Winston and the wanker

49 comments on “Winston and the wanker ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dad4justice 1

   31 July 2008 at 10:37 am

   Oh no, [undirected stream of vitriol. deleted. do better D4J. SP]
2. Bill 2

   31 July 2008 at 10:38 am

   For arguments sake, let’s assume everything is above board with WP. There is an opposition intent on mud slinging up through the election. They have picked target and are running with it..how long has it dominated the media now?

   If everything is hunky dory, then why put it to bed now if you can allow National to build it right up before slam dunking them at the final hurdle showing them up as… well, wankers I guess? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor)

   Just a thought.

   And that sports commentator guy had a nice neutralising effect on any potential ‘dirty politics’ too.

   Maybe I’m giving way too much credit to the ability of strategists to ‘guide’ the media. Like I say, just a thought.
3. Nedyah Hsan 3

   31 July 2008 at 10:45 am

   MSM have had enough of Winston smearing them, and quite rightly choosing not to respond to basal allegations.
   So what to do when you don’t get a bite? Pick a line, beat it up, destroy the target, and then move on to the next one.

   It’s fairly interesting that the Herald still hasn’t taken up Win-stuns offer of reading his accounts.

   Meanwhile the immigration bill slowly plods through select committing and removing all New Zealands sovereignity when it comes to giving entry.

   captcha: or unjust

   How true.
4. Steve Pierson 4

   31 July 2008 at 10:47 am

   This really is barrel-scrapping – it’s obvious that two checks of $9999 were deposited, and donations of less than $9999 from different people do not need to be declared.

   There’s no wrongdoing here… perfectly legal and common practice among parties. Hell, ACT has an explicit policy of seeking $9999 donations to avoid having to declare donations.

   Farrar will, doubtless, be having a fit over these latest revealations and have another five posts up already.
5. randal 5

   31 July 2008 at 10:50 am

   well sp they dont appear to have anythng else and they are so full of themselves that they are willing to embarrass the American Secretary of State. they have no shame. go over to tmops and kreacher (cloin16)and barcodia are taking the same line and they are vile peopele.
6. Higherstandard 6

   31 July 2008 at 10:51 am

   Bill

   “There is an opposition intent on mud slinging up through the election.”

   There is almost universal distaste for this charlatan amongst the political parties. Labour and National need a kick in the arse for not counting him out of their plans on the basis of his continued obfuscation and antics, let alone his behaviour as a foreign minister making anti asian and anti immigrant comments every six months or so.

   captcha (play contest) ….. Yep
7. monkey-boy 7

   31 July 2008 at 10:59 am

   Was ‘Ol Fatso’ Frank Sinatra’s older, less talented brother?
8. Bryan Spondre 8

   31 July 2008 at 11:00 am

   The missing quote from the Dom Post article:

   “In 1999, ACT, National, Labour and the Greens all declared their parties received anonymous donations of at least $20,000.”

   Isn’t today the last Confidence & Supply vote ? Perhaps the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be “Gone by (Friday) Lunchtime.”
9. Bill 9

   31 July 2008 at 11:00 am

   HS. I have no liking at all for WP and reckon he should have been kicked out of politics when he was deputy PM for his disgusting public racist statements back then.

   However, that’s not the point. I was only airing some loose early morning thoughts on possible manipulations of societal discourse and possible reasoning/outcome behind such manipulation.

   Probably far too conspiratorial on my part and giving far too much credit where none is due.
10. J Mex 10

    31 July 2008 at 11:06 am

    “Ol’ Fatso will, doubtless, be having a fit over these latest revealations and have another five posts up already.”

    Charming.
11. Russell Brown 11

    31 July 2008 at 11:06 am

    There’s no wrongdoing here perfectly legal and common practice among parties.

    Oh, and the rich scent of Peters’ hypocrisy too, of course.

    I get the impression Clark is over all this: hence her apparent acceptance that nothing illegal has been done — whilst observing that it’s a matter for “the court of public opinion”.
12. Higherstandard 12

    31 July 2008 at 11:06 am

    Sorry Bill

    I wasn’t getting at you – I also don’t disagree that Winston may be manipulating the whole thing.. as I said somewhere else it’s no surprise that the NZ public view politicians with such contempt.
13. Bill 13

    31 July 2008 at 11:15 am

    Didn’t feel ‘got at’ HS, so don’t worry…conspiracy is not necessarily wedded to paranoia….or is it?
14. Felix 14

    31 July 2008 at 11:18 am

    Don’t worry Bill, I’ve had you thoroughly checked out and found that you’re not the slightest bit paranoid.
15. burt 15

    31 July 2008 at 11:19 am

    Steve P.

    it’s obvious that two checks of $9999 were deposited, and donations of less than $9999 from different people do not need to be declared.

    Yes it’s obvious, it’s obvious that Winston has been asking for donations of just under $10K so he has no need to declare them. This may not be illegal but perhaps you could defend this apparent deliberate attempt to hide the donations.

    Didn’t Winston vote for the EFA (which makes no changes to the legality of actions like this) because transparency was soooo important. Is it only important for National but not the Labour-led govt?
16. MikeE 16

    31 July 2008 at 11:21 am

    This might be a stupid question, but what if there was a 25c check fee?

    Would that put it over the threshold?
17. mike 17

    31 July 2008 at 11:24 am

    Great to see you guys supporting WP on this, it leaves absolutley no room to attack National on anything to with donations or big business etc etc.

    Also, as it can only end badly and labour are getting more and more tarnished by the day as helen gives winnie a free ride.

    [lprent: Actually I think John A was actually attacking the fuckwit journo. His only ‘support’ for WP was to say that maybe he had a point when he called the journo a ‘wanker’. I would have as well bearing in mind that the journo didn’t bother to think before writing and consequently looks to me like a total loser. ]
18. Daveski 18

    31 July 2008 at 11:32 am

    So the moral is it’s OK if it’s legal if WP does it but it’s not OK if the EB does it and it was legal.

    It’s funny because this site is full of people ready to spout on unabashed about how principled the left are compared to the dastardedly righties yet time after time they show that principles mean nothing if it impinges on power.

    It is clear that Winston has said one thing and done quite the opposite. If this was Key – say he’d said to the NZH that he prefers marmite on his toast but was spotted spreading raspberry jam – the Standardistas would have him for toast.

    Winston still thinks he’s the best thing since sliced bread 😉

    [lprent: same note as per Mike above. Tell me do you read the post before commenting? ]
19. Steve Pierson 19

    31 July 2008 at 11:35 am

    MikeE – $9999 + 0.25 = 9999.25, 9999.25<10000. So, no.

    burt. ACT had an official policy of asking for $9999 donations. We don’t know whether NZF asked for $9999 donations or the donors chose to make their donations just under the reporting limit off their own bat.
20. Bill 20

    31 July 2008 at 11:47 am

    So Felix,the abduction? The ‘alien probes’? That was you? Oh.
21. burt 21

    31 July 2008 at 11:54 am

    Steve P.

    burt. ACT had an official policy of asking for $9999 donations. We don’t know whether NZF asked for $9999 donations or the donors chose to make their donations just under the reporting limit off their own bat.

    So what? If ACT did it to is it OK for Winston?

    ACT didn’t grandstand about National using secret trusts… Winston did.

    “Others did it to” is not making it right. Send the whole lot to the SFO for all I care, just stop defending Winston based on the childish defence of “Others did it”. Get some principles… drop the partisan “It’s OK when we do it”.

    Hollow men….. Includes the Labour-led govt!
22. jafapete 22

    31 July 2008 at 11:55 am

    If anything, this sort of nonsense from the DomPost just provides Peters with evidence that he is being unfairly targeted. Which plays to his supporters, who seem to lap up conspiracy theory and be united in a bizarre group persecution complex. On this occasion, Peters has a point.

    PS, Not doubting you at all SP… what’s the source for ACT having an explicit policy of seeking $9999 donations to avoid having to declare donations?
23. Mike 23

    31 July 2008 at 11:56 am

    Correct me if I am wrong. Didn’t WP, at one time, say that donations over $500 should be declared?
24. burt 24

    31 July 2008 at 11:59 am

    Mike

    The supporters of dishonest govt will assure youn that he never said that (baseless allegations) – even if he did say that Winston has shown that he only expects others to do as he says – he just does what he wants.
25. jafapete 25

    31 July 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Burt, Here’s a quote from John Armstrong’s piece in this morning’s Granny: “Then there is the reluctance of all parties to open their financial books for inspection. The only one which regularly publishes its accounts in any detail is Labour.”

    There, I feel morally superior all of a sudden!
26. burt 26

    31 July 2008 at 12:09 pm

    jafapete

    So when Labour amended the EFA to keep anon donations and use of trusts was it becasue it wanted Winston’s support?

    morally superior…. ha ha. retrospective validation took away any chance for moral high ground.
27. Tim Ellis 27

    31 July 2008 at 12:30 pm

    SP, I don’t think you can complain about people referring to Helen Clark’s physical features when you refer to David Farrar as “Ol’ Fatso”. That is gutter stuff, and it demeans everything you write when you stoop to that level. People would take you more seriously if you showed a little more self-restraint, and resisted cheap personal attacks.
28. lprent 28

    31 July 2008 at 12:44 pm

    TE: I thought he was talking about WhaleOil….

    I think he has more posts up than even DPF does on the topic. I have personally referred to ‘Oil as the bloated one, but that was more on the subject of his inflated idea of his technical expertise (roughly in the vaguely promising level).

    ‘oil of course seems to regard personal physical attributes as being the only thing worth talking about. Or rather it is usually one of the few intelligible things he does say.

    Personally I’ve never met either, except virtually.
29. randal 29

    31 July 2008 at 12:45 pm

    ol fatso is not a gentleman and the Prime Minister is the Right Honourable and if you dont know the difference and persist in your creepy assertions then I am sure one of her champions will find an opportune moment to throw some mud in your eye. besides ol’ fatso farrar is the creeps creep!
30. Felix 30

    31 July 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Yeah Bill, sorry about the cows too – that was Carl’s fault, he’s new.
31. Tim Ellis 31

    31 July 2008 at 1:09 pm

    LP you know even calling Whale the bloated one is a personal slur, but calling anybody “Ol’ Fatso” is going overboard.

    Randal I agree that making personal attacks about the Prime Minister’s physical appearance is not acceptable. You might want to measure yourself, too. I do not make creepy assertions about her, I simply think that SP can restrain himself from gutter swiping with cheap, nasty personal attacks on other people’s physical appearances. It is objectionable when anonymous individuals post cheap, cowardly slurs about other people.
32. lprent 32

    31 July 2008 at 2:16 pm

    TE: Tell me, have you seen what Whale calls me every other day. Of course he sometimes dresses it up by referring to me as “The Standard” when he calls me a liar, corrupt, and every other vile behaviour in creation.

    Are you suggesting that I should turn the other cheek? Personally I find his behaviour reprehensible and offensive and I prefer rubbishing him.
33. Steve Withers 33

    31 July 2008 at 2:23 pm

    The Peters thing has pushed National’s lack of substantive policy out of the news. It may also ultimately keep peters out of Parliamnt – likely the real goal here. Peters is very unlikely to be found to have done anything illegal. That he may be a hypocrite – going back to 1999? – is no breach of the law.
34. Tim Ellis 34

    31 July 2008 at 2:34 pm

    LP I’ve never met Whale, I don’t read his blog, and I’m not about to apologise on his behalf for his behaviour. I don’t think you’re trying to justify Steve Pierson calling David Farrar “Ol’ Fatso”. Steve Pierson just wrote on the other post that he was referring to David Farrar. It says so much more about the person making the attacks than the person they are attacking when they have to use such vitriol and venom, rather than confronting the issues.
35. Steve Withers 35

    31 July 2008 at 2:37 pm

    lprent: WhaleOil is best treated with ignore. I don’t link to him and I don’t read his blog. There is nothing there for me of any use or interest. If his filth turns on other sites through the keyboards of others, I ignore it. Any comment that is nothing but abuse – by anyone – is ignored. That anyone reads WhaleOil every day and thinks it is interesting is fascinating. I’d love to see some research into how the mind of such a person works. Reality is irrelevant. Facts mean nothing. Abuse is everything – the more the better.

    Sick, really.
36. jafapete 36

    31 July 2008 at 2:46 pm

    The descent of this thread into a debate about calling Whale Oil “ol’ Fatso” just about says it all.

    The DomPost should be ashamed of itself for trying to retail such drivel as news. It’s not remotely news. And when are they going to start investigating the Waitemata Trust and other secret funding channels for the National Party? It’s not even ‘fair and balanced’ drivel.
37. lprent 37

    31 July 2008 at 3:13 pm

    TE: Ummm – the posts about this site in the KB by DPF use much the same accusations and link to WhaleOil. The mere fact the language is milder doesn’t detract from the accusations.

    I won’t even mention the cesspool that is the comments section in KB talking about this site.

    It says so much more about the person making the attacks than the person they are attacking when they have to use such vitriol and venom, rather than confronting the issues.

    So I presume you’re going there right now to give the same lecture to those attack artists? I certainly haven’t seen you there? Or is this a lecture you reserve just for some of us?

    In the meantime I’ll refer to people in a manner that expresses my distaste for them.
38. Tim Ellis 38

    31 July 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Give me a break LP. I don’t read whaleoil. I read kiwiblog and the standard. I don’t read all of kiwiblog’s comments very often because quite often they go wildly off topic and after about the first twenty comments they aren’t often talking about the issue of the post. If kiwiblog links to whaleoil it doesn’t mean he’s endorsing everything he says, just as if you link to newzblog or kiwiblogblog you are not endorsing everything they say. I’m not giving you a lecture and it isn’t my job to go around lecturing people about what they put on their blogs, but the excuse that person A is justified in calling person B a fatso, because person C said something unkind about person A is just pathetic really. I like Tane’s and Irishbill’s and all-your-base’s writing, and Russell Brown for that matter, because they don’t engage in personal abuse. David Farrar doesn’t engage in personal abuse either. When SP wrote that he was letting the whole side down. There seems to be an acknowledgement on the other thread that he regrets making the comment, and in the heat of the moment it’s understandable. It would be nice if everyone, including commenters and blog writers, could show a little bit more restraint and refuse to personally abuse each other.
39. lprent 39

    31 July 2008 at 3:44 pm

    TE: Exactly.

    But you can understand that after having 6 months of this type of crap thrown at us, that I personally (ie outside my BOFH role) have been getting pretty tired of it. Consequently I have a reasonably low tolerance, and a noticeable tendency to get much more confrontational in my comments.

    In the BOFH role I have a tendency to preempt standard attack lines.

    In your case I wasn’t sure, so you got the comments rather than the notes. The “holier than thou attack line” is one that I do watch for. As you can see it is a guaranteed way to start a flamewar.

    Then I start stomping HARD. It Drivel drives reasonable commentators away.

    Anyway – off to be a BOFH.
40. burt 40

    31 July 2008 at 5:45 pm

    lprent

    But you can understand that after having 6 months of this type of crap thrown at us, that I personally (ie outside my BOFH role) have been getting pretty tired of it.

    Perhaps you don’t have the appropriate temprement for the blogsphere. You might want to consider publishing a newsletter where people cannot interact and comment and get you all flustered.

    also: “after having 6 months of this type of crap thrown at us” is that “us” individuals or generically ‘The standard’?

    John A.

    Are you a Winston First supportyer or do you just like it when political parties do tricky stuff to hide what they are doing with party funding?
41. Rex Widerstrom 41

    31 July 2008 at 10:43 pm

    All right, since I respect the intelligence of most of the people associated with The Standard and haven’t observed any of you descend into the gutter I’ll just ask you straight out.

    Given the performance of Ron Mark and his organ grinder in the House yesterday, you think these are people who are fit to represent the people of New Zealand in our Parliament, do you? You think that behaviour – the absolute height of hypocrisy in Marks’ case – is just the cut-and-thrust of politics and not the dragging of deomcracy into the gutter and below?

    That there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Labour (and indeed National) standing round trying to look like they haven’t noticed that the guest they’ve invited into their drawing room hasn’t just puked in the punchbowl, kicked the cat, exposed themselves to the other guests, swung punches at the people that politely asked them to leave and then goosed the waiter.

    That – regardless of the illegality or otherwise of their actions – their morality and integrity are such that they make ideal companions for the Labour Party?

    Well do you?

    Because frankly, if that’s what you’re saying I’m about to add you to the list of people I’d rather snorkel through a sewer to avoid than hold a conversation with. And that would truly sadden me, because I believe you’re better than that.
42. burt 42

    31 July 2008 at 11:10 pm

    Well said Rex.
43. Swampy 43

    31 July 2008 at 11:54 pm

    You can say the media is hassling Winston (short term view) or take the long term view and look at Winston, how his party runs, where they are going etc etc and say, Winston always was a lightweight, now he is trying to dodge the arrows something chronic, he is trying to pretend it will all blow over, like the way he always does and has, but where is the reality here?

    Winston is in his 60s, his party is a one man band, he has to retire sometime, and the public at large has really had enough of MMP politics IMO. Winston is way past his use by date and this latest charade proves it.
44. Swampy 44

    31 July 2008 at 11:59 pm

    “If anything, this sort of nonsense from the DomPost just provides Peters with evidence that he is being unfairly targeted. Which plays to his supporters, who seem to lap up conspiracy theory and be united in a bizarre group persecution complex. On this occasion, Peters has a point.”

    We expect the journos to be investigative, and Winnie himself revelled in that very field once upon a time (back when in National he was the guy who had a piece of every leak and bit of action in town).

    I might not like the way they are writing as such, but they have sure got Winston’s back up, and it’s high time someone called his bluff on his ever present attacks on the media.
45. lprent 45

    1 August 2008 at 1:37 am

    Rex: I haven’t really bothered to look at NZF’s actions. As you know I view it as more of the problem of anonymous donations. That is something I disagree with even having in the political system.

    The morality? Well let me say that the 1993 act stinks to high heaven, and because that was the legal regime. All the parties stink, some more than others. I think that the Nat’s use of anon donations stinks far more than NZF’s – but that is irrelevant to your question.

    So what I’m left with is the legal (and moral) situation for 2005 under the EA 1993.

    The problem is that there is bugger all info to base a decision on. Personally I’m not into Whales style of decision making – decide what you’d like it to be and then build a theory.

    For instance with Bob Jones and the Spencer Trust, I thought of a number of possible legal solutions that would fulfil BJ’s wish to have the money go to NZF, and that wouldn’t require the donation to be registered with the EC in the returns for 2005/6. Then I listened to 9-noon on NatRadio at about 10 and heard a lawyer give 3 or 4 more.

    All of them fulfilled both the legal and the ‘moral’ obligations under the EA 1993. Which is of course ridiculous because it just shows how big a pile of junk that act was.

    So I’m still waiting for more info…

    In the meantime, I’m just grateful that some of these horrendous loopholes were plugged in the EFA 2007. There are still more to fix in my opinion..
46. Rex Widerstrom 46

    1 August 2008 at 2:20 am

    I don’t disagree with your analysis re anonymous donations Lynn but I’d really like to hear whether his loudest supporters here – Steve Pierson and John A, it seems – want to (virtually) look me in the eye and tell me that after yesterday’s performance – questions of donations be damned – they support this charlatan, the arrogant bullying little corporal, and the grinning goon squad arrayed behind them.

    You didn’t answer that and nor do I expect you to, as to my knowledge you’ve never authored a post portraying Peters as the victim as opposed to the many, many people whose reputations he’s ruined on the way to the gutter.

    And I’ll keep asking till they answer, because there’s a nasty core of bigots who support what’s left of NZF – because, stripped of principle, what’s left is a pretty ugly diaspora of paranoids, racists, homophobes and thugs, scattered amongst the well-meaning but deluded.

    But I wouldn’t have thought socially liberal socialist / greenies was another group to whom such attitudes have visceral appeal.

    Tell me, guys, did you also applaud Marks’ disgusting “what’s wrong with stuffing our prisons full of people” speech the same day?

    Better yet, perhaps you could define for me what Peters, Mark and their ilk have to do before you find the stench unbearable?
47. lprent 47

    1 August 2008 at 2:21 am

    burt: “The Standard” is a program running a blog site that I’m responsible for and pay for. Shit thrown at it hits me. Personally I wouldn’t say that I get ‘flustered’. I do usually have fun with the shit-throwers, and learn a lot. But occasionally you get irritated.

    There have also been many attacks against the people writing here. Some are justified because they point out errors in the posts. Some aren’t and appear to be to try and drive the writers, readers and commentators away – so we have a heavy moderation policy.

    It is hard work keeping a site like this running with its rather rapid growth curves. Currently getting close to 30% per month by bandwidth – just looked at the GB for the month. Looks like I’d better open up the parallel access a bit more.

    Have we had another mention in the MSM or is this just the storm? Loading has been way up over the last week.

Links to post

1. The scandals that aren’t « Jafapete’s Weblog: posted on 31 July 2008 at 12:08 pm
2. The Standard Disgrace « The Dim-Post: posted on 1 August 2008 at 4:42 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS