Talking shite

28 comments on “Talking shite ”

• Comments are now closed

1. cocamc 1

   22 July 2009 at 9:17 am

   r0b
   He only made that comment because Phil Goff stuffed up and did indicate that everyone who loses their job would be entitled to some form of welfare payments.
   And then on breakfast TV this morning he had the stupidity to state that it would apply to ordinary NZ’ers. Please define ordinary. I thought I was ordinary but apparently not as I would not now be entitled to his welfare plan
   • snoozer 1.1

     22 July 2009 at 9:42 am

     you’re not entitled to Key’s one either.

     Goff’s policy wouldn’t apply to the very well-off, it’s an extention to middle incomes.

     I seem to remember Don Brash talking abotu ‘mainstream Kiwis’ – did you have a problem with that too?
     • cocamc 1.1.1

       22 July 2009 at 9:44 am

       Snoozer – Goff had to backtrack.
       I do have an issue with labels such as ordinary, mainstream. We are all here together as Kiwis.
       • Derek 1.1.1.1

         22 July 2009 at 9:50 am

         That’s not what the chair of the government’s 2025 taskforce says.
       • snoozer 1.1.1.2

         22 July 2009 at 10:00 am

         Goff didn’t backtrack. He always said this was about getting help to people on low and middle incomes who need it. Like this guy – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/surviving-the-recession/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502812&objectid=10585853

         You voted for Iwi/Kiwi didn’t you? Cocamc?
         • cocamc 1.1.1.2.1

           22 July 2009 at 10:03 am

           Sure – I voted for National. But that’s for a lot more reasons that you’re trying to imply. I said I don’t like the labels applied to Kiwi’s as ordinary – that’s all. Don’t try link me to Iwi/Kiwi
           • Lew 1.1.1.2.1.1

             22 July 2009 at 11:09 am

             cocamc, with respect, if you (party) voted for National in 2005, you voted for Iwi/Kiwi. Just as if you voted for Labour you voted for the Foreshore and Seabed Act. You might not have supported that bit of policy or legislation, or that particular campaign, but it comes as a package, and a vote is an endorsement of the whole package.

             Plenty of people vote ‘on balance’, even when they disagree with much of what a party espouses. That’s how party politics works. No point in trying to deny it.

             L
         • J Mex 1.1.1.2.2

           22 July 2009 at 5:20 pm

           “Goff didn’t backtrack. He always said this was about getting help to people on low and middle incomes who need it. Like this guy”

           Snoozer – “This guy” is a guy who owns a lifestyle property and recently bought another house and an inner city apartment. My guess (I don’t know for sure) is that he used his equity in his existing property to purchase two investment properties. Looks like they are both cashflow negative and he was chasing the capital gain*

           *Which ordinarily most of The Standard authors whould come out railing against.

           Then he says this “The apartment was purchased for “$260-something”, but he did not know the current market value.”

           WTF? You don’t know exactly how much you paid and what your investment property is worth?

           My advice to this guy. Sell both of your extra properties. Meet the market. Don’t ask the taxpayer to cover your three mortgagages.

           Yes. It hurts but nobody is crying for the hundreds of property developers who are in the same boat as you after they too were burned by speculation.
       • stormspiral 1.1.1.3

         22 July 2009 at 6:52 pm

         I wish I knew what those words meant (ordinary, mainstream, etc). Can anybody come up with a definition? Then at least we might know what they are talking about.
       • Joel Walsham 1.1.1.4

         22 July 2009 at 9:18 pm

         Hang on… how many shares did your mate John have cocamc?

         I think that you tories have a very short memory span….

         Just to to remind you it was “um… 40 thousand, but maybe 50…. but no more then 50 thousand…. oh wait… yeah 80 thousand… but really it is 100 thousand”
   • felix 1.2

     22 July 2009 at 10:08 am

     cocamc:
     He only made that comment because Phil Goff stuffed up and did indicate that everyone who loses their job would be entitled to some form of welfare payments.

     In that case Key’s statement only makes sense if you believe that everyone will lose their job.

     Of course I realise we need a bit more unemployment to keep the downward pressure on wages but everyone? Really?
   • Jasper 1.3

     22 July 2009 at 10:29 am

     It’s a stupid comment. Wasn’t it the VRWC that said of Working For Families “This will turn all New Zealanders into beneficiaries!!!”

     Hardly what Goffs proposal is going to do.

     Hard to take anything this pillock says seriously anymore. Shame that people still do.
2. Rocky 2

   22 July 2009 at 9:53 am

   Key really needs to learn to think before he speaks! Another example from today, Key responding to the left’s bank inquiry:

   We have an impasse now. If there is something that should be done, let’s act. We don’t need another inquiry, let’s do something about it. But to do something about it, we need some suggestions.

   Hmmm, perhaps some suggestions could come from um…. an inquiry?
3. ghostwhowalks 3

   22 July 2009 at 10:10 am

   “..what things I can do, what thoughts I am allowed to have.”

   But you have to have original thoughts to start with.

   At the moment it seems his speechwriters ideas are the only thoughts he can have.

   Unless Crosby Twitter have him on speed dial
4. Bill 4

   22 July 2009 at 10:11 am

   Maybe he gets away with talking shite because people want to belong. The people who identify with the Mr Nice Guy clap trap and all the rest of the spin are comfortable with the fuzzy feelings and they themselves don’t really want that fuzzy feeling taken away.

   So no debate or serious discussion please. Just sound bites and lots of stuff we never have to think about. We have happy feelings. Leave us be.

   Why would the Nats do anything to disrupt this?

   He can talk shite because he can talk shite. The fuzzy feeling will not allow a perception that he’s talking shite to predominate; will react negatively to anyone/thing that attempts to elevate that perception.

   Even if you listed it all and ripped it all apart with cold logical analysis, the fuzzies would pay no attention. The fuzziness is what is important and the thing that will be defended and prevail in the face of any contradictory reality.

   Think of it in terms of arguing with, say a Scientologist. No cold hard fact will intrude on their belief and the comfort they derive from it. Same shit.

   Or maybe in terms the rugby supporter whose successful team starts losing. It’s not that the opposition is better. It’s the ref, it’s the coach, it’s a run of bad luck etc.

   Shite prevails because shite can be warm and comfortable.
   • Craig Glen Eden 4.1

     22 July 2009 at 10:23 am

     True Bill well put! Your post answers what I have written below should have waited for your logical explanation. If only aye.
5. Craig Glen Eden 5

   22 July 2009 at 10:18 am

   I agree it was a stuff up on Labours behalf, I am not sure who’s exactly but Geoff will have to take the fall for it. But that does not explain why the media lightly brush over Keys repeated stupid factually incorrect statements. For all the flip flops with Key., Goffs failing to put a ceiling on the individual unemployment benefit gets “Embarrassing U turn By Goff” Blah, Blah. The only mistake by Labour was not to give a ceiling which Goff is now indicating will happen. He didn’t say he was going to give a $50 a week tax cut and then not be able to deliver it. He didn’t say he was going to build a Cycle track for 50 million the length of the country and run a National cycle race on it, Blah Blah.
   • Daveski 5.1

     22 July 2009 at 12:22 pm

     It’s because there’s a rightwing MSM conspiracy.

     Funny cos at the OTHER site, they maintain there’s a left wing MSM conspiracy 🙂
     • felix 5.1.1

       22 July 2009 at 1:35 pm

       Yeah but they’re all barking 😉
6. Ianmac 6

   22 July 2009 at 10:29 am

   I saw the last few minutes of the Key interview on Maori TV last night up to 11pm. Key was asked why they would spend $100.000 on huis to discuss which flag to fly when the number of job losses, especially for Maori, was so high?
   Key talked for a time but didn’t of course answer the question. He talked about how important it was that the Maori Party had joined the National Govt so that they could get a better deal. Fatuous.
7. vto 7

   22 July 2009 at 11:00 am

   He talks no more shite than Clark.

   He just expresses his shite in a different manner than Clark expressed her shite.

   It is kind of obvious that Clark uses a different manner of expressing herself. To expect Key to talk like Clark is shite itself r0b.

   Or do you actually think Clark didn’t talk shite at all r0b? You don’t need to answer that – your flag waving position on Clark on anything and everything is well known and not exactly objective.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     22 July 2009 at 11:21 am

     Yeah, HC used actual fact while JK uses delusion and misdirection. I’d say that was quite a different manner of expression.
     • vto 7.1.1

       22 July 2009 at 11:27 am

       Are you practising for Tui billboards Draco?
       • felix 7.1.1.1

         22 July 2009 at 11:36 am

         Have you not actually heard Key speaking? It’s weird – he uses most words completely interchangeably.

         I think he goes purely by sound, using some phonetic system of his own devising based on the sounds of English words.
         • vto 7.1.1.1.1

           22 July 2009 at 11:41 am

           Ha ha, you’re not wrong, he completely mangles his speech and imo it is in fact a bit useless for a PM to be so … um … almost inarticulate. It does not reflect well on him.

           Mind you, did you ever try to decipher any of ex-Queensland premier Joh Bjeikle-Peterson’s sentences? They were completely unintelligible. Or sometime Winston Peters? Or even Trevor Mallards?
           • felix 7.1.1.1.1.1

             22 July 2009 at 11:47 am

             It always seems to me that when he’s just speaking as himself he speaks pretty well – or as well as any regular person – it might be when he’s trying to remember the script and the talking points he gets it all arse-over.
8. stormspiral 8

   22 July 2009 at 7:02 pm

   I think one of Key’s problems is his minders. They like to keep him confused while the far-right takes the country and its people apart, and Key hasn’t the brains/guts to try to crawl out from under.

   Roger Douglas is too quiet.
9. Greg 9

   22 July 2009 at 7:12 pm

   Seriously. You think Clark, Goff or any other politician hasn’t said anything just as stupid. Because of your political leanings your just blind to them.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS