ABSOLUTE POWER - The Helen Clark Years. [Archive]

Dafe

17th March 2008, 06:22

my eyes and brain cell have been soild disgard of this thread IMMEDIATELY!

I'd rather pull my teeth out with rusty pliers than read anything by Ian Wishart...

Here we have it - The perfect examples of the "Dumbing down of a Generation!"

This sort of comment is the result of a Government replacing school lessons such as "History" with the likes of "Women's studies" and "Tolerance studies", this reflecting recent educational trends to move away from knowledge based learning in favor of social conditioning.

There is a saying "Those who cannot remember the past are comdemned to repeat it". 20th Century Philosopher - George Santayana

The NZ NCEA lists 101 items under the heading "Social Justice", 157 items under the heading "Women in History", 29 on Women's suffrage, 96 on diversity and 63 on racism, 0 on the US Constitution and 0 on Magna Carta, get the picture?

The issue here is that our education system and government does not choose to teach about the major events of Western civilisation. Our education system is now Marxism based, based strongly around socialism.
Socialsim which teaches a belief in the state only, with a departure from westerns teachings.
The only way one would recognise a marxism system is by being taught the western system. Without this education, the nation is "dumbed".

If one was to look into the belief system of this Labour Government and its leader, you would be able to piece together the entire picture.
You would have to take the initiative to achieve this insight, because in todays society, you are taught to be ignorant of this and you are not supposed to be mentally awake and aware of this socialist conditioning.

Purchase this book and you'll be given the western viewpoint.

But as I said, Be quick and order now - Because a socialist government, will dictate it's ban promptly!

Pex Adams

17th March 2008, 06:24

As my signature says, Helen and company will still be in power after this years election! :mad:

Apart from the media there will be a few surprises as to who helps put her back there again too! :buggerd: John.

I think KBer's should get behind this idea... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=69352

If your lucky, you might even see yourself with your own cabinet position:banana::spanking::niceone:

Dafe

17th March 2008, 06:29

Fatjim definitely gets my vote before Helen!

koba

17th March 2008, 06:36

Was gunna type a counter argument but its just not worth it.

Dafe

17th March 2008, 06:41

Was gunna type a counter argument but its just not worth it.

Why not? I'll even counter it in return with evidential facts!

Dafe

17th March 2008, 06:45

Not too many surprise for me Oldrider. I see Douglas is going to stand for ACT. That's gota be a plus if not for Clarke then Labour as a whole. I can't see the Maori Party having a bar of National if Keye gets too close to ACT. Much the same goes for the Greens.

Skyryder

It was interesting to see "A Real Labour Man" make a return to the political arena. Sir Roger Douglas always believed in the Real Labour Policies.

Sir Roger Douglas return speech was very good. He labelled this current Labour Government as having "Political Self Interest". He even stated he is returning to politics because everything that can be done must be done now as this government seriously needs to be stopped.

The "dumbed" members of our nation think it has to do with the brain drain etc........
Those that understand the real meaning understand the allignment to having a communist/marxist structured government.

Dafe

17th March 2008, 06:51

Was gunna type a counter argument but its just not worth it.

How about a counter argument detailing why the top educated NZ'ers are all leaving NZ whilst being replaced with refugees and lifetime beneficiaries.
Does this not contribute to the socialist reform? The dumbing of a nation?

Colapop

17th March 2008, 07:12

Labour Government Policy - Socialist Reforms for the Modern Era. Helen Clarke (1999 - )

We complain bitterly about the injustice of the world. There are starving children in third world countries. We complian about the rights of those in countries where dictators rule. We complain about the suppresion of free speach.

When are we going to stop complaining and start doing? General apathy and an acceptance of injustice does not make better people. I went to school and learned the three R's. Now it seems we are not even teaching the other three R's at home -

Respect for others
Respect for yourself
Responsibility for your actions

Colapop

17th March 2008, 07:15

Was gunna type a counter argument but its just not worth it.
Yeah man, you waz gunna. But it waz too much effort aye? Probly waz gunna do a lotta fings.. but couldn't be f*cked....

YellowDog

17th March 2008, 07:18

As my signature says, Helen and company will still be in power after this years election! :mad:

Apart from the media there will be a few surprises as to who helps put her back there again too! :buggerd: John.
As a newby to NZ politics, I have been amazed by the trivia of it all and the entire political system.

I think HC is a good speaker though some of the government policies do defy belief.

As someone with no NZ policial allegiance and an almost independent observer, I have not met anyone with a good thing to say about HC and her party.

I suspect that her manufacturing industry of manufacturing Labour party voters will give her party a lot of support.

I will however be suprised if it is enough. It sounds like it is time for HC to 'Pass the Ball'.

Pex Adams

17th March 2008, 07:20

Sir Roger Douglas always believed in the Real Labour Policies.

If he returns as finance minister, will we have to start talking about Rogernomics again??

Actually has anyone asked Fatjim about who his finance minister is going to be?

I had some personal thoughts about being the food and beverage minister:jerry::apint::drinknsin:spudbooge: :drinkup: :corn::puke:

BiK3RChiK

17th March 2008, 07:21

Did you see on the news last night that she is back up in the polls?

RantyDave

17th March 2008, 07:24

Does this not contribute to the socialist reform?
Dunno if this is on-topic or not, but something I noticed about the Hawke's Bay DHB fiasco:

So, David Cunliffe comes in as the new minister for health. A month or so later he finds himself kicking the DHB up the arse so hard his boot gets stuck. It appears, to me, that they've been handing their mates contracts for millions of dollars without the first concern about whether or not they are the right dudes for the gig - much of local government is run like this, but right now that's not my point.

The question that comes to mind is: so WTF was Annette King doing for all those years? The words "fuck" and "all" come to mind. Socialist or no we clearly need some reforms, the government seem to have forgotten who they work for ... and we seem to have forgotten to tell them.

Dave

Skyryder

17th March 2008, 07:27

I'd rather pull my teeth out with rusty pliers than read anything by Ian Wishart...

Bling on the way

Skyyrder

MSTRS

17th March 2008, 07:46

Dunno if this is on-topic or not, but something I noticed about the Hawke's Bay DHB fiasco:

So, David Cunliffe comes in as the new minister for health. A month or so later he finds himself kicking the DHB up the arse so hard his boot gets stuck. It appears, to me, that they've been handing their mates contracts for millions of dollars without the first concern about whether or not they are the right dudes for the gig - much of local government is run like this, but right now that's not my point.

The question that comes to mind is: so WTF was Annette King doing for all those years? The words "fuck" and "all" come to mind. Socialist or no we clearly need some reforms, the government seem to have forgotten who they work for ... and we seem to have forgotten to tell them.

DaveActually a distortion of what was going on....
Annette King appointed Peter Hauseman to a position on that board. Hauseman is a friend of King's husband and the 2 of them have a tie up with a company providing services to the DHB. The value of this business is some $50M, and the contracts were never put out to tender. A 'lowly' secretary? blew the whistle regarding this conflict of interest and was railroaded for her troubles. The (elected) board supported her and have suffered a similar fate. The only skeleton in this board's closet (that the public is aware of) is one of the members is Peter Dunkerley, a pharmacist in Hastings, whose shop has been promoted for having prescriptions filled.
The whole situation stinks of nepotism/cronyism at the govt level. The Labour govt. The same one that brought us the Election Gagging Bill. The same one that supported Philip Field in his dodgy practices, until the evidence was so public that they could no longer sweep it under the carpet. The same one that brought you Trevor Mallard, David Benson-Pope. The same one that is led by one of the most amoral women of our times...Paintergate, Convoygate, the Peter Doone affair...to mention just a few.
How much evidence does one need to have their eyes opened?

RantyDave

17th March 2008, 08:11

Annette King appointed Peter Hauseman to a position on that board. Hauseman is a friend of King's husband and the 2 of them have a tie up with a company providing services to the DHB. The value of this business is some $50M, and the contracts were never put out to tender.
Ahhh! So "fuck all" is absolutely not what she's been doing for a few years. David Cunliffe must be very unpopular in some circles of the Labour party - I like him more and more :)

Dave

Swoop

17th March 2008, 08:12

Why was I not surprised this morning, with her comments on the Chinese protestors being beaten and killed over the Tibetan issue?

The bitch has cuddled up with the communist leadership to such an extent...
I wish the Dali Lama would return here. Klerke is definately scared of being seen with him because her Chinese masters would be upset.

Finn

17th March 2008, 08:28

Why was I not surprised this morning, with her comments on the Chinese protestors being beaten and killed over the Tibetan issue?

I’m passionately in favour of a free trade agreement with China. But I’m even more passionately in favour of free speech and the right to protest. Now let us look at the different responses from Australia and NZ:

“We urge the Chinese Government to allow peaceful expression of dissent. We call on Chinese authorities to act with restraint and to deal with protesters peacefully.”

- Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith

“The Government is concerned at the reports of violence and is trying to obtain more accurate information. It calls on all sides to exercise restraint.”

- Prime Minister Helen Clark

Yeah those damn protesters need to be more restrained as they get shot.

Every time she opens her mouth, I feel sick to my stomach.

Swoop

17th March 2008, 08:30

Every time she opens her mouth, I feel sick to my stomach.
That reminds me. I have a dentist's appointment.

Finn

17th March 2008, 08:38

That reminds me. I have a dentist's appointment.

Assuming HC even has a dentist, I pity the poor sod. Mind you being a vet, they should be used to the nasties. I wonder if they hog tie her during procedures. Dunno, but I'd sure be tempted to just let the anesthetic keep going...

MSTRS

17th March 2008, 10:38

Ahhh! So "fuck all" is absolutely not what she's been doing for a few years. David Cunliffe must be very unpopular in some circles of the Labour party - I like him more and more :)

Dave

I can't figure out Cunliffe's purpose. Not to over-ride the 'old boy network. Not to ensure open, honest dealings by the board. It would seem that it was a desperate attempt to silence the elected board members, who know where all the dirt originates. The (revised) report on the situation is due out today...revised because Cunliffe didn't like what the first draft was saying. No integrity there...

ManDownUnder

17th March 2008, 10:48

How much evidence does one need to have their eyes opened?

In NZ???? The average kiwi looks straight past all that in their rush to see how many baubles Cullen "suddenly finds" due to a Treasury oversight just before election day.

He wasn't keeping that from us in a blatent attempt to maximise the positive effects in an election year though - oh no... he's going to blame treasury for their inability to report things accurately, get it right first time, and if re-elected, Labour will possibly consider the option of forming a committee to begin discussions on the level of tax relief "ordinary New Zealanders" should enjoy in the third year of their next term of office.

Winston Peters ugly smiling mug will make an appearance too... of that you can be certain.

koba

17th March 2008, 11:36

Yeah man, you waz gunna. But it waz too much effort aye? Probly waz gunna do a lotta fings.. but couldn't be f*cked....

Yep, I've been made stupid and lazy by the labour government that have actually done quite well.
No actually I just dont want to get in a politcal argument.
I like bikes. I had a great weekend.
I'm online to get photos to show my brother.

Finn

17th March 2008, 11:57

Yep, I've been made stupid and lazy by the labour government that have actually done quite well.

"well" if you're a beneficiary or artist, but I would like to hear from you were you "think" they have done well. It'll be a great laugh.

Edit: Oh goodie, Mr D is here. He'll have something to say...

MisterD

17th March 2008, 11:59

In NZ???? The average kiwi looks straight past all that in their rush to see how many baubles Cullen "suddenly finds" due to a Treasury oversight just before election day.

The same dumb fucks that fall for the Auckland airport "saving strategic assets" populism...I'll say it again, it's time we had a test and a licence before you were allowed to vote.

jrandom

17th March 2008, 12:04

ManDownUnder

17th March 2008, 12:25

Ian Wishart is a slimy cunt, and I shan't be contributing to his coffers,

Oh the pain... agreed entirely... Oh the pain...

All we can really hope for is that the electorate will not be so stupid as to allow them to continue, and that the replacement National (inevitably) government will have the courage to reverse Labour's most egregious errors of hubris.

I hate to say it but I foresee the following.

National get in, recession hits, people see "bad" in the economy, National gets blamed, Labour gets back in as recession lifts, they look good again

SPman

17th March 2008, 12:27

What can be said, really?

Ian Wishart is a slimy cunt, and I shan't be contributing to his coffers, but the fact remains that Clark & Co appear to have slid towards an oligarchic approach to governance, and thereby betrayed the fine ideals of socialism and eroded the foundations of democracy.

All we can really hope for is that the electorate will not be so stupid as to allow them to continue, and that the replacement National (inevitably) government will have the courage to reverse Labour's most egregious errors of hubris.
National! Courage! - Ha! Integrity - thats a toothpaste, isn't it!
Things will be just as bent under National - just a different small sector of cronies will be picking up all the bucks!
The average population will still be under the lash - just not Madam Lash!

The only way things will change is if the population of NZ stop watching "reality" shows and NZ Idol on TV and start taking an interest in where their country is actually going, and where they want it to go, and actively do something about it.
Otherwise, it'll be the same old, same old. - National, Labour, Act, etc etc - not an original thinker among the lot of them - well, not one with any say or influence!

jrandom

17th March 2008, 12:33

National get in, recession hits, people see "bad" in the economy, National gets blamed, Labour gets back in as recession lifts, they look good again

Perhaps so, but it's not so much a matter of Labour vs National; after all, either party could conceivably have made the errors that the Labour government has made over the last several years. It seems, as I said, more to do with the attitude of individual policymakers.

National may like to quote its 'natural party of government' line, but I've always felt that the constitution of the average Kiwi lends itself better to a socialist rather than a capitalist approach, and that traditional Labour policies, correctly implemented, are a better fit for our milk powder and woodchip economy and cannabis-smoking electorate.

Because, quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with milk powder, woodchips and cannabis. Long may our odd little corner of the world continue as a bastion thereof!

vifferman

17th March 2008, 12:34

All we can really hope for is that the electorate will not be so stupid as to allow them to continue
Yes.

... and that the replacement National (inevitably) government will have the courage to reverse Labour's most egregious errors of hubris.
I don't have much hope that the next Gubmint will do any better.
Maybe if they fire most of the current crop of senior bureaucrats, scrap some of the very silly bits of social programming and bureaucracy we've been lumbered with...
But then again, what I really hope for is the repeal of most of the local and central Gubmint laws, rules and regulations, and adoption of more sensible, non-Real Estate "industry" based economic policy models.

It'll never happen...:(

jrandom

17th March 2008, 12:34

*curmudgeonly mutterings*

Sigh.

Yeah, wot 'e said.

MisterD

17th March 2008, 12:46

National may like to quote its 'natural party of government' line, but I've always felt that the constitution of the average Kiwi lends itself better to a socialist rather than a capitalist approach, and that traditional Labour policies, correctly implemented, are a better fit for our milk powder and woodchip economy and cannabis-smoking electorate.

Except that thankfully, for those of us that would like to give less of our hard-earned to that smug git Cullen, they still haven't figured out that what Kiwis really want is less government meddling in their lives.

mstriumph

17th March 2008, 12:47

Why was I not surprised this morning, with her comments on the Chinese protestors being beaten and killed over the Tibetan issue?

...........

there's a deathly hush of anything except polite 'now, now, chaps...' from the aus. government, too .......... same stable, same blinkers

MisterD

17th March 2008, 12:56

......... same stable, same blinkers

Indeed.....

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd accompanied a Chinese importer of Australian telecoms products on a paid trip to the African nation of Sudan in June and July of 2006, where the company pursued a number of business deals in a region afflicted by what some describe as a government-backed genocide against the non-Arab minority. Beijing AustChina Technology also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the NSW Labor Party in the lead up to last year's state election, with the company's CEO Ian Tang later handed an honorary ambassadorship by NSW Premier Morris Iemma.

Jantar

17th March 2008, 14:19

I'd rather pull my teeth out with rusty pliers than read anything by Ian Wishart...

So you judge what you read solely on the author rather than on what it contains? I can understand that attitude when readinmg fiction, but not with non-fiction.

However recent polling shows that you have that in common with 36% of the population. <_<

Finn

17th March 2008, 14:24

Except that thankfully, for those of us that would like to give less of our hard-earned to that smug git Cullen, they still haven't figured out that what Kiwis really want is less government meddling in their lives.

You mean like this...

* Labour has had education bureaucrats grow in number by 40% compared to 12% growth of teacher numbers

* Central Health bureaucrats up 51% while medical professionals up 28%

* MSD policy staff have increased 109% while MSD service staff only 23%

* Overall an increase in bureaucrats by 37%, and 1 in 50 employees in NZ is now a bureaucrat

* Salary costs for policy departments have increased 142%

* Government Administration has been the fastest growing sector of the economy

Finn

17th March 2008, 14:28

The same dumb fucks that fall for the Auckland airport "saving strategic assets" populism...I'll say it again, it's time we had a test and a licence before you were allowed to vote.

Even the NZ Super Fund (Cullen Fund) has both voted for the Canadian offer and agreed to sell its 77 million shares...

A massive 63% of shareholders (close to 90% when you exclude the Council stakes) have agreed to sell their Auckland Airport shares to the Canadian pension fund.

Why so many?

Simple. The Government’s actions have driven the current share price down so much, that it has made the Canadian offer much more attractive.

The next step, assuming over 50% have also voted for the bid, is for David Parker and Clayton Cosgrove to pretend to impartially consider the bid. They will go through the farce of asking for reports, and taking time to make a decision, and then shock horror they will turn it down.

And then the Canadian pension fund will haul their little behinds into court, and point to massive and compelling evidence they predetermined the matter because persons no less than the Prime Minister (who can sack them) and the Finance Minister (who controls their budgets) has made it very clear they are expected to turn the bid down.

And so the Canadians will get their 24.9% voting share - which is less than the current level of overseas voting strength I suspect.

Labour morons.

Swoop

17th March 2008, 14:44

All we can really hope for is that the electorate will not be so stupid as to allow them to continue
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
:lol::lol::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rof l::bash:

jrandom

17th March 2008, 14:52

So you judge what you read solely on the author rather than on what it contains? I can understand that attitude when readinmg fiction, but not with non-fiction.

Given that the gentleman (and I use the phrase loosely) in question has a history of shit-stirring, biased 'reporting' and general scum-sucking and bottom-feeding, I strongly suspect that this new book will be nothing more than a careful mix of unfounded assertions and ridiculous extrapolations from fairly innocent data, liberally seasoned with emotive language.

Mr Wishart's fallacious ranting does nothing to bolster the position of those who have legitimate concerns with our current government; rather, it throws the whole anti-Labour movement into disrepute with anyone possessing an IQ in excess of their shoe size.

MisterD

17th March 2008, 15:01

You mean like this...

* Labour has had education bureaucrats grow in number by 40% compared to 12% growth of teacher numbers

* Central Health bureaucrats up 51% while medical professionals up 28%

* MSD policy staff have increased 109% while MSD service staff only 23%

* Overall an increase in bureaucrats by 37%, and 1 in 50 employees in NZ is now a bureaucrat

* Salary costs for policy departments have increased 142%

* Government Administration has been the fastest growing sector of the economy

Anyone care to do the maths on this? Every single one of them will be a Union member, paying their subs...a big slice of which goes guess where?

Daffyd

17th March 2008, 16:05

I think my signature says it all.

Jantar

17th March 2008, 16:33

Given that the gentleman (and I use the phrase loosely) in question has a history of shit-stirring, biased 'reporting' and general scum-sucking and bottom-feeding, I strongly suspect that this new book will be nothing more than a careful mix of unfounded assertions and ridiculous extrapolations from fairly innocent data, liberally seasoned with emotive language.

Mr Wishart's fallacious ranting does nothing to bolster the position of those who have legitimate concerns with our current government; rather, it throws the whole anti-Labour movement into disrepute with anyone possessing an IQ in excess of their shoe size.

One of the great things about shit stirring via the written word, is that the information presented can be checked and cross referenced. eg, if he claims in the book that Heil Clark signed a painting that she didn't paint, that can be checked and treated as fact. If he claims that her marriage to Peter was arranged for no other reason than political expediency, that cannot be so easily checked, so would be discarded as not fact.

I note that because you "suspect" what may or may not be in the book that you somehow manage to reason out a conclusion that pro labour supporters have extremely high IQs with respect to anyone anti-labour.

I must be one of those with an IQ equal to my shoe size. :whistle:

MSTRS

17th March 2008, 17:01

Winston Peters ugly smiling mug will make an appearance too... of that you can be certain.

Is that the one that should have an evil glint in a beady eye and bad teeth, but instead sports a King's ransom in airbrushing??

jrandom

17th March 2008, 17:08

I note that because you "suspect" what may or may not be in the book that you somehow manage to reason out a conclusion that pro labour supporters have extremely high IQs with respect to anyone anti-labour.

"... it throws the whole anti-Labour movement into disrepute with anyone possessing an IQ in excess of their shoe size" does not imply that Labour supporters have higher IQs than Labour detractors.

Rather, it implies that those who are not associated with the anti-Labour movement and who have high IQs will tend toward a low opinion of it as a result of Mr Wishart's writings. An entirely different implication altogether.

I will refrain, of course, from any cheap shots based on your initial lack of comprehension of the subtleties of my remark...

:laugh:

In any case, I myself will not be voting Labour this election, so I'm not speaking from a partisan viewpoint. I support Mr Wishart's aims, but I don't agree with his lowbrow approach.

rainman

17th March 2008, 18:41

So you judge what you read solely on the author rather than on what it contains? I can understand that attitude when readinmg fiction, but not with non-fiction.

I have actually read a fair bit of his misguided ranting before, and have come to the considered conclusion that he is a lackwit of the first order. I don't have to read every word he ever writes to validly hold this position. He holds a range of views (ahem, Imaginary Friend Syndrome, intelligent design/creationism, bible inerrancy, etc ) I'm no longer inclined to try to eradicate from the collective human psyche. It's like Jehovah's Witnesses - they used to be fun to argue with, but it's just easier to hit your head against the wall.

It is possible that Ian would write something worth reading. But I'll only be alive for about 70 years and based on past experience, the chances are not good. Life is, as they say, too short to put up with fuckwits.

However, it's very generous of you to describe Mr Wishart's writing as non-fiction.

rainman

17th March 2008, 18:55

I’m passionately in favour of a free trade agreement with China. But I’m even more passionately in favour of free speech and the right to protest. Now let us look at the different responses from Australia and NZ:

“We urge the Chinese Government to allow peaceful expression of dissent. We call on Chinese authorities to act with restraint and to deal with protesters peacefully.”

- Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith

“The Government is concerned at the reports of violence and is trying to obtain more accurate information. It calls on all sides to exercise restraint.”

- Prime Minister Helen Clark

Yeah those damn protesters need to be more restrained as they get shot.

Every time she opens her mouth, I feel sick to my stomach.

Oh noes, Finn is channeling Kiwiblog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/tibet.html)... sensible debate is now officially doomed.

I believe it's considered polite to cite your sources, even on the interweb, so "naughty, naughty" to you, Sir. Unless you're actually David Farrar, of course - but I thought Dave lives in Wellington?

Finn

17th March 2008, 20:02

Oh noes, Finn is channeling Kiwiblog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/tibet.html)... sensible debate is now officially doomed.

Mr Farrar is very sensible actually. Only a leftist moron would disagree.

Jantar

17th March 2008, 20:26

However, it's very generous of you to describe Mr Wishart's writing as non-fiction.
As I have read very little by him, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. The only article that I have read has had data that was easily verified, and right on the mark. As with any essay of that nature (road toll) I read the data and form my own conclusions, so hopefully I'm not affected by any spin or other nuance he may use.

oldrider

17th March 2008, 20:53

Actually a distortion of what was going on....
Annette King appointed Peter Hauseman to a position on that board. Hauseman is a friend of King's husband and the 2 of them have a tie up with a company providing services to the DHB. The value of this business is some $50M, and the contracts were never put out to tender. A 'lowly' secretary? blew the whistle regarding this conflict of interest and was railroaded for her troubles. The (elected) board supported her and have suffered a similar fate. The only skeleton in this board's closet (that the public is aware of) is one of the members is Peter Dunkerley, a pharmacist in Hastings, whose shop has been promoted for having prescriptions filled.
The whole situation stinks of nepotism/cronyism at the govt level. The Labour govt. The same one that brought us the Election Gagging Bill. The same one that supported Philip Field in his dodgy practices, until the evidence was so public that they could no longer sweep it under the carpet. The same one that brought you Trevor Mallard, David Benson-Pope. The same one that is led by one of the most amoral women of our times...Paintergate, Convoygate, the Peter Doone affair...to mention just a few.
How much evidence does one need to have their eyes opened?

Prompts the adage: There are none so blind as those that will not see!

New Zealand is now a backward Socialist country, by virtue of it's majority brainwashed sheeple. :confused: John.

rainman

17th March 2008, 20:54

Mr Farrar is very sensible actually. Only a leftist moron would disagree.

Actually, to be fair, I'd generally agree with you on this. It's his vast right wing horde of fanbois that are not quite as, to say the least.

Oscar

18th March 2008, 08:10

One of the great things about shit stirring via the written word, is that the information presented can be checked and cross referenced. eg, if he claims in the book that Heil Clark signed a painting that she didn't paint, that can be checked and treated as fact. If he claims that her marriage to Peter was arranged for no other reason than political expediency, that cannot be so easily checked, so would be discarded as not fact.

I note that because you "suspect" what may or may not be in the book that you somehow manage to reason out a conclusion that pro labour supporters have extremely high IQs with respect to anyone anti-labour.

I must be one of those with an IQ equal to my shoe size. :whistle:

I think the point to note here is that what Mr. Wishart is or isn't is almost irrelevant to the argument. Anyone with half a dozen functioning brain cells can see what Helen & Co are doing to this country.

Personally, as someone who had his head busted during the 1981 Springbok Tour (when I was young and impressionable), I feel incredibly let down by the Socialists. Firstly, they sucked up to Mugabe, now the Chinese. Clark isn't fit to walk the same corridors as David Lange.

ManDownUnder

18th March 2008, 08:14

In any case, I myself will not be voting Labour this election, so I'm not speaking from a partisan viewpoint. I support Mr Wishart's aims, but I don't agree with his lowbrow approach.

respect..........

rainman

19th March 2008, 21:28

Apologies for resurrecting a dead thread (but it's only been a day...). Came across this little gem (http://fundypost.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-is-this-thing-called-love.html) w.r.t. Mr Wishart. Somewhat tangential to the original Helen Clark theme, but highly entertaining nonetheless.

Oh, and Finn, I hadn't picked up on it before, but fully 3 of the posts you made in this thread were straight copy-and-paste jobs from Kiwiblog, not just the one I picked up on in the first place. And no attribution on any of 'em. Tut, tut, poor form. Is independent thought not big among the "rightist morons"?

Finn

20th March 2008, 09:25

rainman

20th March 2008, 16:51

David doesn't mind. I know him.

I'm sure David loves you recycling his National Party spin lines... but whatever. I reckon it's poor form not to credit original sources, whether they're your friends or not. But Your Morals May Vary.

Talk about spot the lefty.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

I used to be a rightard, but then I grew up.

Oscar

20th March 2008, 19:25

I'm sure David loves you recycling his National Party spin lines... but whatever. I reckon it's poor form not to credit original sources, whether they're your friends or not. But Your Morals May Vary.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

I used to be a rightard, but then I grew up.

The fact that you're taking the moral high ground in a political debate and then using mildly abusive epithets suggests you have a deal more growing up to do yet.

Oscar

20th March 2008, 19:28

Jantar

20th March 2008, 19:28

......I used to be a rightard, but then I grew up.

I know the feeling. I used to be strong Labour, but then I grew up. ;)

James Deuce

20th March 2008, 19:30

I reckon it's poor form not to credit original sources, whether they're your friends or not. .

You should have a chat to that Wishart bloke then.

rainman

20th March 2008, 20:02

The fact that you're taking the moral high ground in a political debate and then using mildly abusive epithets suggests you have a deal more growing up to do yet.

Yeah, yeah I could be all responsible and pleasant, but where's the fun in that on a Thursday before the long weekend? The reaction's been fun... and besides - He started it, Mum! ("leftist moron", "poor lost soul").

My real politics are considerably more complex than Mr Finn may be open to consider, but nice simple left/right, red/blue loyalists are occasionally fun to bait.

So as a lefty, you obviously eschew theft of intellectual property.
You may then wish to comment on our Glorious PM signing a painting that wasn't hers....

Well, I think it sucks, but mainly because of the dishonesty aspect. IP is a more difficult topic, "theft" of which I don't think is "obviously eschewed" by the nominal left. More so the nominal right, I'd think, but not deterministically by any means.

What do you think about it?

You should have a chat to that Wishart bloke then.

(Shiver)... Ewww, why? Cf. earlier comments about hitting head into walls.

rainman

20th March 2008, 20:04

I know the feeling. I used to be strong Labour, but then I grew up. ;)

I can see how that could work! ;)

Oscar

20th March 2008, 20:59

Yeah, yeah I could be all responsible and pleasant, but where's the fun in that on a Thursday before the long weekend? The reaction's been fun... and besides - He started it, Mum! ("leftist moron", "poor lost soul").

My real politics are considerably more complex than Mr Finn may be open to consider, but nice simple left/right, red/blue loyalists are occasionally fun to bait.

Considerably more complex?

Your posts do a great job of disguising your complexity.
Kudos to you...

Oscar

20th March 2008, 21:04

Well, I think it sucks, but mainly because of the dishonesty aspect. IP is a more difficult topic, "theft" of which I don't think is "obviously eschewed" by the nominal left. More so the nominal right, I'd think, but not deterministically by any means.

What do you think about it?

I think that dishonesty is rife in some measure on all sides of the political debate. However in this instances, I was merely reminding you of that old saw regarding glass houses...

rainman

20th March 2008, 21:24

I think that dishonesty is rife in some measure on all sides of the political debate.

Sadly, agreed.

However in this instances, I was merely reminding you of that old saw regarding glass houses...

Huh? Which glass house am I in then? Lemme see... Finn copied the KB articles without attribution, I pointed at some articles regarding Wishart but linked to them, thereby providing attribution... no, can't be that... scratches head.... dunno?

It's late, and the end of a busy week(let), you may have to spell it out.

Finn

20th March 2008, 21:28

I used to be a rightard, but then I grew up.

Let me guess... it was about the time that you gave up on trying. Basically you failed in life and fell into the safety net of the small percentage of hard working people in NZ. That's okay, we all fail from time to time but the difference between people like you an me is that you gave up... you settled for the ugly wife and the pitiful existence you call a life.

Well sorry buddy, I've got news for you and it ain't pretty. Look what's happening around you. This may be difficult because of your disability but you've got a small window of opportunity to be man a rid yourself of this illness.

Good luck and may God take pity on your soul little person.

Skyryder

20th March 2008, 21:31

It's late, and the end of a busy week(let), you may have to spell it out.

P.l.a.g.i.a.r.i.s.m.

Skyryder

rainman

20th March 2008, 21:37

Let me guess... it was about the time that you gave up on trying. Basically you failed in life and fell into the safety net of the small percentage of hard working people in NZ. That's okay, we all fail from time to time but the difference between people like you an me is that you gave up... you settled for the ugly wife and the pitiful existence you call a life.

Well sorry buddy, I've got news for you and it ain't pretty. Look what's happening around you. This may be difficult because of your disability but you've got a small windows of opportunity to be man a rid yourself of this illness.

Good luck and may God take pity on your soul little person.

Ha, love it. I've had a highly successful career with more to come, earn great money as part of the management team of a highly successful and rapidly growing business, have a fantastic marriage to a beautiful woman, and generally thoroughly enjoy life.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good stereotype, eh?

Finn

20th March 2008, 21:38

Huh? Which glass house am I in then? Lemme see... Finn copied the KB articles without attribution, I pointed at some articles regarding Wishart but linked to them, thereby providing attribution... no, can't be that... scratches head.... dunno?

Typical loser lefty. Arguing for the sake of arguing and ignoring facts. David Farrars' website is the political bible of NZ and all you can harp on about is that I cut and paste from his website. You're the very reason I don't pay tax. Good luck post Sep 08.

Finn

20th March 2008, 21:41

Ha, love it. I've had a highly successful career with more to come, earn great money as part of the management team of a highly successful and rapidly growing business, have a fantastic marriage to a beautiful woman, and generally thoroughly enjoy life.

Getting a bit defensive huh? You don't need to try to prove anything to us. Best you focus on keeping that non-sustainable job post Sep.

rainman

20th March 2008, 21:42

P.l.a.g.i.a.r.i.s.m.

Skyryder

As in "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work" (dictionary.com). Yep, that's my point. About Finn. Don't see where the same accusation can be delivered against me though? (puzzled look)

Finn

20th March 2008, 21:52

As in "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work" (dictionary.com). Yep, that's my point. About Finn. Don't see where the same accusation can be delivered against me though? (puzzled look)

This isn't an election idiot.

rainman

20th March 2008, 21:53

Getting a bit defensive huh? You don't need to try to prove anything to us. Best you focus on keeping that non-sustainable job post Sep.

Thanks for the good wishes. I agree the economic situation isn't looking too flash, but not to worry, I have a range of skills and options and I'm not afraid of hard work, so I won't starve even if the new govt prove worse than the present one :)

Of course, there's a chance a National govt post-Sep might make my job slightly easier, but it depends on their policies, which I've yet to see much of. I'm not having too many troubles now, nor are most of my customers, despite the many weaknesses of the evil crypto-Klarkist communist socialist dictatorship that I keep hearing about on KB....

rainman

20th March 2008, 22:03

This isn't an election idiot.

Well, yerss, that would involve voting, and stuff. I would ask what's your point but I'm not sure you have one, and I'm getting bored with this, so I'm off to do something more diverting with what's left of my evening.

Go for a ride or something, might make you less grumpy. I certainly plan to tomorrow (and it'll probably do wonders for my mental health too), think the weather should still be grand.

Finn

20th March 2008, 22:04

Thanks for the good wishes. I agree the economic situation isn't looking too flash, but not to worry, I have a range of skills and options and I'm not afraid of hard work, so I won't starve even if the new govt prove worse than the present one :)

Of course, there's a chance a National govt post-Sep might make my job slightly easier, but it depends on their policies, which I've yet to see much of. I'm not having too many troubles now, nor are most of my customers, despite the many weaknesses of the evil crypto-Klarkist communist socialist dictatorship that I keep hearing about on KB....

I doubt you would know the meaning of hard work. As for the evil crypto-Klarkist communist socialist dictatorship that you keep hearing about on KB, perhaps you should take note. These are real people from all walks of life who have had a guts full of an evil crypto-Klarkist communist socialist dictatorship. You've obviously got a hidden agenda and your so called "skills and options" rely heavily on leftist idealism.

Collected enough wood and supplies for winter?

Finn

20th March 2008, 22:10

Go for a ride or something, might make you less grumpy.

I'm pissed and the only bike I have left is a Street Magic until the MV is fixed. Kindly, my right wing friend has made well this summer and afforded himself the pleasure of an extra bike which he has graciously lent me for a trip to Gisborne tomorrow.

Also, I'd rather be grumpy than biter.

P.S. I thought you were off to do something with your evening...

JimO

21st March 2008, 08:05

For those of you interested in Politics or just a good read. Ian Wishart is about to release a book on Helen Clark.

Due to the introduction of Labours "Electoral Finance Bill", This book will probably be banned from sale within hours of its release. The author Ian Wishart may also be facing imprisonment once it hits the shelves.

You can secure yourself a copy by ordering online directly from the Investigate Magazine website. Once the book gets released, pre-ordered copies of the book will be released immediately.

But pre-order now, otherwise you most likely wont get a chance to see this book again.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/enter.html

i will wait for the movie to come out

Ixion

21st March 2008, 08:22

I doubt you would know the meaning of hard work. As for the evil crypto-Klarkist communist socialist dictatorship that you keep hearing about on KB, perhaps you should take note. These are real people from all walks of life who have had a guts full of an evil crypto-Klarkist communist socialist dictatorship. You've obviously got a hidden agenda and your so called "skills and options" rely heavily on leftist idealism.

Collected enough wood and supplies for winter?

Arrggh. For the umpteenth time, the Labour government is not in any way Communist, more's the pity, nor is it even socialist.

A communist government would long ago have had Ms Clark and most of her cronies in front of a brick wall.

rainman

21st March 2008, 10:26

I doubt you would know the meaning of hard work.... You've obviously got a hidden agenda and your so called "skills and options" rely heavily on leftist idealism.

I strongly doubt you would know.

I'm pissed

That could explain it!

Hope you enjoy your ride to Gizzy.

Arrggh. For the umpteenth time, the Labour government is not in any way Communist, more's the pity, nor is it even socialist.

A communist government would long ago have had Ms Clark and most of her cronies in front of a brick wall.

I wholeheartedly agree. But for those of a simplistic bent it's obviously just easier to repeat the litany.... tax cuts good, Klark and Liarbour evil, EFA an assault on democracy, this is a dictatorship, only Teh Blue Team is any good, everything Teh Evil Kommunist Socialist Red Team does is rubbish... Far, far easier than thinking for oneself, of course. (To be fair, there are sometimes mirror images of this problem in "the other camp", just fewer of them in my experience).

Sadly, this level of sophistication will determine the outcome of the next election. NZ needs to grow up a little, methinks.

Skyryder

21st March 2008, 13:13

I strongly doubt you would know.

That could explain it!

Hope you enjoy your ride to Gizzy.

I wholeheartedly agree. But for those of a simplistic bent it's obviously just easier to repeat the litany.... tax cuts good, Klark and Liarbour evil, EFA an assault on democracy, this is a dictatorship, only Teh Blue Team is any good, everything Teh Evil Kommunist Socialist Red Team does is rubbish... Far, far easier than thinking for oneself, of course. (To be fair, there are sometimes mirror images of this problem in "the other camp", just fewer of them in my experience).

Sadly, this level of sophistication will determine the outcome of the next election. NZ needs to grow up a little, methinks.

Yep it's the same old rhetoric masqerading as political nouse stemming from the far right and pretending to be an intellectual opinion. If there was some stimulating comment that could remove itself from the misconception that this government is socialist, communist etc I'd join in the discussion but past experiance has proven that those that espouse such views are as blind and deaf to this, equally as much as those that they denegrate for having an opposite view.

Skyryder

Rogue

21st March 2008, 23:41

What !! Theres an election this year :eek5:

Oscar

22nd March 2008, 08:34

I strongly doubt you would know.

That could explain it!

Hope you enjoy your ride to Gizzy.

I wholeheartedly agree. But for those of a simplistic bent it's obviously just easier to repeat the litany.... tax cuts good, Klark and Liarbour evil, EFA an assault on democracy, this is a dictatorship, only Teh Blue Team is any good, everything Teh Evil Kommunist Socialist Red Team does is rubbish... Far, far easier than thinking for oneself, of course. (To be fair, there are sometimes mirror images of this problem in "the other camp", just fewer of them in my experience).

Sadly, this level of sophistication will determine the outcome of the next election. NZ needs to grow up a little, methinks.

Whilst we're thinking for ourselves...
Explain to us peasants how the EFA isn't an assault on democracy.
While yer at it, name one other Western Democracy that has anything like it.

rainman

22nd March 2008, 18:18

Explain to us peasants...

I wouldn't call you a peasant (assuming from your tone that you see the term as pejorative), Oscar, I don't know you.

...how the EFA isn't an assault on democracy.

Democracy is a somewhat blurry concept, with many definitions, but picking Larry Diamond's definition of liberal democracy (via Wikipedia) as a hopefully uncontroversial starting point:
1. Electoral outcomes are uncertain, opposition vote is significant and no group that adheres to constitutional principles is denied the right to form a party and contest elections.
2. The military and other democratically unaccountable actors should be subordinate to the authority of elected civilian officials.
3. Citizens have multiple channels for expression and representation such as diverse independent associations and movements which they have the freedom to form and join.
4. Individuals have substantial freedom of belief, opinion, discussion, speech, publication, assembly, demonstration and petition.
5. There are alternative sources of information (including independent media to which citizens have politically unfettered access).
6. Executive power is constrained by the autonomy of the government institutions such as an independent judiciary , parliament and other mechanisms of horizontal accountability.
7. Civil liberties are effectively protected by an independent non-discriminatory judiciary whose decisions are respected and enforced by other centres of power.
8. Citizens are politically equal under the law.
9. Minority groups are not oppressed.
10. The rule of law protects citizens from human right abuses.
11. The constitution is supreme.

The arguments I've heard against the EFA centre on the effects on #4 - that is, it's a freedom of speech debate. The core functioning of our democracy is unaffected - which is a critical point. None of my core freedoms are materially impacted - I still have "substantial freedom of speech" (and I have lived in places where I was subjected to material restrictions in my democratic freedoms so I know of what I speak). Re freedom of speech, two main (usually ideologically informed) perspectives exist: one favours almost no restriction on electoral speech, the other wants, as I think Metiria Turei put it, to protect the equality of the ballot from the inequality of the wallet. This is not a clear-cut debate, as should hopefully be obvious, neither side is absolutely right/wrong, but it's worth mentioning that restrictions on electoral spending have been in place for some time. The new act changes the detailed rules in significant ways, but not the principles.

Bear in mind that the bill came about as a response to abuses seen during the 2005 election, and that it is (mainly?) intended to close the loopholes that made the Exclusive Brethren thing legally acceptable. As is typical of politicians, they've cocked up the implementation a bit (as can be seen by the speed with which the first amendment is being advanced), but the prinicple is at least defensible: I agree there should be limits on what can be spent to promote a party and candidate for election, and think all donations to parties should be transparent, so as to avoid improper influence. For clarity: I think the act should go further than it does in some areas.

Freedom of speech is a complex area made more complex by new media and other factors (probably why the act is such a mess in the end) and the act is certainly influenced by them what wrote it. But it's a big piece of law, and shrill denouncement of it as "an assault on democracy" is just dumb. What bits do you object to, and on what basis?

While yer at it, name one other Western Democracy that has anything like it.

That's a good question. Short answer is I don't know, I don't have the time to exhaustively study all other "Western Democracies" - in itself a debatable definition, but never mind - and establish what their exact electoral processes are. FECA 1971 and BCRA 2002 cover some of the same ground (very different ideology behind it though, look where that got them), and there are various other laws around that are in the general area. Why is it relevant though? Name one other country with the same nuclear legislation that we have.

Skyryder

22nd March 2008, 22:34

Whilst we're thinking for ourselves...
Explain to us peasants how the EFA isn't an assault on democracy.
While yer at it, name one other Western Democracy that has anything like it.

The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment
by Lisa Guliani

“…If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
~ The 13th Amendment to the Constitution ~

You need to research (ggogle) the implications of this but according to many who have some knowledge of American jurisprudence the above is still law. Well you did ask 'for anything like it.'

Skyryder

Sanx

23rd March 2008, 00:42

The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment
by Lisa Guliani

“…If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
~ The 13th Amendment to the Constitution ~

You need to research (ggogle) the implications of this but according to many who have some knowledge of American jurisprudence the above is still law. Well you did ask 'for anything like it.'

Wikipedia says differently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment). Although approved by the Senate and Congress, the proposed amendment was not ratified by enough states and so never got accepted as an amendment to the constitution. The Thirteenth amendment is the one banning slavery (which as an interesting aside, was only ratified by Kentucky in 1976).

Secondly, the not-quite-an-amendment bears absolutely no relation to the EFA, unless you want to go down the well-trodden (and completely unsubstantiated) path by saying that Don Brash was simply doing the bidding of some shadowy American overlords. The not-quite-an-amendment was designed to stop american citizens being given or holding titles in foreign countries, thus splitting such citizen's loyalty. Although the US has never banned its citizens from holding multiple citizenships (I thought it had, but was wrong) the Oath of Allegiance says contains something rather similar in meaning to the not-quite-an-amendment:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…

But again - sod all similarity to the EFA. Oscar had it spot on - there is no other western democracy that has anything similar to the EFA. It's not so much the monetary limits imposed on campaigning, it's the differentiation between sitting MPs and everyone else and the deliberate setting of donation limits to just above what Labour received and well below what National received. Oh, and the limiting anonymous donations clause; some people claim that having to declare donations makes the system transparent. Well, yes to some extent, but in which case why do we have anonymous ballots? If it's transparency everyone wants, why aren't the parties and candidates each person voted for a matter of public record? Why did the 'transparency' provisions of the EFA only affect those aspects of political operation that Labour didn't like? Why wasn't the link between the Unions and Labour targetted, for instance? The 'transparency' argument is simply spin designed to give somewhat legitimise to Labour's barely-disguised attempt at perpetuating their grasp on power.

rainman

23rd March 2008, 07:54

Oh, and the limiting anonymous donations clause; some people claim that having to declare donations makes the system transparent. Well, yes to some extent, but in which case why do we have anonymous ballots? If it's transparency everyone wants, why aren't the parties and candidates each person voted for a matter of public record?

The two are quite different. Although I don't mind people knowing who I vote for, in the general case it's a bad idea - for example some groups may be inclined to visit reprisals on those around them that voted differently to how they wanted them to. And everyone's vote is equal (not true of the impact of big money), so there's no reason to disclose. In many other cases though (eg. committee voting) "all-in-favour-say-aye" style voting is quite effective and accountable, so secret ballot is clearly not the only way to vote on issues.

Accountability is the fundamental point of disclosing financial donations - it's more about who has received what, rather than who has given, but the two are of necessity inseparable. If a party gets a large donation and subsequently bestows a large boon on the donor, there should be outrage, and if necessary legal recourse. Consider the Owen Glenn fiasco - because we all know he gave Labour a big chunk of money, the Monaco diplomatic post discussion was treated with the derision it deserves. Because we know that Labour gets money from unions, we can predict the impact on their policies and vote accordingly (although the name of the party is sometimes a bit of a clue). But we don't know the nature of the deal (if any) between National and the EB, or the insurance industry - so can't make a fully informed choice at election time... or nail the bastards to the wall if they do grant a boon to their anonymous trust donors, because we don't know who they are. This is sometimes reflected in the common perception (eg. "slippery John") that National are untrustworthy and likely to change their stated policies after election.

Why did the 'transparency' provisions of the EFA only affect those aspects of political operation that Labour didn't like? Why wasn't the link between the Unions and Labour targetted, for instance? The 'transparency' argument is simply spin designed to give somewhat legitimise to Labour's barely-disguised attempt at perpetuating their grasp on power.

Doh! 'Cos they're politicians. Are you naively suggesting that National will also not do what it takes to get and keep the treasury benches? That "your team" is the team of principle?

Skyryder

23rd March 2008, 18:01

Wikipedia says differently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment). Although approved by the Senate and Congress, the proposed amendment was not ratified by enough states and so never got accepted as an amendment to the constitution. The Thirteenth amendment is the one banning slavery (which as an interesting aside, was only ratified by Kentucky in 1976).

Secondly, the not-quite-an-amendment bears absolutely no relation to the EFA, unless you want to go down the well-trodden (and completely unsubstantiated) path by saying that Don Brash was simply doing the bidding of some shadowy American overlords. The not-quite-an-amendment was designed to stop american citizens being given or holding titles in foreign countries, thus splitting such citizen's loyalty. Although the US has never banned its citizens from holding multiple citizenships (I thought it had, but was wrong) the Oath of Allegiance says contains something rather similar in meaning to the not-quite-an-amendment:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…

But again - sod all similarity to the EFA. Oscar had it spot on - there is no other western democracy that has anything similar to the EFA. It's not so much the monetary limits imposed on campaigning, it's the differentiation between sitting MPs and everyone else and the deliberate setting of donation limits to just above what Labour received and well below what National received. Oh, and the limiting anonymous donations clause; some people claim that having to declare donations makes the system transparent. Well, yes to some extent, but in which case why do we have anonymous ballots? If it's transparency everyone wants, why aren't the parties and candidates each person voted for a matter of public record? Why did the 'transparency' provisions of the EFA only affect those aspects of political operation that Labour didn't like? Why wasn't the link between the Unions and Labour targetted, for instance? The 'transparency' argument is simply spin designed to give somewhat legitimise to Labour's barely-disguised attempt at perpetuating their grasp on power.

I agree that there is some controversy over this issue but if you are interested these links provide better definitive of the issue than Wikipedia.

The first is lengthy and gives a relative in depth view. See Ch 2 TABLE OF RATIFICATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS. If you want to skip Ch 1.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/13essay1.html

The second link claims that the amendment is still law.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/13table.html

from our perspective it is of little consequence whether the 13 ammendment is law of the USA or not. I think what is important is that there was an attempt to limit outside sources from influencing the political affairs of the United States of America and this was in their founding years.

Labour’s EFA is to be seen in the same spirit. I personaly don't have a problem with this others do and have interpreted the EFA as an assault of democracy.

Skyryder