Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Yet So Many See Nothing Wrong !



If reports are true, there are quite a few to the left of center NZ politics and their vested fellow travelers, courting the wealth of a certain obese German convicted fraudster, wanted in overseas jurisdictions to face court actions,who went some way to form the Internet Party.

They see his move threatening to syphon off votes they see as "THEIRS".

Norman Green has virtually said his party will not sign off on any extradition that may be ordered by our justice system, Cunliffe has been at best equivocal, and other potential candidates to join a Labour led coalition after this years election are traveling to his rented whare at Coatsville either to beg him to cease and desist his threatening (to them) party formation and it is not beyond possibility, they will be seeking financial support for themselves with a clear promise his personal wishes will prevail.
All in very overt moves to protect that same obese German from being forced to face justice elsewhere.

Now  most if not all these "supporters", were either involved or at least complicit in Helen Clark's rather blatant moves to prevent third party involvement in our electoral process and further moves to seriously curtail financial support for her political opponents. All the while leaving her beloved NZLP to continue to enjoy considerable financial, campaign worker and other material support of the Unions.
Seen in the light of constant calls for government funding of political parties over and above the considerable opportunities to divert parliamentary services funding to party promotion, do these simpletons and charlatans not see any thing remotely hypocritical.

Of course not, one has only to watch the shenanigans of their adopted son at present pleasuring himself in the Mayoral Throne of our largest city.

For most of my life this country has laboured under a  belief our politics are free of corruption, Bill Lui in cahoots with Shane Jones, Rick Barker, David Cunliffe and Dover Samuels gained citizenship in an expeditious process ending with a "special ceremony" at Parliament,  seriously shook that belief.  These latest events seem to prove our politicians can be bought, to the detriment of the rest of us.

A line has been crossed and it is sad news.

31 comments:

Edward the Confessor said...

While we are relatively corruption free, we need to be vigilant. Don Brash was bought and paid for by big business, and John Banks of course, secretly and illegally took money from Dotcom, and then lied about it. However, in both instances justice took its natural course. This thing with Norman is a weird tory beat up. Shows they're a wee bit scared and getting desperate.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Take your head out of your arse, you fool!

Edward the Confessor said...

Umm, go fuck yourself, you ludicrous, flatulent bell-end?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

No thanks.

I'll leave that to your friends Cunliffe and Norman who are doing very well at it for now.

Keeping Stock said...

Since when has Patrick Gower been a Tory Edward?

At least David Cunliffe has had the sense to leave the visits to Dotcom's modest Coatesville house to Clare Curran and Jacinda Ardern. Norman and Peters however couldn't resist, and are now suffering the same amnesia as John Banks did. They've all been Dotcomed.

Edward the Confessor said...

Gower's not so much a tory as a very, very strange man.

Psycho Milt said...

At least David Cunliffe has had the sense to leave the visits to Dotcom's modest Coatesville house to Clare Curran and Jacinda Ardern. Norman and Peters however couldn't resist...

Please list for us all occasions on which National Party MPs or officials have met with Colin Craig or John Boscawen in the last 12 months, and explain why they haven't been publicising these meetings in the media. If you can't list them, obviously the meetings are being concealed and corruption is involved.

Paranormal said...

The distinct difference there PM is that Boscawen and Craig are not under threat of extradition.

Barnsley Bill said...

Don Brash was bought and paid for by big business?
Proof please or I will just assume you are another educationally subnormal fuckweasel who believes all the toxic lies put around by the Clark regime.
PM. Are Colin Craig or John Boscawen convicted fraudsters who ran a multi million dollar business that was set up to steal millions from business?
We are not a corruption free country, probably never have been but evidence of looting, stealing, rorting and taking backhanders by Labour and Winston First over the last few years should certainly dispel any myths that we are the good guys.
John Banks took a donation and failed to do the paperwork properly. If only he had bothered to set up a trust like Len Brown did. Bet he is regretting that now. Either that or he should have delivered a sealy posturepaedic to Mount Eden on the roof of his shiny Audi.
And today we see Shane Jones being feted by the media for having a pop at Countdown.
Shane Jones is covered in slime. From feeding the geese with his ministerial credit card to the dodgy citizenship for an international crim. Fuck we are stupid.

The Veteran said...

Ok, it's election year and you expect the rhetoric to rack up. Always has and always will.

But the crimdotcom affair is hardly a 'Tory beat up' as EtC so quaintly puts it.

What we have is a menagerie of politicians from the opposition benches beating a path to the door of a fugitive from justice currently facing extradition to the US to stand trial.

One is entitled to ask why so and what was discussed and what deals were/are being done.

The Greens, fearful that the Internet Party will syphon votes from them have already announced they will move to overturn any decision by the Courts to grant the extradition request.

Crimdotcom has already foreshadowed that if the Internet Party looks like falling short of the 5% threshold he will endorse another Party. Don't have to be an Einstein to work that one out. The Greens are the obvious beneficiaries.

But what to make of Labour's Curran and their poor little rich girlie along with Winston getting down and dirty with that paragon of virtue.

Again, no great intellect required to come to the conclusion that they are attempting to leverage off his visceral hatred of John Key and National and have him pony up some of his 'stolen' dosh to fund Labour's/Winston First's election campaign.

The stench of corruption grows stronger by the hour and Labour/Greens/NZF are donkey deep in it.

Sorry EtC, your feeble attempt to hose down the issue doesn't wash and with more to come in the next little while methinks you are going to find out to your sorrow that when you sleep with mangy dogs you can expect to wind up with some of their fleas.

Joy.

Psycho Milt said...

Ok, it's election year and you expect the rhetoric to rack up.

Followed a bit further down by:

The stench of corruption grows stronger by the hour and Labour/Greens/NZF are donkey deep in it.

Thanks for providing such an illustrative example.

PM. Are Colin Craig or John Boscawen convicted fraudsters who ran a multi million dollar business that was set up to steal millions from business?

I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised. Why do you ask? If you're implying that Dotcom matches that description, shouldn't we be having a bloody close look at the circumstances under which Mr Dotcom gained permanent residency here? As I recall, it was shortly after Key was engaging in his own mutually beneficial discussions with some very rich people with an interest in Dotcom...

The Veteran said...

PM .... there's election rhetoric and then there's the selling of one's soul to a fugitive from justice with a hatred of John Key.

Spot the difference.

p.s. friendly advice. You may wish to reflect on your comment that you wouldn't be surprised if Colin Craig and John Boscawen were convicted fraudsters. Maybe pushing the boundaries there somewhat and you could possibly find out to your cost that they have deep pockets.

Psycho Milt said...

Well, if you find someone who's sold their sold to a fugitive from justice with a hatred of John Key, do send them to a priest. So far, the only dodgy dealings relating to Kim Dotcom that anyone's actually got a shred of evidence for are those involving members of the government. Anything else is overblown rhetoric based on wishful thinking.

Re libel, I think nothing I've written comes anywhere near BB's claim that Dotcom set up a business for the purpose of stealing money. Now, that's libel.

The Veteran said...

PM ... I wrote that slightly tongue-in-cheek as the bar for libel is quite high but nevertheless, if valued my reputation, thought that someone was implying I was less than honest in my business dealings and had deep pockets, I might be inclined to have a go at him/her to make the point and in doing so, cost them.

Then again I might say not worth the trouble.

But that aside, a simple question...

Do you think the media furore around the Greens/Labour/Winston First meeting with a crimdotcom
has or is likely to cause them electoral damage.

Yes/No

Watcher said...

"...bar for libel is quite high"

And that's unfortunate because Adolf would have to restrict his missives.

The Veteran said...

So watcher ... answer my question.

Watcher said...

"answer my question."

"Do you think the media furore around the Greens/Labour/Winston First meeting with a crimdotcom
has or is likely to cause them electoral damage".

Depends if they are astute enough to cross check everything before putting their signature to it.


Psycho Milt said...

Do you think the media furore around the Greens/Labour/Winston First meeting with a crimdotcom
has or is likely to cause them electoral damage.


I presume it will, on the basis that negative publicity isn't great for a politician.

But when you think about it, there won't be significant damage. The big political damage for Norman in this is with National voters, which is basically no damage at all. Green voters will tend to agree with him on the handling of the Dotcom case so won't be outraged about him declaring that shared view in public. The less-partisan ones will recognise that it really wasn't very clever of him to involve himself with a really rich guy who needs a favour from a sympathetic government, but I doubt many would change their vote over it. And all of them will rightly regard it as laughable to portray that involvement as corrupt - Norman's made his views on Nat/ACT's Dotcom clusterfuck clear from day one, so it's hardly surprising that he still holds them having met the guy.

As for Labour, there's just nothing there, however much Gower and some authors of this blog might wish there was - can't see anyone other than Nat voters taking an interest.

And in Winston's case, I really wish there was serious electoral damage for him in this, sufficient to reduce NZF's vote well below 5%, but nah - can't see it. If he can nick $158,000 and get away with it, I doubt something like this is going to sway his delusional worshippers overmuch.

The Veteran said...

PM ... reasoned post --- esp your last three words. But I think you should wait a tad b4 rushing to judgement.

I suspect more 2 come.

Edward the Confessor said...

"Don Brash was bought and paid for by big business?"

Yep, he even got them to buy him some new threads. Cheapskate. It's all in the emails one of his chums leaked. They're very funny.

RADIO DEAD said...

MMP in a country with only about 92 and half registered voters is the fermenter of this outrageous corruption,hang em all i say.

The Veteran said...

EtC ... anything to divert attention from the fact that you and yours appear to be prostituting themselves to a fugitive from justice fighting extradition in return for electoral support either by way of straight out endorsement or stolen money.

Funny you mention Don Brash. Suspect these shenanigans will come back to bite all those who are stupid enough to be seen to have an association with the obese German much the same way as his association and cultivation of the EBs probably cost him the election.

RADIO DEAD said...

It's strangely comforting in some vaguely disconcerting way to drop back in on Gods little village again and to see that traditional dog bite stories still dominate the news and views of the proliteriate.A rancid bemusingly psuedo socio- moral rightist govt somewhat oddly propped up by a couple of anonymous dodgers called ACT and UNITED who,as far as i can ascertain from the most current poll i could see,polled 0% each,countered as an alternative by a pathetic,clumsy,effete left led by stoop poor looking imitation of Russell Crowe with even less intelligence(hard) it would appear than the aforementioned,in cahoots with a post doctoral tree hugger and a woman who wears shocking clothing-whew!Got to say the big German and the old time favourite Winston(always reliable to never change the spots and never endingly willing to don the emperors new cloths)perhaps worth a go come November just to wake us up.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Yes Radio Dead, you do need waking up - for a lesson or two in how to write.

Anonymous said...

I'll admit Radio Dead is a hard read, but in my experience people who attack the construction without any comment on the content usually don't have anything worthwhile to add.

gravedodger said...

Much the same for the dumbarses who can't or are too arrogant to use a nome d plume to give their sniping an identity.

Anonymous said...

"Much the same for the dumbarses who can't or are too arrogant to use a nome d plume to give their sniping an identity."

Pseudonyms including non de plumes are most usually adopted to hide an individual's real identity.

Who's the actual dumbarse?

gravedodger said...

The tosser who avoids creating an actual id for inane comments that maintains anonymity while preserving non disclosure of who they might be dumb dumbarse.

QWatcher said...

"The tosser who avoids creating an actual id..."

I'm not sure why you are getting so upset with Anon.

You have posted on a site that has and Anonymous option yet you get up set when it is used.

Strange.

Psycho Milt said...

Same problem the Hand Mirror's got - the choices are allow anonymous or require login with Google etc account. We don't want to restrict comments to logged-in users only, but we also have some authors who don't like anonymous comments. I don't think it's unreasonable for an author to want commenters to use a consistent handle.

Watcher said...

" I don't think it's unreasonable for an author to want commenters to use a consistent handle."

OK but surely they should identify that disclaimer in their post.

Not suddenly take offence to something written and use it as an excuse to get uppity as it appears in Anon's case.