Greens no longer so clean

The Dotcom reverse Midas touch has struck again – taking the lustre off the Green Party’s reputation for being not just green but clean:

It is bad enough that the Greens are naive enough to sign up to the fan club which accords Kim Dotcom the folk hero status he clearly craves, but scarcely deserves as some modern-day Robin Hood of cyberspace.

Much worse, however, is that it now turns out that party is blithely willing to play politics with New Zealand’s courts, the country’s extradition laws and its extradition treaty with the United States.

Were John Key to allow some right-wing businessman facing extradition to stay in New Zealand in exchange for him abandoning his plans to establish a political party which might drain votes off National, then the Greens would be climbing on their high horses at break-neck speed and leading the charge in slamming the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms. And rightly so.

Yet the Greens seem to be so blinded by Dotcom’s aura that they seem to see nothing wrong with Russel Norman talking to Dotcom about the risks of the latter’s yet-to-be-launched Internet Party wasting centre-left votes, only for the party’s co-leader to subsequently declare that the Greens will probably fight Dotcom’s extradition.

It is all very murky and hypocritical – at best.

By appearing to countenance such a massive conflict of interest through political interference in Dotcom’s potential ejection from New Zealand, Norman has instantly disqualified his party from having any ministerial posts in a coalition with Labour which involve responsibility for the extradition process.

In fact, Norman has probably disqualified his party from having any role in the Justice portfolio full stop. . .

This isn’t the behaviour of anyone wanting to maintain New Zealand’s first place in Transparency International’s corruption index nor is it the actions of a party trying to look like a viable partner in a government in waiting.

It is the case that many people have enjoyed Dotcom’s irreverence whereby he has been the political equivalent of a banana skin upon which the Prime Minister has slipped and fallen.

Amidst all the fun, a lot of people seem to have forgotten Dotcom faces extremely serious allegations in the United States that he has made millions out of copyright theft. . .

It’s the old,  the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Dotcom shares the Green’s dislike of John Key and National.

Norman saw a potential ally because of that but appears to be blind to the danger of dirtying himself and his party with what looks like a decidedly dodgy deal.

74 Responses to Greens no longer so clean

  1. robertguyton says:

    John Armstrong.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Kim Dotcom’s got you all in a spin. He’s got lots of money and doesn’t like John Key.

    Dangerous combination in an election year.

    Like

  2. Quintin Hogg says:

    And green hypocrisy is exposed for all to see.

    Like

  3. JC says:

    Hmm.. Russel can’t remember when he met Kim, can’t remember who instigated meetings, and cant remember how many times they have spoken on the phone..

    Looks like we may have found NZ’s most corrupt and certainly dodgiest politician.

    RG will certainly be along shortly to condemn this nasty little man.. just like he near daily demands that Ele condemn the Nats.

    JC

    Like

  4. Andrei says:

    This is all quite bizarre actually – right from the execution of a search warrant by New Zealand Policemen dressed as starship troopers with assault rifles.

    I actually think that John Key is a puppet on a string dancing to the tune of vest interests in the USA

    Like

  5. Mr E says:

    I find it humorous how quickly the Greens seem to be blinded by money. If they not blinded by the money – it certainly hasn’t made them smarter.

    Like

  6. Dave Kennedy says:

    I agree with Andrei and John key can breath a sigh of relief that the records that Kim Dotcom wanted to access have conveniently been trashed. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140204/07522126085/new-zealand-spy-agency-deleted-evidence-about-its-illegal-spying-kim-dotcom.shtml

    It seems there is a concerted attempt to prove that the Greens are every bit as dodgy as National, good luck with that.

    Like

  7. robertguyton says:

    “the money” is a figment of your imagination, Mr E.
    I expect you are transferring behaviours you are familiar with in your own political representatives, onto the Greens. It’s pure fabrication on your part.

    Like

  8. robertguyton says:

    You too, JC, are imagining. There is no basis for your claims, other than your wish for it to be so. The Greens are clean. This hurts, I know, but it’s true.

    Like

  9. robertguyton says:

    A quick check around the blue traps shows Keeping Stock, Kiwiblog and Homepaddock all blowing their tinny trumpets to try to tie the Greens to the sort of behaviour National has become best known for, but it’s too shrill and fact-free to be anything other than spin, spin, spin, as Keeping Stock revealingly puts it. Clint is correct. The Greens are clean, still, and all this noise from the Right wing is nothing more than righteous bluster. Russel Norman has once again attracted all the attention, it’s election year and the talk is all about..the Greens. well done team!

    Like

  10. robertguyton says:

    It’s just so funny!

    “Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz

    The Greens-Dotcom election deal: #Epsom #Ohariu #EastCoastBays and now… #Coatesville http://www.3news.co.nz/Opposition-push-Dotcom-to-drop-Internet-Party/tabid/1607/articleID/331809/Default.aspx

    > Clint Smith ‏@ClintVSmith

    @patrickgowernz mate you’ve accidentally not included bit where Russel said “Did I made any kind of assurance around that? No”. No such deal

    > Danyl Mclauchlan ‏@danylmc

    @GraemeEdgeler @ClintVSmith @patrickgowernz Well there’s a clear denial and yet Paddy has written ‘The Greens-Dotcom election deal.’

    > Danyl Mclauchlan ‏@danylmc

    @publicaddress I guess Paddy wants to seem balanced by slamming left-wing dodgy electorate deals, so he’s gone and invented one.

    Like

  11. Mr E says:

    I have political representatives? I haven’t made up my mind as to who I am going to vote for. Greens have been losing traction in my eyes lately. And the current picture that the media is painting is causing concern for me.

    Like

  12. TraceyS says:

    The most offensive thing about all this is that Dotcom, along with the parties sucking up to him, are blatantly using one another other. And it is destined to end up badly when one or other doesn’t get their way and throws their toys like a great big baby.

    I don’t rate people who behave like that. It’s even worse when being played on the public stage. Adds nothing but very bad soap-opera style entertainment and even that’s stretching things. Will people vote for these cheap actors come the election? I do not think New Zealanders have lost that much respect for this country – not yet.

    Like

  13. robertguyton says:

    Your pretend position as a would-be, could-be Green voter is not at all convincing, Mr E. You never have and never would, vote Green, it’s obvious to me. You’re a Tory voter, for sure.

    Like

  14. robertguyton says:

    The ‘Greens are as corrupt as the rest of us’ meme is nonsense.
    Russel’s clean and so are the Greens.
    Disappointing, I know, but there it is.

    Like

  15. Mr E says:

    You are wrong Robert. It seems, all too regular lately.

    Are you suggesting that the Greens really have nothing up their sleeves to win more votes. Are they happy with ‘their lot’ and just wanting Dotcoms money to make pretty signs?

    Personally I am hoping they have a lot more up their sleeves. I’ve still got my ears open despite the current black mark I’ve put against their recent behaviour.

    It is true, that if I voted tomorrow, mine would be a blue vote. But not by and outlandish mile and there is still plenty of time for change. Recently I’ve gained an appreciation for Cunliffe and his interviewing ‘manner’. It seems to have changed. He no longer appears to speak down to the interviewee.
    In addition he’s started to sound more convincing in some of his arguments. Almost like he is more confident of his position. Sounding more like a potential leader to me. I’d still not vote for him currently – but he is growing in my eyes.

    Sadly I think Norman is slipping. Not because of his speaking manner (which I think is great) but because of his politics.

    If I can offer a compliment – I also think you have a great ‘speaking manner’. A kind voice per se.

    Like

  16. Andrei says:

    All of this is a distraction from the real issues, Robert Guyton, which, alas, will largely be ignored throughout the election campaign

    Like

  17. robertguyton says:

    That’s very kind, Mr E.
    The Greens certainly have plenty in train for their election success but not what’s being suggested by the blueblogbrigade.
    The black marks you’re assigning to them are not deserved, they are being imposed breathlessly by the rightwing spinners. With your (usually) rational mind, you’ll be able to discern what is real and what is puff and blow – did Russel have a “secret” meeting? (no), did he “make a deal” (no) have the Green received money (no) and so on and so on – puff and blow.
    Of course you vote blue, there has never been any doubt in my mind. There are those who play the ‘I like the Greens and would vote for them, BUT…’ and you are one of those people, Mr E.
    Russel Norman is not ‘slipping’, he is stepping up to the plate and batting vigorously as missiles are being tossed his way. I admire that. perhaps you’d like to see every Green MP chanting “OM”, putting flowers on the seats of the Government MPs before they enter the House, treating Key with respect when he name-calls (“idiot”, “Devil Beast”, “loonies”) but not me, I like a leader with chutzpa and both Russel and Metiria (did you see what she wore the day after she was attacked by Collins and Tolley over her jacket? Brilliant! Bold! Bolshy!) have that in spades. It’s difficult, I know, for rightwingers to accept a vibrant and provocative Green Party (Jeanette and Rod were so nice, what happened to the lovely Greens???) but that’s what you’re up against now – punchy tree-huggers – watch out, here they come!!

    Like

  18. robertguyton says:

    Andrei – you are quite correct in that.

    Let’s talk unfairness, income disparity, alcohol abuse, the destruction of our excellent curriculum and school system, the explosion of dairying and corresponding water quality degradation, the destruction of individual privacy – look, there’s so much that’s real to talk about, but Russel Norman, visiting a man planning to establish a political party that might impact on Green votes?
    Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!

    Like

  19. Mr E says:

    “you are one of those people, Mr E.”

    There are people out there who rate themselves so highly as to presume the thoughts of others. You are one of those people, Robert. But keep going – Turning away potential voters is an interesting strategy.

    I don’t think there was a secret meeting. Although the context of the meeting seems to be lost in Normans mind. And that is the ‘heart of the matter’

    I also don’t think he has made a deal. But I can imagine Russell saying ‘hit the button – we will fight your extradition’. That’s not a deal. That’s simply a statement of position. Russell’s said it to the media. The question becomes why would he fight the extradition. Is it to encourage Kim to cough up money/support or is it because he truly disbelieves in the extradition.

    I tend to think it is the later. You keep pointing out these “chutzpa” and it strengthens my belief that political power it the motivation.

    The moment that Norman can convince me that he’s not initiated discussion and he’s not fighting extradition for Kim’s support is the moment I’ll rub the black mark off the board. Until then 2 and 2 make 4.

    Like

  20. robertguyton says:

    Russel need not bother convincing you, Mr E. He will continue to do what he is doing so well, showing mettle. It upsets the ordinarily dominant Right, but get used to it, I say – the Greens are staking their claim in NZ politics and it’s a bigger claim than most were expecting.
    I appreciate your recognising that there was no ‘deal’. I also smiled at your immediate “but I can imagine…” That’s the biggest problem I see with your (and others here) grasping the reality of the Greens – imagining all sorts of things, whipping up worrying scenarios, fabricating actions, motivations and intentions that simply don’t exist. The Green Party that you all fear is the one you’ve constructed inside of your own heads. At least that’s how it seems to me, viewing the issues from a different point of view.

    Like

  21. jabba says:

    lets not bOb .. I don’t blame you for wanting to divert attention from your grubby party .. there does NOT have to be a deal between the greens and Dotcom .. it’s the sneaky politics that the pure as driven snow party are dabbling in .. a grubby Green Party with Norman looking like a fool and not a flag in sight this time, grubby grubby politics bOb, very grubby

    Like

  22. robertguyton says:

    Brilliant comment, jabba. You’ve cast some valuable light on the issue and managed to rise about the usual mud-slinging that adds nothing to the discussion.
    Top effort!

    Like

  23. robertguyton says:

    Key smearing – read Gordon Campbell if you dare (scary truthy stuff in there – not for you, jabba!)

    “What the Key government has been peddling this week is something entirely different. To state the bleedingly obvious, there is nothing illegal about Russel Norman visiting Dotcom, and having a conversation about Internet commerce and Dotcom’s plans to found a political party. Similarly, Peters says his diary of private visits is no one else’s concern. Key has been interestingly specific about how often Peters is supposed to have visited Dotcom, on three separate occasions. How could Key know this? Surely, one would hope, not through using SIS/GCSB surveillance for his own political purposes? Norman’s subsequent opinion – that the ministerial discretion about Dotcom’s extradition should take heed of the history of law-breaking by the state against this individual – is grounded in the law to do with how the extradition process should operate. Discretion is an intentional part of that process: in that sense, the final decision to extradite is a political decision, not a legal one and Norman was entirely within his rights to express an opinion on how he thinks that discretion should be exercised. As yet, Key has not engaged with Norman on those grounds, preferring to use smear tactics instead.

    “http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2014/02/13/gordon-campbell-on-smear-tactics-in-politics/

    Like

  24. Mr E says:

    Sounds to me like the same reason you fear the National party. Imagination.

    Like

  25. jabba says:

    the arrival of Cunliffe has returned the Gweens back to small party status .. Norman was looked upon as the Leader of the Opposition prior to the Labour leadership change.

    Like

  26. TraceyS says:

    And so, Robert, you are ‘hoist’ because if you wish to be believed (credibility is everything) then you must also be prepared to give others the same grace. Otherwise we might assume you are not a man of fairness and balance.

    Like

  27. jabba says:

    come on bOb .. you and your lot screamed from the hill tops when John Key and John Banks had a cup of tea in the open together .. the conversation was even recorded, by accident of course, but you ranted and raved .. still going on. But the sneaky meetings with the American bagman is ok it seems .. dirty deals bOb, very dirty.

    Like

  28. JC says:

    Russel visited the manse on the 1st Nov where he later told the media that he discussed just the formations of Kim’s new political party.

    Yet later in the day Russel was on radio telling everyone about the wrongs of the GCSB wrt Kim.. that looks exceedingly dodgy and indicates he lied to both media and the public.

    He visited the manse again on 29th Nov and a few days later at the first GCSB hearing was aggressively questioning the officials and had to be reined in.. it looks like he was asking questions on behalf of Kim.

    JC

    Like

  29. robertguyton says:

    Fantastical conclusions, JC.

    “looks”, “seems” “indicates” “appears” “has the vague appearance of” “could be” “I wish it to be”…

    You’re imagination is going into overdrive.

    Like

  30. Quintin Hogg says:

    Spinning like a top Robert?

    If the greens new theme song the The Bryds “turn turn turn”?

    Like

  31. TraceyS says:

    Oh Robert, sharpen up a little. Look back to your own reference to Gordon Campbell “[h]ow could Key know this? Surely, one would hope, not through using…”

    how could?
    surely?
    one would hope?!!!!!

    You call this “scary truthy stuff” but it’s clearly speculation, imagination, until we know the facts.

    Like

  32. Mr E says:

    Hypocritical I think, when he speculates regularly about JK/GCSB/KDC.
    Hypocritical = Humorous – I think

    Like

  33. robertguyton says:

    Yes, Tracey, Gordon Campbell is speculating, as are you, jabba, JC, Ele, and Quintin. I’m sticking to the facts of this matter. My ‘off-fact’ pronouncements about the incoming Green Government are designed to give you something to gnash your teeth about – I’m not pretending to be able to read tea-leaves – speaking of which, how’s Mr Banks, John Key’s partner in Government, getting on with that court case?

    Like

  34. robertguyton says:

    I’m standing firm, Quintin. It’s the others here who are spinning like Rumplestiltskin, only it’s mould, not gold that’s piling up on the floor at their feet.

    Like

  35. robertguyton says:

    Jabba calls the Greens a “grubby” party.

    Not even our enemies would believe that silly claim.

    The Greens, “grubby” – ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Like

  36. TraceyS says:

    Where have I speculated on what Russel Norman has done here? My expression was of regret for what things have become. That’s kind of the opposite to speculation!

    You now change your tune and say that Gordon Campbell is speculating? Why, then, did you initially describe it as “scary truthy stuff” when it is obvious to everyone else that it is flagrant speculation?

    This behavior leads others to believe that you know more…that you have facts that make the speculation of Gordon Campbell “not speculation” but the truth. Do you? Or are you digging yourself a nice wee hole?

    Like

  37. JC says:

    I’m afraid I’m going to have to apply the Robert Guyton standard that he insists Ele and others must accept here.. and say that you, Mr RG are clearly ethically challenged in your blind support for you dodgy Green mate in Parliament.

    JC

    Like

  38. So that’s how low the Greens are prepared to sink to discredit John Key is it Robert; use the money that Dotcom has amassed by very dubious means.

    Pardon my ignorance, but I always thought that the Greens were the party of principle.

    Like

  39. TraceyS says:

    Your speculation about future Governments doesn’t make me gnash my teeth at all. I’m a survivor and an adapter, Robert, and would take such an eventuality entirely in my stride. It’s others that I worry about.

    What gets my teeth gnashing is people not playing fair; double-standards and that sort of thing. I’m also challenged by people who expect more from others than they do from themselves. You’re famous for it here…

    Like

  40. TraceyS says:

    Robert has previously expressed what I perceive to be a sort of gratitude or affection for Dotcom. Once he even posted a pleasant family photo on his blog. Perhaps he might explain why?

    Robert and Kim have a something in common. They both don’t like John. Have I missed anything else Robert?

    Like

  41. robertguyton says:

    I can’t pardon your ignorance, Keeping Stock, it’s causing you so much anguish that it’s better that I lance it for you, as I would an angry boil. You’ve been banging on with your ‘The Greens Have No Integrity’ for years now – this latest banging-on is nothing new from you at all. The Green’s integrity pains you greatly, as it throws into stark contrast, the lack of integrity of those you root for and that’s always irked you immensely. Your,
    “I always thought the Greens were a party of principal” is a lie – you’ve never thought that, always said quite the opposite and pretended, as you are pretending now, that you once supported the Greens. Not true. You constantly nag and broadcast your opposition to the Greens. The bottom line is, yes, the Greens have integrity and principles that are sound, demonstrable and well documented. Your lot has a history littered with broken principles and devoid of integrity. You know this and that’s why you rail against the Clean Greens. Those who know you, know this to be true.

    Like

  42. robertguyton says:

    I course I do, Tracey.
    Of course I do.

    Like

  43. robertguyton says:

    famous

    *sighs happily

    Like

  44. TraceyS says:

    …in the paddock!

    Like

  45. Mr E says:

    Why did I not see the true meaning of the title “Green Party”???

    Somebody tell me there is no resemblance. Please!

    Like

  46. Paranormal says:

    It must be true then – you’ve said it more than three times now. Where have I heard that before?….

    Like

  47. Paranormal says:

    RG you’ve spun like a spinning thing that there was no deal between Red Rus and Big Kim, whilst completely (or is that conveniently) overlooking a major issue.

    The Greens are so fond of democracy and yet here is Red Rus working actively against democracy in asking Big Kim not to start a new political party. And the reason? It might steal ‘his’ votes.

    Keep spinning, but as Jabba says Rus is just grubby in all of this. This is no different to Key & Banks having a cup of tea, just less open and transparent. Not what you claim the Greens are about at all.

    Like

  48. robertguyton says:

    ” Once he even posted a pleasant family photo on his blog.”

    How could I sink to such depths, Tracey?

    How could I sink so low?

    Like

  49. TraceyS says:

    Your words, Robert. I never said it was low.

    I found it confusing. Perhaps you can explain?

    Like

  50. TraceyS says:

    No, thought not. The explanation is embarrassing for you isn’t it?

    Like

  51. From Vernon Small (former press secretary to Mike Moore)

    But Norman went badly wrong by confirming in public that in government he would push for Dotcom’s extradition to be overturned.
    On the political level it threw the door open to accusations of secret trade-offs; despite Norman’s denials.
    For a party that has made hay over “private” meetings and implied conflicts of interest between National ministers and corporate interests, it was a naive own-goal. Deny it all he likes, he has loaded a gun for National to fire at him every time he mutters “SkyCity convention centre dirty deal”.
    But he also erred badly in apparently pre-judging the outcome of the ministerial consideration that must follow the court’s extradition ruling, especially if he is serious about being a senior minister or potentially the deputy prime minister in the next government.

    You must be gutted to know that your leader has clay feet Robert.

    Like

  52. robertguyton says:

    Can I explain why you found it confusing?
    Is that your question?
    I could, but it wouldn’t be fair.

    Like

  53. JC says:

    It gets worse because under whatever deals have been reached the Greens have made a public statement running interference for Kim who will spend up to $2 milion on anti National advertising and then bail endorsing the Greens and Winston?

    JC

    Like

  54. Mr E says:

    Pin
    Head
    Dancing

    Like

  55. robertguyton says:

    Russel’s feet are fine, KS. I do tend to agree that his open admission that he doesn’t back National on what to do to Kim Dotcom could have an effect on positions the Green MPs could occupy when they become Government later this year. Not the end of the world though, as there are plenty of Ministerial opportunities outside of the ones that will be dealing with the KDC case, so I’m not ‘gutted’, as you hopefully describe. Russel has been quite open about his interactions and position throughout this brouhaha, contrasting tellingly with the behaviour of, say, John Banks and John Key who both fudged, slithered and dodged like crazy when asked about their dealings with Mr Dotcom. The public can compare behaviours, KS, far better than you might imagine and will, once the RightWing screeching has died down, see the differences in behaviour as significant. Yes, as you say, National will fire their loaded gun at Russel every time he points out their dodgy dealing with SkyCity – that’s how National operate, as you indicate. Call the Labour leader an idiot? John Key. Call the Labour Party “Devil Beast”? John Key. Make a throat-slitting gesture in the House? John Key. How you can ‘overlook’ these disgraceful behaviours is fascinating, Keeping Stock, self-confessed Christian man that you are. Fascinating.

    Like

  56. robertguyton says:

    Utter nonsense, Paranormal. There is no reason under the sun why a politician shouldn’t discuss strategy with another, even if that involves saying ‘the votes you get might come at my expense’. Your ‘anti-democracy claim is completely faulty.
    I claim the Greens are open and honest and they are. The meeting was not secret. No deals have been made. No money promised. No democratic principles breached. You are listening to the wailings from the Right, all claiming the opposite, but without a shred of fact to back their stories. Imaginings, suppositions, accusations, that’s all, Paranormal. You’ve been suckered. I’m not so soft.
    Maybe you’d like to put up one incriminating fact. Fact, not a theory from some commentator or an echo from a blue blogger.
    One significant fact. On this thread so far, there have been none of substance, aside from those I’ve provided 🙂
    Perhaps you could start by confirming that you believe that no politicians of different parties should ever meet, as you imply. That would be a good starting point for debate.

    Like

  57. robertguyton says:

    In response to a question so trite as to not be worth addressing, Mr E. Why did I post a photo of Kim Dotcom and his lovely family? Good grief!

    Like

  58. robertguyton says:

    Don Brash was an Actoid, Mr E, not a Green.

    Like

  59. TraceyS says:

    So why did you?

    Like

  60. Mr E says:

    How about this guy?

    Like

  61. robertguyton says:

    Not quite grasping the meaning of ‘trite’, Tracey?
    You are asking me about a post made months ago on another blog. A post that is in no way controversial? A post that shows a photograph of Kim Dotcom’s charming wife and children? Your fascination and insistence is…odd.
    If you have a question about an image posted on another blog,
    ask your question there.
    Pretty simple, really. And appropriate too.

    Like

  62. robertguyton says:

    You seem to view people and situations as caricatures, Mr E.
    Are you Walt Disney’s love-child?

    Like

  63. Mr E says:

    Why are you Greens all looking for people with money?

    Like

  64. TraceyS says:

    I’m not bothered that you didn’t enjoy my question and I would still like to hear your answer. After all, it’s not impossible to answer a “trite” question is it?

    Your teaching style is coming through. Someone doesn’t get something you’re trying to say, you hand them the label “can’t learn”, and change the subject moving right away from the topic of your discomfort – the question you don’t feel right about answering.

    Follow your own advice Robert. You have numerous times, including very recently, butchered comments off other people’s blogs and displayed them here.

    If you want to be part of a discussion on those comments why don’t you go to the website(s) where they were made? But no, you are strangely attracted to the commenters you find here at Homepaddock.

    I ask you questions here because this is where you are to be found most of the time. If you go way I will promise to stop asking you “trite” questions. Promise!

    Like

  65. robertguyton says:

    We are not “all looking for people with money”.
    Personally, I’m looking for people who think clearly. I know quite a few, but there are many who can’t or don’t discuss issues rationally. They disappoint me, as I love a rational debate. I also love to tease, but only do that to people who don’t present their arguments rationally. ‘Cause I get bored.

    Like

  66. TraceyS says:

    You frustrate any debate that does not look as though it will come around to the conclusions you have already decided upon. That’s not debating, it’s manipulation.

    Like

  67. robertguyton says:

    Easy to answer – I thought they looked a happy family, despite the dreadful experience they had been through (thanks, Mr Key!)
    You have adopted a ‘go away’ position with me, Tracey. It’s revealing. This thread, for example, has been one of Ele’s most vibrant. I’ve played my part in that. If you really don’t like what I say, you can choose to ignore my comments completely, but you don’t. If you would like some insight as to why I comment here, I’ll tell you. Aside from the farming aspects, which interest me very much, though the conservative approach is a little ‘restrictive’ for me, I come to represent my ‘tribe’. That’s because they get slandered here, on a regular basis. Keeping Stock does the same, but resorted to banning me (BAN 🙂 Hypocrisy writ large!) I’m not a feeble, weak-kneed Green, I fight for what I believe in and rise to challenge critics who operate at a level that I consider ‘unconsidered’. I like to challenge illogical, biased and prejudiced views and that’s exactly what I find here, and what you’d expect to find on a blog by a woman who is deeply involved with national Party politics. What better place for me. Posting on Frogblog would be like taking coals to Mataura, so to speak.
    Does this help?
    Of course, another approach you could take would be to refuse to read my stuff, just as you might refuse to open any snail-mail I might send you (I write beautifully in long-hand and am very amusing when on the other end of a pen, Tracey. I say that to make it harder for you to bin my letter unopened, should I ever send one, something I’m not planning to do, not knowing your address nor seeking to find it.)
    So, KDC’s family – they look nice.
    Have you ever sen a photograph of Keeping Stock (teaser alert!)

    Like

  68. TraceyS says:

    “You have adopted a ‘go away’ position with me…”

    Hmmm…

    Your insult throwing is not exactly designed to encourage people is it? It sends a “go away” message …. rudely. Why don’t you do more comments like the one above? You’d get further with people. I’m sure the tone of discussions would be more vibrant too.

    Like

  69. robertguyton says:

    You are reading it wrong, Tracey.
    Let’s give it a go though. Put up an idea and I’ll discuss it with you. If you choose something straight-forward, it’ll be easy enough to tell if one or other of us prevaricates or does any other off-idea behaviour.
    Your call.

    Like

  70. Robert isn’t a teacher Tracey; he’s more a lecturer 😉

    Like

  71. Paranormal says:

    Au contraire RG. I have seen and heard the Red Rus interviews. I saw the way he initially tried to dissemble and then the following day once the spin doctors had had a chance to have a word with him he changed the approach.

    But failing all that – I’ve simply prescribed the Greens own standards to Red Rus and Big Kim. Sure there is nothing stopping politicians meeting to discuss areas of common interest, but if you can’t see the anti democratic nature of Red’s request for Kim to cease and desist you really need to take a good long look in the mirror. The fact he did that in private with no openness or transparency puts him in much worse light than the Key/Banks cup of tea.

    And we won’t even start on the coincidence of him campaigning against extradition. It just looks dodgy – and in politics perception is reality. He’s scored an own gaol big time.

    You talk about wanting to discuss people that make up their own minds but then denigrate those who do because what hey see does not align with your political beliefs. There’s yet another big h word coming your way.

    Like

  72. robertguyton says:

    “it just looks…” that’s it in a nutshell, para. Facts are so much more useful in a discussion, but sure, your “it just looks” will have to suffice where you are unable to provide any facts.
    Still, you did say, “Sure there is nothing stopping politicians meeting to discuss areas of common interest…” and that much at least, is factual. The rest, conjecture. No so useful at all.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: