Sunday, September 28, 2008

Another wingnut lie bites the dust

The loonier end of the right can't bear the thought that they actually lost an election because most people didn't vote for right-wing policies, or that left-wing parties proved better at reaching coalition agreements, so they come up with various conspiracy theories to explain it. In recent times: Labour won because they bribed potential coalition partners; Labour won because they spent taxpayers' money on pledge cards; and (racist as well as ugly) Labour won because they got their corrupt darkies to rouse up the ignorant untermenschen of south Auckland through bribery and influence-peddling.

The above may prompt laughter among the not-criminally-insane, but they're taken seriously by a significant proportion of the right-wing bloggership. Over at Public Address, Graeme Edgerley's just taken apart the last one and demonstrated it clearly as a lie in his post Things that aren't true - see Thing 2.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

sorry to be a pedant -but which of your "wingnut" theories aren't actually true. Because, after Owen Glenn, they are all matters of public record. Let's see:


Labour won because they bribed potential coalition partners;

Confirmed by the privilege committee and the SFO evidence: Labour bought the last election by buying Winston Peters with Owen Glenn's money.

Labour won because they spent taxpayers' money on pledge cards;

The fact that Labour won is a matter of public record; as is the fact that they paid for the pledge cards - and other things - with the best of a million dollars of taxpayer's money. Again, strange as it may seem to you - these are documented facts, in this case asserted to by the Electoral Commission, the Auditor-General, and the Speaker at the time. This overspend was basically ten times larger than any other party: in most other countries (including Australia) Labour would have forfeited the last election on that case alone.

and (racist as well as ugly) Labour won because they got their corrupt darkies to rouse up the ignorant untermenschen of south Auckland through bribery and influence-peddling.

Taito Field is currently before the courts. And Owen Glenn, in a nationally-broadcast press conference, claimed Mike WIlliams bought labour votes with KFC.


Sorry, but all three of these points have rather more to them than the idea that the Brethren bribed Brash or that Key was corrupt in his dealings with Tranzrail. Yeah there are some stories still to break where the facts have not been made public" but all these cases have been raised publicly, either by reputable parts of NZ's civil society, or by Owen Glenn.

Ed Snack said...

If Edgerly wasn't such a total plonker he might have half a point. Let's brush over the heavy and light objects one because, as a commenter points out, the original was defined in a vacuum.

The so called meme about the turn out in South Auckland isn't only about the actual numbers, it is also about the % that vote Labour, and how that % was reached. Fair enough though that the turn out wasn't up as much as the average.

Finally, the two democracies having a war. It does, of course, depend on how you define a democracy. The ancient greeks practiced what they called democracy, but not what we (having a distinct dislike of slave owning) might happily call a democracy. The franchise was distinctly limited. The Boer war, mmm, Britain at the time also had a limited franchise, no women for a start, and the Boers very similar. As for Israel and Lebanon, the comparison is farcical. There was an actual act of war, the incursion and kidnapping of Israeli personnel by Hezbollah, who are distinctly not democratic, and who functioned as an entirely autonomnous entity in Southern Lebanon. In so much as ther was a war, it was between Israel and that part of Lebanon that the government their had abandoned to Hezbollah. So, no really convincing examples.

The commentors are mostly worse. The war of 1812, the US was probably closer to a democracy although again a limited franchise. Britain at the time was distinctly unreformed and on the way to a democracy, but not all that close by todays standards. Then there's the fool (and he is a clear fool) who thinks that Winston didn't break the law and John Key did. Given Labour's control of the machinery of state, I somehow doubt that had John Key given a cause for a charge to be laid that one would have been laid tout suite. Winston, as we know, is covered by that blanket ban on prosecutions of Labour and their friends. Len Richards been prosecuted yet ?

Robinsod said...

Good to see you behaving yourself, ES. Keep it up.

Grant S said...

Psycho Milt, another leftist promoting and exploiting divisiveness, pulling shit directly out of his arse - implying that the right view South Aucklanders as "untermenschen".

Get a sense of honour and self-respect you pencilneck cunt. At the next bloggers drinks, I'll have words with you personally.

Anonymous said...

The so called meme about the turn out in South Auckland

Of course, Goffo on RadioSocialism a few weeks ago said that "South Auckland was key to Labour's strategy last time around, and will be again"


remember, in most democracies, in NZ as it was originally established, in the US as it was designed by the founding fathers - noone in South Auckland would get a vote in the first place.

Psycho Milt said...

Well, naturally Anonymous Fascist believes every one those lies, he is the very definition of a Wingnut. I keep telling you, AF - you have to learn to distinguish between what people like Glenn and the Privileges Committee actually said, and what you fervently wish they'd said.

Sorry, but all three of these points have rather more to them than the idea that the Brethren bribed Brash or that Key was corrupt in his dealings with Tranzrail.

The thing is, those of us who aren't deranged conspiracy theorists don't claim the Brethren bribed Brash, or that Key was corrupt in his TranzRail dealings. We claim (entirely accurately) that Brash lied about his dealings with the Brethren, and (equally accurately) that Key failed to either prevent or notify us of a clear conflict of interest over TranzRail.

Ed Snack: I'm not convinced on Graeme's items 1 and 3 either. Galileo's point was that gravity attracts objects of different mass at the same rate, so I don't think the fact that air resistance makes a difference enters into it. And I do think there's an obligation on us these days to define "democracy" as requiring universal adult suffrage, so "democracies" haven't actually been around that long to have wars with each other.

Grant S: I've no idea what you're on about - my arse handles its excretary duties entirely adequately with no digital assistance required. As to my view that the right view south Aucklanders as "untermenschen," maybe you missed previous correspondence on this subject on various blogs. If you did, I can point you to a prize example of the attitude in the comment immediately under yours.

Murray said...

Not satisfied with have killed one blog already you plan to kill this as well by talking utter shit on a daily basis.

Another penis fingers just like your mummy Helen.

Psycho Milt said...

Well, that made about as much sense as anything else you write...