Nats’ homophobic dog-whistling continues

107 comments on “Nats’ homophobic dog-whistling continues ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Barnsley Bill 1

   6 April 2010 at 11:21 pm

   This is nonsense and you know it. So in love with labour,. garner managed to completely ignore the outright lie about it being his first trip this year. Brushing over his 3 week trip to the states and caribean for two days observing. You are defending the indefensible. Carter is a weapons grade trougher. I am confident this will be borne out by the release of the previous crowds credit card bills next month. Playing the “they is picking on me coz I is gay” is wearing very thin.
   • Zetetic 1.1

     6 April 2010 at 11:33 pm

     bullshit. Your ministers are off on holidays. They’re using taxpayer money. Carter goes on a work do and gets the slam. You know what’s behind it.
     • SHG 1.1.1

       7 April 2010 at 4:28 pm

       A “work do”? What is he doing over there? What possible benefit could there be to the NZ taxpayer in Carter’s latest OE?
2. Barnsley Bill 2

   6 April 2010 at 11:21 pm

   This is nonsense and you know it. So in love with labour,. garner managed to completely ignore the outright lie about it being his first trip this year. Brushing over his 3 week trip to the states and caribean for two days observing. You are defending the indefensible. Carter is a weapons grade trougher. I am confident this will be borne out by the release of the previous crowds credit card bills next month. Playing the “they is picking on me coz I is gay” is wearing very thin.
3. Peter Johns 3

   6 April 2010 at 11:28 pm

   Everyone is sick of hearing the homosexual excuse.
   Carter is a bludging prick. A fortnight away so he can go up the Kaiser.
   Rorter, rorter, rorter.
   • Zetetic 3.1

     6 April 2010 at 11:31 pm

     where’s the rort you homophobic scum?
     • Peter Johns 3.1.1

       7 April 2010 at 8:49 am

       I am not homophobic fuckwit. Sick of getting gay shit shoved down by the media. No one comes out & says I am hetrosexual do they and why if gay is to be proud, why did it take Ricky Martin years to come out?
       • the sprout 3.1.1.1

         7 April 2010 at 8:59 am

         Would you like to try that again PJ, only this time coherently?
         As is so often the case, the hate and fear seems to have addled your brain.
       • A Nonny Moose 3.1.1.2

         7 April 2010 at 2:24 pm

         “why did it take Ricky Martin years to come out?”

         Because there are still people quite happy to discriminate on employment, social rights (eg: adopting children), marriage rights, and even happy to kill gays?

         Yes, he/they are proud to be gay. But scared for how Fuckwits of the World United will treat them? You bet.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     7 April 2010 at 12:21 am

     I hope you’re also calling Jonkey a rorter and Paula Bennett because they seem to be taking even more taxpayer money for skiving off overseas.
     • Kiwiteen123 3.2.1

       7 April 2010 at 2:30 pm

       OH FFS! John Key is the fucking Prime Minster 0f course he needs to travel overseas.
       Its people like you that give the left a bad name.
       • Kiwiteen123 3.2.1.1

         7 April 2010 at 2:30 pm

         of*
4. John B 4

   6 April 2010 at 11:47 pm

   You´re right. The media should be focusing on the National Party smear unit being run by Jason Ede, a staffer in John Key´s office. But they won´t, because they want to keep the stream of dirt flowing. Saves reporting on real news.
   • the sprout 4.1

     7 April 2010 at 8:55 am

     Exactly.
     Garner’s interest in balance and accuracy is somewhat heavily outweighed by his laziness and gullibility.
5. Barnsley Bill 5

   6 April 2010 at 11:48 pm

   Zetetic. he has form, irrespective of your desire to turn this into some sort of gay bashing media scandal the simple fact is that every time Chris Carter straps himself into a business class trip the media will ask questions based solely on his legendary past and spending.
   This is an issue that should engender bipartisan support on the blogs. I am no happier than you about govt ministers taking foreign holidays with massive tax payer funded subsidies and I think it is disgusting that MP expenditure is not allowed to be included under the OIA rules. My disgust for this situation is blind to party or member. I want this to stop.
   The perks they have granted themselves are an outrage and now there is a suggestion that we should pay for the kids as well. How many jobs pay for two homes? Unlimited personal travel? 15k a year for personal expenses tax free and no requirement to provide receipts.
   The whole system needs sorting out and the first area would be travel and the money list mp’s get for moving around. If you are on the list you are based in wellington. End of story. If you accept the job then you should move there.
   I could rant on like this for an hour, but what is the point. Any attempt to clean it up will just see squealing from the left that the rich tories are trying to starve them out. Plus I doubt very much that many of the national mp’s are any more open to cleaning it up than your lot would be.
   • Zetetic 5.1

     6 April 2010 at 11:51 pm

     So. You agree with me that Carter has been picked out.

     It’s not about form. It’s about your lot’s homophobic campaign. Chauvel, Carter. You’ve got your perverted eyes on them all. Pushing stories on them that would never make the msm on straight MPs.
   • lprent 5.2

     7 April 2010 at 12:38 am

     The guy is our opposition foreign affairs spokesman going off to do what he is paid for. No different from McCully in opposition or any other MP. If you want to change the rules, then campaign on that rather than targeting individuals selectively. But fighting for the principle has always just been camouflage for you hasn’t it?.

     I suspect you of just being a homophobe trying to excuse it to make it look like something different.. Perhaps you need a name change? Barnsley Bigot?
     • Cnr Joe 5.2.1

       7 April 2010 at 8:21 am

       Buggerlugs Bill
6. RedBack 6

   6 April 2010 at 11:52 pm

   Chris Carter goes on a legitmate trip to observe a general election in another OECD country and NZ’s rabid homophobes start frothing with incredulous anger. Its so predictable its just dull.

   The Minister for Social Development (Ms Bennett) uses taxpayer money to go on a course not more than a year after she cuts night class funding and access to tertiary education funds for solo mums. Is anyone in the NZ media actually awake? Or is blatant hypocrisy not newsworthy. Guess not. Better pick on them gays. Thats much easier. Somehow I get the feeling there wouldn’t be a news story if Chris Carter was straight.
7. gingercrush 7

   6 April 2010 at 11:54 pm

   Oh bullshit, the National Party isn’t dog-whistling its just Duncan Garner being Garner and reporting crap. Why you think he’s one of the best political reporters is beyond me. As I said in July 2009 on Garner, I can’t stand how Garner frames arguments. I never have. One reason I don’t watch Tv3. Don’t have to put up with that smug twit. It doesn’t matter what he is reporting on or who he is reporting to. The guy is an ass.

   End of. One only has to see his awful interviewing skills on “The Nation” to see the tripe he comes out with. Instead of interesting interviews we get crap. But don’t bother trying and make this about the National Party and rather tenuous links of so-called homophobic dog-whistling by them.

   1. Much of this is Chris Carter’s own fault for having high expenses in the first place then handling the situation badly.
   2. Garner is always finding something and attempting to make it into a big scandal, i.e. David Shearer http://www.thestandard.org.nz/might-be-taken-the-wrong-way-by-some.
   3. Exactly when have either TV One or TV Three produced real critical analysis of government policy or policy from either party? Surely hasn’t happened during Key’s term or most of Clark’s term. Notice how awful Campbell Live and Close Up are now days? Q&A and The Nation and previously Agenda did at times but even then its a rarity.
   4. Exactly what other things do you have that shows National constantly attacking Labour Gay MPs. There isn’t anything. The media started the Chris Carter crap when the expenses were released and went after anyone who spent a lot. That Carter kept making other problems didn’t help either. The Charles Chauvel incident on the plane was from a blogger. Yes the blogger has right-wing links. But that is to the Act Party and I don’t know if you’ve read some of the right-wing blogs but they’re not exactly in love with National at the moment.
   5. Perhaps Labour MPs are talking? The new Labour MPs are talented and ambitious and MPs talk behind-the-scenes all the time. Could it be that someone from the Labour Party told Garner about this? (and before some idiot namely mickeysavage comes in and says “No Labour MP would ever do such a thing”. I say bullshit. It happens within every party.)
   6. I have no doubt Chris Carter being gay does play a role in this being reported, how its reported etc. But that doesn’t show links to the National Party. (I was going to write about how we unconsciously play to stereotypes etc but I’m not an academic and can’t do such things)
   7. Why did you include the National Party at all? What should have been a story about Duncan Garner and 3 News and a poor excuse for a news story, is instead focused on tenuous linkages of National dog-whistling.
8. bobo 8

   6 April 2010 at 11:58 pm

   The “action” shot of Garner in those tight rugby shorts is cracking me up.
   • the sprout 8.1

     7 April 2010 at 8:51 am

     Yeah, that would be the journalist ridiculed on the international stage by GW Bush for his ultra-tacky bad dress sense.

     That would be the same journalist that condemed Clark for opposing Bainimarama’s takeover in Fiji.

     “[O]ne of the best journos in the country”? Um, no. Garner is a total chump, hardly any wonder his colleagues refer to him as Dumcunt Garner.
     • abusive 8.1.1

       7 April 2010 at 8:57 am

       That’s dumbcunt you dumbcunt
       • the sprout 8.1.1.1

         7 April 2010 at 9:06 am

         i stand corrected
9. Barnsley Bill 9

   7 April 2010 at 12:04 am

   “So. You agree with me that Carter has been picked out.”
   Yes. But not because he is gay. That tired old excuse will not wash anymore. He is a weapons grade trougher. You know it, I know it and so does everybody else. Any bloody excuse for a jolly overseas and he is tripping over himself to get on the plane.
   You are the one making the issue of his sexuality and simply by framing your post in this way you will see it throughout the media and blogs tomorrow with the usual rolling of metaphorical eyes as everyone sighs and says “Oh, look at Carter. At it again”.
   Clearly you do not want to debate the points I raised about cleaning up the system so I will leave you with one final thought before I log off for the night.
   What the hell is Phil Goff doing? Has he absolutely no control over rogue members of his caucus? On what planet would Goff think that this would be okay to approve after the fuss last year about carters spending and then the 3 week jolly for a few hours in St Kitts this year?
   Andrew Little or some other senior figure needs to get in there and help Goff get the liabilities under control.
   • Luxated 9.1

     7 April 2010 at 4:46 am

     How about, instead of constantly ranting about other people’s views, you should, perhaps, explain calmly and clearly what you think Carter has done wrong and why it was wrong. Something more substantial than ‘Three weeks in the Caribbean’ would be appreciated. You might like to consider finding out what Carter was doing during this time and whether it was publicly expensed or whether Carter paid for it personally.

     Also, the enter key is your friend. Use it more often and the overwhelming urge to completely ignore you will be damped somewhat.
10. the sprout 10

    7 April 2010 at 9:16 am

    Here’s what Brian Edwards thinks of Garner’s journalistic ‘talent’
    http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2010/03/big-time-wrestling-with-duncan-and-gerry/
11. tc 11

    7 April 2010 at 9:17 am

    Garner’s an egotistical plonker who thinks he’s the story, however he’s not alone as Espiner/Holmes etc are just as bad as they all allow pollys soapboxes rather than undergo scrutiny or be pulled up on the fast and loose statements they make.

    You can tell it’s a slow week when crap like this comes out but garner’s not totally to blame as his bosses would be demanding ratings driven pieces and we all know a good old dog whistle has the punters running and panting for miles……who’s a good boy duncan…..now rollover again….good boy.

    The fact some consider him the best is a sad indictment of the systemic absence of quality in our 4th estate and how easily the gov’t can lead them where they choose to.
    • the sprout 11.1

      7 April 2010 at 9:21 am

      agreed on all counts tc
    • Tigger 11.2

      7 April 2010 at 5:32 pm

      Garner got blooded when he relentlessly pursued Benson-Pope. He’s desperate for the thrill of the kill again. Carter’s the deer that he’s trying to separate from the pack.
12. kiwiteen123 12

    7 April 2010 at 10:12 am

    What a repulsive post!
    Why does Chris Carter have to observe the UK election? What does this have to do with his portfolio?
    It has nothing to do with him being gay and to say so is a lie.
    • TightyRighty 12.1

      7 April 2010 at 10:30 am

      it all started with a chris carter human-whistle to his supporters when the media first started questioning him about his travel expenses. now any time anyone questions chris, it’s because he is gay. wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that he has travel bills that are at least three times higher than the average wage per year. maybe he is out looking for more crooks to grant citizenship, you think they would at least cover his travel bills.
    • The Voice of Reason 12.2

      7 April 2010 at 11:24 am

      If it was nothing to do with him being gay, teeny, why did Garner bring up Carter’s partner? I haven’t heard anything about the partners of National ministers troughing it up on the various taxpayer funded trips happening this year, so why is it relevant for Carter? Presumabably because Garner is a homophobe or at least happy to promote homophobia.

      It is part of Carter’s job to represent the opposition at Commonwealth elections such as these and I have no doubt that the Nats will send someone too, especially as the top tory toff, David Cameron, comes from the same cloning factory as John Key.

      Anyhoo, welcome back, Milhouse. Good luck with the new blog and don’t go wasting the holidays waiting for the comments section to hit double figures.
      • Kiwiteen123 12.2.1

        7 April 2010 at 11:33 am

        I am under the impression that Garner would bring up his female partner if he had one.

        Why does the opposition need to be represented at the UK election, all they have to gain is certain tactics or policies which a) they could do from NZ and b) we shouldn’t be funding.

        It has absolutely nothing to do with him being gay. Nothing. He should not be allowed to rip the taxpayer off and then use the fact that he is gay as a defense.

        Thank you.
      • TightyRighty 12.2.2

        7 April 2010 at 11:36 am

        it could be said that it was chris carter who made it about being gay after the infamous “it’s because i’m gay” line. i mean, it hadn’t even been brought up until that point by the media, then chris goes looking for something to shift the focus by borrowing attack lines from the UK labour party. unfortunately for chris, we are far more tolerant here than in the UK, and far less cowed by PC bullying tactics, so his bullshit just earned the derision it deserved.
      • SHG 12.2.3

        7 April 2010 at 4:33 pm

        “It is part of Carter’s job to represent the opposition at Commonwealth elections such as these”

        WTF?
        • kiwiteen123 12.2.3.1

          7 April 2010 at 4:37 pm

          Ikr. He has an odd job description!
        • The Voice of Reason 12.2.3.2

          7 April 2010 at 5:39 pm

          Yup, believe it or not, SHG, Foreign Affairs is about Government to Government relations and it is part of Carter’s job to attend these things, particularly within the Commonwealth nations. It’s not unusual at all and as I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the Nats will be sending someone too.
          • kiwiteen123 12.2.3.2.1

            7 April 2010 at 5:44 pm

            Gay or not. Labour or not. It is a waste of money.
            It is slightly different a government representative over a party representative but only slightly.
            • The Voice of Reason 12.2.3.2.1.1

              7 April 2010 at 6:03 pm

              How is it a waste, KT? Care to share the Cost/Benefit analysis with us?
              • kiwiteen123 …

                7 April 2010 at 6:11 pm

                No.
          • SHG 12.2.3.2.2

            7 April 2010 at 6:38 pm

            “Foreign Affairs is about Government to Government relations”

            Yes. And Foreign Affairs has people on staff who are professionals trained in maintaining just those relations. We call them “diplomats”. They are based at offices known as “High Commissions”.

            Well what do you know, there’s a NZ High Commission right there in London! Full of diplomats whose job descriptions really do include maintaining relations with the Government of Great Britain.

            But no – Carter wants another holiday. Hell, it’s all of 60 days since his last one – he must be in withdrawal.
    • lprent 12.3

      7 April 2010 at 11:32 am

      MP’s from most countries and most parties do it all of the time. How else do they get a good look at ideas that they can use in their own country.

      There were MP’s and other political observers here from aussie and the UK during our last election that I know of.
      • Kiwiteen123 12.3.1

        7 April 2010 at 11:37 am

        The whole other-people-do-it-so-why-can’t-I excuse will not work. You should know that Lynn!
        • lprent 12.3.1.1

          7 April 2010 at 11:44 am

          That wasn’t what I argued.

          For instance in the US presidential elections, there were a number of MP’s and other political junkies from here over there looking for new ideas to consider for here. In particular they were looking at the impact of electronic media, and the methods of campaign finance on the political process. Both are current issues here.

          You have no idea of how things work in practice if you just go off theory. That is why every organisation sends people to have a closer look at things happening elsewhere in the world.

          Parliament is just another organisation. Perhaps you’d like to suggest alternative ways of effectively getting the same information?
          • Kiwiteen123 12.3.1.1.1

            7 April 2010 at 11:52 am

            Ok.
            I have now watched the full clip.
            If he is right in saying that the only public money will be his long service discounts I have no complaint.
            I personally think it is a waste of his money but he can spend it how he wants.
            I still think that it has nothing to do with his homosexuality.
            • SHG 12.3.1.1.1.1

              7 April 2010 at 4:37 pm

              I didn’t see anything in the clip about Carter taking leave from his job without pay. He’s still going to be getting his taxpayer-funded salary while, once again, he’s somewhere other than in NZ representing the people of Te Atatu.
              • kiwiteen123 …

                7 April 2010 at 4:40 pm

                But SHG the opposition MUST have someone representing them at a foreign election. It is a constitutional right.
                EDIT: That is odd I had a sarcasm html tag around that… Oh well. It is sarcasm BTW.
                • lprent …

                  7 April 2010 at 5:10 pm

                  There is no sarcasm tag in the HTML standard. The editor will strip any tags it doesn’t know about. This prevents people from putting object tags in (for instance) with some payload for the unwary viewer.
                  • kiwiteen123 …

                    7 April 2010 at 5:12 pm

                    Ah ha! That will be why! I shall find a way around it.
                    • Luxated …

                      8 April 2010 at 10:34 am

                      The normal approach would be to use /sarcasm instead of a proper HTML style tag.
            • facepalm 12.3.1.1.1.2

              7 April 2010 at 5:00 pm

              So we got that first salvo of wit and you hadn’t even seen the thing?

              Is this a kindergarten or what? And if it is why are we feeding them so much sugar?
      • TightyRighty 12.3.2

        7 April 2010 at 11:38 am

        I have no issue with Chris going in his role as opposition foreign affairs spokesperson to the UK. i am bemused by all his stopovers though, there and back. seeing as he is going on the public ticket, i would at least like an explanation of why he will be stopping in paris. i can understand brussels, being EU capital and all. but doesn’t that render paris redundant?
13. PK 13

    7 April 2010 at 11:32 am

    ***Why does Chris Carter have to observe the UK election? ***

    Good question. Regardless of whether it is Carter or someone else, it does seem a little unnecessary?
    • lprent 13.1

      7 April 2010 at 11:36 am

      See my comment above.

      Care to suggest an alternative way of finding out exactly how political innovations work in practice?
      • Kiwiteen123 13.1.1

        7 April 2010 at 11:39 am

        It’s a good investment for the Labour Party but a bad investment for the country.
        It has absolutely nothing to do with his portfolio.
        • The Voice of Reason 13.1.1.1

          7 April 2010 at 11:59 am

          He’s the Foreign Affairs spokesperson, KT, so it is absolutely part of his portfolio. This Beehive Blog of yours; is it about honey? I ask because you seem to know bugger all about how parliament works.
          • Kiwiteen123 13.1.1.1.1

            7 April 2010 at 12:16 pm

            I know that the Beehive is not Parliament, which you appear not to.
      • SHG 13.1.2

        7 April 2010 at 6:43 pm

        Why don’t we just ask the NZ High Commission in London?

        I know, silly question – the diplomats at the NZ High Commission are public servants whose professional responsibility is reporting to the NZ Government on political developments in the UK and representing the NZ Govt in the UK. Asking the NZ High Commission would be crazy.
        • The Voice of Reason 13.1.2.1

          7 April 2010 at 7:08 pm

          Its an election, SHG. A political event. The public servants who work in our High Commissions are politically neutral. Well, supposedly. The pollies aren’t, for obvious reasons, and winning elections is their life’s work. The UK election is a particularly big deal because of the similarities between them and us. Solid but not yet trusted labour leader versus vacuous rich prick. So why are you surprised that MP’s from here would be keen to go and why, when it is so obviously a work related event, would you be surprised that it’s an authorised trip?
          • SHG 13.1.2.1.1

            8 April 2010 at 1:07 am

            Well, that’s pretty damn annoying then. Based on that description, it looks like Carter is representing the Labour Party and observing the Labour CAMPAIGN for the benefit of the Labour Party. I don’t see how that has anything to do with his job at all, and I don’t see why the taxpayer should foot the bill.
            • lprent 13.1.2.1.1.1

              8 April 2010 at 8:14 am

              From what I’ve read around here, I think that Carter is using his parliamentary travel privileges. In other words – part of his salary package. That means whilst tax payers are paying for it, they are doing it as part of the normal renumeration.

              Are you wanting to retroactively change the employment terms?

              However I think that there is a good case to be made that such trips are justified to prevent our MP’s getting as mindlessly parochial as you appear to be.

              But since MP’s do these types of trips all of the time and Carter seems to be the one being singled out, I suspect you simply have a bigotry issue.
              • felix …

                8 April 2010 at 9:12 am

                Did somebody say retrosp… Sorry, false alarm.
              • SHG …

                8 April 2010 at 4:28 pm

                lprent said: “I suspect you simply have a bigotry issue.”

                That’s rich coming from you. Pot, kettle.
              • lprent …

                8 April 2010 at 5:17 pm

                Well I am bigoted against trollish behaviour on our site, and I have to say that I find it difficult to comprehend that some people can’t write code…

                I have views about how much I’d trust someone young with dangerous equipment like firearms or cars around me (but I suspect that is more a safety issue than anything else).

                Apart from that I don’t like the attitudes and mentality of ACToids, but that is a difference of opinion (and another safety issue for many of the same reasons as giving adolescents access to firearms).

                Enlighten me, who exactly am I meant to be bigoted against? (As felix points out, you’ve already admitted you are a bigot).

                And of course I am bigoted against stupid bigotry that has no underlying rational basis, like homophobes, male chauvinism, racism, etc etc….
            • felix 13.1.2.1.1.2

              8 April 2010 at 4:58 pm

              SGH I hope you have a link to back up your claim that Lynn is a bigot.

              Also, I hope you realise that by invoking the “pot calling the kettle black” idiom you’re saying “well ok, I am a bigot but so are you”.

              I get the feeling that most of the people using that phrase and it’s variants here don’t actually understand it and I think that might include you.
14. gobsmacked 14

    7 April 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Of course it’s homophobic dog-whistling. Claiming otherwise is lying, or being unbelievably naive.

    A trip to the Zoo:

    Ooh, look Mummy, it’s the Gay. Is he dangerous? The sign says he’s not. Are you sure? Get a stick. Let’s prod him through the cage. Go on, make him say he’s Gay. Damn, he’s not reacting. He’s ignoring us. Prod him harder. Make him really angry. But don’t say he’s Gay. Not out loud. Never, ever say he’s Gay. Make him say it. Come on, one more prod …

    Got him! The beast has bitten back! See, told you he was dangerous.

    Protect us from the Gay.
15. The Voice of Reason 15

    7 April 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Actually, I do no the technical difference, thanks. However your blog’s name is based on the colloquial use of ‘The Beehive’ to refer to all things political and that is the context in which my comment was made.

    Any other arguments you want to lose?

    BTW, how’s the socialist lifestyle going? Food, shelter and clothing paid for by Mum and Dad; schooling, health and dentistry paid for by the taxpayer. You troughing, hypocritical little twat.
    • Kiwiteen123 15.1

      7 April 2010 at 12:36 pm

      Oh this is great! Play the ball not the player.
      I presume you can spell “know” and that it was just a typo.

      My parents have worked hard for years to be able to live the lifestyle they/we do. I call this capitalism. My schooling and health are paid for by my parents because they have worked hard to be able to afford it.
      I am not a trougher.
      • TightyRighty 15.1.1

        7 April 2010 at 12:45 pm

        actually, kiwiteen, you are. the only difference is that the taxpayer will only be subsidising your existence, as opposed to a politician, where it is fully funded. i was a trougher too once, as most of us were. it’s when you leave the nest to pursue gainful employment that you get to relinquish the tag.

        or do you work for your parents on a pro-rata basis to offset your consumption of goods and services provided?
        • Kiwiteen123 15.1.1.1

          7 April 2010 at 12:53 pm

          Everything I receive as a teenager I will give back as an adult.
          • pollywog 15.1.1.1.1

            7 April 2010 at 1:10 pm

            How about i give you jolly good rogering then 🙂
            • Mac1 15.1.1.1.1.1

              7 April 2010 at 1:28 pm

              Pollywog, that is an ‘ad hominem’ argument.

              This comment meant both facetiously and seriously. Some teens I know do have serious fears about such matters.

              I’d like to know how Kiwiteen’s essay on the French Revolution went.
              • Kiwiteen123 …

                7 April 2010 at 1:32 pm

                @Mac1
                Good memory!
                All Excellences….. Thanks for asking. 🙂
              • Mac1 …

                7 April 2010 at 1:57 pm

                Kiwiteen, good result. Well done.

                Now, what did you learn from your study of the French Revolution that might be applicable to NZ politics or useful in living in 21st Century New Zealand?

                I do know it’s holidays!
              • Kiwiteen123 …

                7 April 2010 at 2:01 pm

                To listen to the people??!
              • Mac1 …

                7 April 2010 at 2:47 pm

                To listen to the people, Kiwiteen, not the poor advice of the advisers to the King.

                Yes, and not to allow the burden of taxation to fall upon the poor. And to ensure that the people are fed, and housed, and clothed and not led off to be killed in foreign wars.

                And to allow elections and allow democratic views and practices to flourish, and not rule from on high in seigneurial fashion.

                And not allow a rich and powerful elite rule in their own self interests, and have the Church ally itself with that same interest.

                And to punish those who commit crimes harshly even though the social conditions of the time led to such poverty and hopelessness as a seedbed of crime.

                To not punish rich criminals but rather reward them with title and honours.

                That’s for starters, as to what a study of history can reveal about our times.
              • kiwiteen123 …

                7 April 2010 at 3:04 pm

                These are all problems.
                There are a million ways to solve them!
                How we solve them defines us, puts us into our political groups.
          • lprent 15.1.1.1.2

            7 April 2010 at 1:16 pm

            The question usually is if it is the reality or the teenage perception that you will be responding to as an adult?

            The first is rational, and the second is psychotic. Teenagers (in my opinion having been around a few of them) are essentially excessive emotions, half formed opinions, and all without much internal discipline.
            • TightyRighty 15.1.1.1.2.1

              7 April 2010 at 1:20 pm

              you forgot the inflated sense of self-importance. this usually goes away after the first time they vote labour or greens and realise it was a wasted vote.
              • Bright Red …

                7 April 2010 at 1:43 pm

                funny. when I first voted I was still a teenager (just). I voted Labour and we threw out Jenny Shipley’s useless government and ushered in 9 years of the best government New Zealand has ever had.
              • Kiwiteen123 …

                7 April 2010 at 1:47 pm

                Hilarious!
              • TightyRighty …

                7 April 2010 at 4:27 pm

                I said usually, thanks for proving my point though BR
            • Kiwiteen123 15.1.1.1.2.2

              7 April 2010 at 1:39 pm

              Interesting point Lynn!
              I think that I get money off the taxpayers now and that is basically an investment in my future. My taxes will pay off the debt of raising me.
      • The Voice of Reason 15.1.2

        7 April 2010 at 1:41 pm

        Your schooling and health are still taxpayer subsidised, KT and I note you don’t deny receiving all the other goodies for free. That’s not capitalism, it’s social democracy in action.

        I do hope you are a productive, tax paying member of society in the years to come. But for now, you are a beneficiary of the considerable largesse of the taxpayer and your parents. And I’ve no doubt your olds work hard (you strike me as pretty hard work all by yourself), but so does your teacher, the school cleaner, the driver of your subsidised bus or train, the bloke that picks up your discarded Maccas wrapper etc. Those folk aren’t rich, despite working hard.

        Hard work does not immediately equal monetary wealth, never has and never will under capitalism. As Lange said: ‘inequality is the spark of capitalism’. Without that fundamental unfairness, the modern economic system doesn’t work. And even with it, it doesn’t seem to working all that well, eh?

        Still, as long as you can comment from the safety of the trough, and don’t have to deal with mortgages, bosses, partners, children, crime, illness and all the other things that define adulthood, capitalism must seem a rather charming fantasy. I suspect you are going to like the reality a lot less.
        • Kiwiteen123 15.1.2.1

          7 April 2010 at 1:46 pm

          That is socialism summed up in one comment.

          I can see where you are coming from. The cleaner in the shopping mall DOES work hard, but I feel their life is not all that it could be.

          Life is tough. I know that and I am sure I will experience it more during my life.

          I can still hold a view.

          CAPTCHA: university Fits on several counts!
          • The Voice of Reason 15.1.2.1.1

            7 April 2010 at 2:14 pm

            Cheers, I take back the ‘twat’. For now.

            You certainly can hold a view, KT, but without exposure to all that capitalism means, that view is no more worthy than my view on what it would be like to live on Mars. Experiance is needed to add substance and colour to any opinion.

            If your blog, and your comments here, were about how politics affects a teenager in NZ, then your view would be absolutely valid. But at the moment its just ‘the standard’ sez this and ‘blubber’ says that. Nothing original. The great line about writing novels is ‘write about what you know’. The same applies to blogs, I think
            • Kiwiteen123 15.1.2.1.1.1

              7 April 2010 at 2:27 pm

              Your voice is certainly reasonable today!
              All comments are duly noted.
              We need to have youth having a view on politics and a view on the world around them to have a “brighter future”- no pun intended!
        • A Nonny Moose 15.1.2.2

          7 April 2010 at 2:38 pm

          Come on now VoR, you sound like you’re wrapping up ageism in cruel to be kind paper.

          You make it sound like kids and young adults can’t have a political opinion unless they’ve been working in the coal mine since age 6.

          I have a lot more respect for teenagers these days now that I see a generation is still talking down to them like I was talked down to at the same age.

          They’re not all scarfies and boy racers ya know.
          • Kiwiteen123 15.1.2.2.1

            7 April 2010 at 2:45 pm

            I think he is trying to express that we(teenagers) can have opinions but we need to accept that they are not fully developed and they probably will change with some real-life experience. Partly why I don’t use my real name.
          • The Voice of Reason 15.1.2.2.2

            7 April 2010 at 3:31 pm

            Jeez, do I sound that old? No wonder my kids take the piss out of me. I didn’t mean to be ageist, if I was at all, Moose. My point wasn’t generalised to the extent that it should apply to all teenagers. To use your example, any young person that started work down the mine at 6 would have some pretty valid insights into the world, but that’s not the case with Kiwiteen 123.

            Really, what I was trying to say to KT is that if he or she writes about how their life is affected by the politics of the day, then that is kewl by me and probably far more relevant and interesting to the reader. But to pretentiously feign insight into the workings of a political system without even realising how much benefit he or she is personally gaining from it seems, well, immature.

            I certainly don’t want to stop KT’s input here or elsewhere, but I think comments (and blogs) based on ‘what I know’, rather than ‘what I think I know’, are much better reading. To give an example, I would be interested in KT’s views on the minimum wage, if KT has a part time job, because that is likely to affect him or her directly and add value to the comment. But to deride a post about a journalist gay bashing an out MP on TV without understanding that such things are not just possible, but all too regular in NZ is naive.

            I was a teenage tory myself, by the way, so I don’t lack sympathy with KT’s current world view. But is was exposure to life outside of home and school and the realities of work that made me question whether the right had my interests at heart. As it turns out, they don’t.
            • lprent 15.1.2.2.2.1

              7 April 2010 at 3:35 pm

              I was a teenage tory myself

              Ditto. Most people grow out of it over time when they look at the difference between theory and practice. The majority wind up as centrist.
              • mcflock …

                7 April 2010 at 3:49 pm

                Or they learn to call themselves “centrist” or “middle of the road”, that way they can look caring while in actual fact being self-centred tories.

                I’m sure there’s some genuinely “centrist” folk out there: I’ve just heard people call themselves “middle of the road” in one breath and in the next say that all benefits should be given a maximum time limit.
            • KT 15.1.2.2.2.2

              7 April 2010 at 3:39 pm

              KT – Your life-long ban is exactly that. Life-long.
16. prism 16

    7 April 2010 at 1:28 pm

    This is dog after the cat stuff isn’t it. Old saw – Those convinced against their will Are of the same opinion still’. And nobody is able to convince these people of anything because their minds are set rigidly. Isn’t it a waste of time arguing and trying to reason with toddlers?
17. grumpy 17

    7 April 2010 at 1:47 pm

    I might have got it wrong but I thought Carter said “my expenses are high because I’m gay….”

    I’ve been trying to figure it out, is it because gays have a higher taste in wines? Have a more outgoind social life etc??

    Perhaps if Labour had been in a bit longer MPs might have got a bonus on their expense if they were gay?
18. pollywog 18

    7 April 2010 at 2:12 pm

    When the going gets tough…the tough go shopping !

    Nothing cures the ills of modern life like retail therapy…
19. big bruv 19

    7 April 2010 at 3:57 pm

    The thing that the author of this thread has conveniently chosen to overlook the fact that it was originally Carter himself who raised the issue of his sexual orientation.

    If you remember, Carter was put on the spot about his excessive troughing and the only response he could come up with was “you are picking on me because I am gay”.

    I could not care less if Carter is Homosexual, what I do object to is his insistence on flitting all over the world on my dime and talking his partner with him when he has no real reason to go in the first place.

    No partner should be eligible for overseas travel, all MP’s know the working conditions when they put their name forward, if their relationship cannot handle short periods of separation then do not put your name forward for election.
    • gobsmacked 19.1

      7 April 2010 at 4:06 pm

      Carter’s partner is not going with him. Though you could be forgiven for thinking he was, after watching Garner’s absurd non-report.

      As this is not about being gay, let’s hear all about Paula Bennett’s partner. Is he in Samoa with her now? Is he going overseas too, when she heads off to the USA for her two month holi- sorry, work trip?

      I mean, I couldn’t care less, but obviously some do, because remember – it’s not about being gay.
    • lprent 19.2

      7 April 2010 at 4:52 pm

      big bruv: Tell me, is this another wingnut lie? You do have a habit of using unsubstantiated assertions and claiming them as being facts.

      When pressed on them, you use links that do not support your assertion. For instance in this comment

      Tell me, are you really such a dumbarse?
      • big bruv 19.2.1

        7 April 2010 at 6:54 pm

        “Tell me, are you really such a dumbarse?”

        Nope, you would never catch me boasting about being the best computer geek around and then have my site crash for three days and not be able to fix it.

        I stick to the facts Iprent, unlike you I do not try and reinvent history or argue against the truth for small minded political gain.

        You would be far better using your time attacking Labour for being such a useless opposition, as I have told you before there are plenty of people who want a strong opposition, the trouble with you lot is that you are still dumb enough to think that the people make a mistake when poll after poll tells you otherwise.

        Admit your mistakes, say you have learnt from them and move on, then you can start holding that gutless Key’s feet to the fire, while I doubt I would ever vote for a party that had somebody as arrogant and stupid as you in its hierarchy this county still needs a strong opposition.
    • Jum 19.3

      8 April 2010 at 1:27 am

      Big Bruv
      Please show me the post where you upbraided Rodney Hide for misusing taxpayer money while overseas.
20. Anne 20

    7 April 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Is The Standard determined to drive their bread and butter readers away from the site by encouraging an ignorant teenage kid – hardly out of nappies – who argues the toss over things he knows nothing about. Send him on his merry way please and don’t let him back until he has grown up and has discovered how little he actually knows!
    • kiwiteen123 20.1

      7 April 2010 at 7:40 pm

      I am under the impression that The Standard readers love to toy with me. I believe you have done so before.
      I have views. Did you not when you were my age?
21. BLiP 21

    8 April 2010 at 12:11 am

    What is this thread . . . a school holiday programme?
22. Jum 22

    8 April 2010 at 1:06 am

    How old are you Kiwiteen123?
    What is your opinion on Lord Ashcroft and his tax evasion and his eyewatering control over the Conservative Party?

Links to post

1. Garner coy on accusations « The Standard: posted on 11 April 2010 at 11:55 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS