Penguin: Key lies to help us

Written By: the sprout - Date published: - 30 comments
Categories: accountability, dpf, election 2011, gst, john key, leadership, making shit up, national - Tags: ,

Yes, that’s an actual quote [sans ‘serfs’] from David Farrar lying about his master John Key’s lies about not raising GST.

hattip: frank macskasy

 

30 comments on “Penguin: Key lies to help us”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    1. 2.1

      Yes, things haven’t changed after 40 years and half a planet away…..even the media is still as shallow!

      Madd : Well speaking as Conservative candidate I just drone on and on and on…never letting anyone else get a word in edgeways, until I start foaming at the mouth and fall over backwards. (he foams at the mouth and falls over backwards)

      Cut to ‘Spectrum’ studio: same presenter as before, sitting at desk.

      Presenter: Foam at the mouth and fall over backwards. Is he foaming at the mouth to fall over backwards or falling over backwards to foam at the mouth. Tonight ‘Spectrum’ examines the whole question of frothing and falling, coughing and calling, screaming and bawling, walling and stalling, galling and mauling, palling and hauling, trawling and squalling and zalling. Zalling? Is there a word zalling? If there is what does it mean…if there isn’t what does it mean? Perhaps both. Maybe neither. What do I mean by the word mean? What do I mean by the word word, what do I mean by what do I mean, what do I mean by do, and what do I do by mean? What do I do by do by do and what do I do by wasting your time like this? Goodnight.

  4. 4

    Fair enough, I suppose it depends on your interpretation of ‘quote’. “Change of stance” is an actual quote; “greater incentives to work and save” is an actual quote. For the record, here’s what Farrar said:

    Key’s change of stance was on the back of an independent report that recommended reducing income tax and lifting GST so that there are greater incentives to work and save

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10763835

    1. 4.1

      An independent report that Rebstock and Shipley wrote together over chardonnays and French bubbly, no doubt.

      1. 4.1.1

        Which is all very nice , but an ‘independent’ report was flourished AFTER the election when Key was opposed to raising GST BEFORE the election.

        Was he economically illiterate before the election or a two face charlatan after the votes are counted?

    2. 4.2

      No, its pretty clear that’s not quoting.
      There’s no quote marks enclosing the quotes, there’s no ellipsis.

      You’d have to either be retarded, or a dogmatic leftwing supporter to suggest that’s an actual quote. And i’ll add the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

        1. 4.2.1.1

          pedantry?

          You’ve damaged the context, you’ve ripped apart two different sentences, edited them to suit, and merged them together by adding words, and sprout has the audacity to call it A DIRECT QUOTE.

          Do you not understand the meaning of the words “direct quote”?

          Oh right right, I’m missing the point aren’t I.
          Comments on this forum aren’t meant for criticizing or pointing out errors or omissions? As such it doesn’t matter that the singular paragraph in this entire article is inaccurate, because pointing it out is being pedantic.

          So suppose if i “direct quote” the sprout in future, and get banned over it, is he simply being pedantic or is that being hypocritical?

          1. 4.2.1.1.1

            Three things, Bazar.

            1. Where are you quoting the words “direct quote” from exactly?

            2. Number 1 is quite funny, let’s take a moment to reflect on the humour of the situation.

            3. Sure, it’s not an actual quote, I agree, and Sprout was a very naughty little seedling for saying so. But how has the meaning changed from the original unedited quote to the Sprouty version? You say the context has been damaged. How?

            Seems to me both versions have Farrar saying much the same thing.

          2. 4.2.1.1.2

            “You’ve damaged the context, you’ve ripped apart two different sentences, edited them to suit, and merged them together by adding words, and sprout has the audacity to call it A DIRECT QUOTE.Do you not understand the meaning of the words “direct quote”?”

            1. Actually, you’re the one calling it a “direct quote”. Sprout called it an “actual quote” – and the words “change of stance” are in speech quotation marks. Go back and have a look.

            “Comments on this forum aren’t meant for criticizing or pointing out errors or omissions? As such it doesn’t matter that the singular paragraph in this entire article is inaccurate, because pointing it out is being pedantic.”

            2. It is not inaccurate because,

            (a) Farrar said the words in quotation marks.

            (b) Farrar referred to having a greater incentive to work and save.

            It may not suit your desire for precision, but it’s no different to media paraphrasing of comments made by a person.

            I believe that the words I’ve used paraphrase Farrar’s comments fairly well. And just to remind everyone, the quote is this;

            ““Now some may say what about John Key on GST. Did he not change his position? Well, yes he did. And I would never argue that MPs should never change a position. But Key’s CHANGE OF STANCE [my emphasis] was on the back of an independent report that recommended reducing income tax and lifting GST so that there are GREATER INCENTIVES TO WORK AND SAVE [my emphasis]. That allowed the public to understand the change of stance (if they had not, then Key would not have remained so popular).””

  5. 5

    If the serfs vote again for the Sherriff of Nottingham, they’ll get far more of the same: robbing the many poor to feed the very few rich.

  6. 6

    its becoming obvious that kweewee lies about everything.
    and listening to the interview on 9-noon this morning the rest of them are lying about the requirement to sell the states assets.
    Its just a ruse to rig the stockmarket.
    crummy again.

    1. 6.1

      I heard the same Morning Report. The bits that I found excruciating were when one guest said that NZ had not gone through the same “excesses” as overseas.

      Pardon?

      The billion dollars-plus bailout of AMI, South Canterbury, etc, were not caused by “excesses”? The massive failures of dozens of other finance compnies – not “excesses”? The court appearance of company directors facing various charges?

      And then Key & Co have the temerity to claim that 49% private oqwnership will mnake the SOEs “more efficient”.

      Yeah, right. NZ Rail and Air NZ “efficient”. Hanover Finance and AMI “efficient”.

      Funny thing this… National sez that partial privatisation gives “mum and dad” (“mum” being overseas superannuation fund investors, “dad” being corporate investors) a chance to invest in SOEs because of market failures in finance companies.

      So… private ownership is supposed to make SOEs more efficient?

      Would this be the same private ownership that resulted in 30+ (?) finanance companies going belly-up, owing BILLIONS to mum & dad investors?

      I think my “Monty Python” references are not just irony – they’re the new political reality.

      2. 6.1.2

        How is NZ Rail doing under state ownership then? The whole ferry fleet out of action in a day and having to rely on a private competitor, and one potential long term lemon in the fleet.

        1. 6.1.2.1

          yep, it’s almost like National are intentionally mismanaging them to justify their disposal –
          the ferry fleet debacle is entirely the result of National’s brilliant decisionmaking.
          of course when it comes to mismanagement and National, intentionality is often difficult to prove.

          1. 6.1.2.1.1

            Yes that’s right. John Key and Steven Joyce were intimately involved in the design and specification, and commissioning process. They made it go wrong just to prove a point too.

        2. 6.1.2.2

          “Insider” – what do you expect after 15 years of neglect; lack of maintenance; and asset stripping NZ Rail?

          You can thank the corporate raiders who left it a run down mess.

          Do you remember these stories from 2002?

          http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/keep-laid-off-track-staff-tranz-rail-told-27-3-02.jpg

          http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/heat-buckled-rails-looked-like-plasticine-23-12-02.jpg

          http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/tempers-fray-as-rail-services-cut-8-1-03.jpg

          Not to mention Air New Zealand collapsing in 2002, and having to be bailed out.

          Now National wants to repeat the entire process? How many times do we sell/buy/sell these assets How many times are they gutted by corporate raiders?

          And why is this acceptable to you?

  7. 7

    The CEO’s of the SOE’s are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of recieving shares in their renumeration package.

  8. 8

    yes and the right wing journalists (so called ) on the dimpost are getting more and more hysterical by the day. they know that keys is a goneburger.

  9. 9

    one decently moderated debate or half arsed interview with Key being made to supply at least a few plausible responses and the mask will fade….even going back to the 08 campaign promises would be comedy gold.

Comments are closed.