes of d4j and vto.
59. higherstandard 59

    1 October 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Eve

    I’ve heard you a number of times but I’ve now just given up listening. If I wanted to continue debating the events of Sept 11 I’d do it on your blog.

    r0b

    If that’s the case what choices are left if Helen and John are both out of the mix ?
60. r0b 60

    1 October 2008 at 8:53 pm

    If that’s the case what choices are left if Helen and John are both out of the mix ?

    You know my opinion on those two HS, but if you regard them as equivalent then vote Green. Fitzsimons has always struck me as a person of utmost integrity, and one of the few sane voices in parliament. And Norman is coming along nicely. Vote Green.
61. higherstandard 61

    1 October 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Hah good on you – I agree that they’re both good people… but we both know that I won’t be voting Green – have a good evening.
62. r0b 62

    1 October 2008 at 8:59 pm

    You too HS, g’night.
63. travellerev 63

    2 October 2008 at 6:57 am

    vto,

    Misogynist, Condescending, angry and patronising.
    All in one comment, amazing.

    Hs

    When will it get through to you, it’s not about you. You will always stick your fingers in your ears and go “lalala, I can’t hear you.”

    But last month alone 13.009 hits on my blog alone prove that people out there are hungry for information. 46% kiwi, 30% US and the other hits from al over the world.

    By the time the depression is going to hit, you’ll be going WTF just happened but maybe those people will be better prepared. Those are the ones I’m trying to reach.

    For anyone interested: The bank I banked with for 36 years, as solid as, just collapsed and had to be saved by the Dutch government and a second one is on the verge off.

    Toxic bonds and derivatives are destroying the entire western banking system.

    This is not something that can be solved with a bailout. This is a systemic failure caused by greed and speculation of astronomic proportions.

    Thanks to John Key and his Wall street scumbag mates we will be struggling for the next twenty years.

    Am I rabidly against John Key? I don’t know him but seeing him caught lying about his gambling habit and knowing what is about to hit the US and knowing the Wall street is responsible for the collapse and knowing that John Key was managing director of debt (bonds and derivatives) for Merrill Lynch gives me a very nasty taste in my mouth and all the alarm bells ringing in the back of my head.
64. vto 64

    2 October 2008 at 8:07 am

    So travellerev, useless too then. Clearly cannot come up with anything to support your racism and sexism, just as previously surmised.

    All you ever do is abuse people for being male or white or middle class. I have never once seen you provide any evidence to support whatever is meant by those “allegations”. And same again now.
65. travellerev 65

    2 October 2008 at 8:19 am

    vto,

    Actually no, All I ever do is give people as much information as I can and comment on the thread. I only abuse people like you, HS and Lucas and only after you, HS and Lucas and let’s not forget Billy once again show your ignorance.

    People here may not agree with me but it seems to me that most of us try to respect each others points of view and do so without ridiculing each other even if someone’s points of view seems outrageous to them.
66. travellerev 66

    2 October 2008 at 8:22 am

    Hey vto,

    I found you another misogynist ignoramus friend. Meet Santi.
67. vto 67

    2 October 2008 at 8:23 am

    travellerev, I dont know how to put this any simpler, but I will try. Show me some examples of where I have been, in your own words;

    condescending
    patronising
    angry
    misogynist
    ignorant

    And, not things I have said to you which, again, have only EVER been in retaliation.

    Some come on, your words are hollow – put up or shut up.
68. T-rex 68

    2 October 2008 at 9:48 am

    “I only abuse people like you, HS and Lucas and only after you, HS and Lucas and let’s not forget Billy once again show your ignorance.”

    You also routinely abuse me as well, and usually after I’ve
    1) Reviewed all of your sources
    2) Pointed out the plethora of internal contradictions and outright garbage
    3) Provided sound reasoning based on real science in rebuttal, which you have never once tried to refute and
    4) Illustrated numerous underlying logical flaws (i.e. why try to blow up a tower when you could just pay an islamist extremist to fly a plane into it).

    But I don’t want to get all patriarchal.

    Just leave off the abuse Ev, you dish out WAY more than you get on this forum, and it just makes you look like a total infant. It’s embarassing to be around. At least when Tories do it I can take joy in shooting them down, but you’re from the same side! Kinda anyway.

    I posted a link for you the other day re: a company in Hamilton who had been trying to commercialize hydrogen on demand for cars and had been forced to conceed that their testing had revealed it to be a hoax and they were advising everyone against investing any money in such things. Did you see it? (Please don’t answer by telling me how far you last drove on a tank of petrol).

    Also – where on earth do you get that figure of 20 years from?? Can we just agree that you pulled it from thin air and really it’s almost impossible to predict?

Links to post

1. Field’s guilt and Farrar’s shame at The Standard: posted on 4 August 2009 at 8:58 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS