by frog
Act failed to copy our ads and now Winston failed to copy Jeanette’s shopping mall ambush of John Key.
According to Colin Espiner:
Mr Key was due in the Tauranga suburb of Greerton for a walkabout at 11.30am but left his supporters standing on the sidewalk after discovering Mr Peters planned an ambush.
Key’s minders are obviously more vigilant now. But it looks like if you were to vote purely on ambush efficacy you’d have to say that’s one for the Greens.
Image Credit: roadkillbuddha
Published in Campaign by frog on Tue, November 4th, 2008
Tags: ambush, Jeanette Fitzsimons, john key, tauranga, winston peters
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Aren’t your vote for me ad’s just a copy of one of John Ansells old “Vote for Me” ads?
http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/the-green-truth/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
MikeE, John Ansell himself acknowledged in the link you provided:
So, not a copy at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Irrefutably so.
But they won’t admit it. They’ve been caught out, and so through silence hopefully we’d all go away and leave them alone and forget about it.
That was Helen’s and Mike Williams’ tactic when their neutron bomb failed to detonate. See how well it worked for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, that’s just John being magnanimous – don’t get too excited there.
We still haven’t heard a response from your dear leaders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Ansell’s candid response is valid. Should he recant, I’d be very surprised. John seems an honest bloke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For that matter I remember being in a campaign for school funding in Mineola New York back in the 1960′s where the very same meme was used. So John must have gotten it from my parents.
Shawn – You are not credible, not honest and not worth listening to. Your BS has wasted a fair lot of space on this blog and then there’s your inability to accept what we tell you we in truth stand for…. as opposed to what you vomit into our swamp…
“The liar’s punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else” – George Bernard Shaw
Which tells us FAR more about you than you’d probably wish anyone to know,
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly:
Once again, Mr Ansell was being magnanimous – and good on him. Doesn’t exonerate you lot though.
bjchip:
What you’ve just demonstrated is a classic case of reductio ad absurdum.
It was you and your cynical wannabe do-gooders who first cried foul regarding our copying of ideas.
And so we hit back.
And now you’ve made a feeble attempt at hitting back.
Which demonstrates that when you begin making absurd accusations, they will keep on going round and round in circles.
You know what’s funny BJ? In your post, you’ve done nothing but make ad hominem attacks, calling me dishonest etc. But you back it up with nothing.
It reminded me of my experience on the weekend: I was driving through the McDonald’s Drive-Thru on New North Road. Now my car is plastered with ACT logos. A bunch of youth start yelling out “f**king redneck c**t”, “Vote Green, not Fascism” and “f**king right-wing faggot”.
This is testament to the intellect of your ilk (one had a Green t-shirt on, another had Green badges). Offensive, foul-mouthed, and incapable of engaging in mature, intellectual debate.
Why? Because we say things you guys don’t want to hear. And so you brand us as liars.
Well, here’s some George Bernard Shaw for you too:
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
There is no need to vomit in your swamp – you’re already doing such a fine job of it. Just be mindful of when to stop, less you drown in your own vomit.
Or in your case, let the Nanny State tell you when enough is enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My reply didn’t go through, so here it is again:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip – like a born again zealot, lambasting the ignorami he left in his luminous wake – we have shawn, showering us with his golden grace and insightful benevolence. We are truely blessed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You have done nothing but make ad hominem attacks, without providing a basis for your venom. So typical of the Left.
You remind me of the young Green thugs I encountered on the weekend. Upon seeing my car (covered with ACT logos) go through the Drive-Thru at the New North Road McDonald’s on Saturday night, they yelled out:
- “f**king redneck c**t”
- “Vote Green, not fascism”
- “f**king right-wing f*ggot”
Out of the 4 guys, one was wearing a Green t-shirt (the one with the baby giving the finger), and another had Green badges. Clearly, your ilk.
And their behaviour is testament to the offensive, bigoted and immature depths that you lot are willing to stoop to, rather than engage in civil, intellectual debate.
I suggest the former makes up for the latter.
Now, all this talk of lies and bulls**t reminds me of some George Bernard Shaw too:
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
What you accuse us of now, you will be adopting as your policy platform one day. That’s if you come to that realisation.
There is no need for me to vomit in your swamp, BJ; you already seem to be doing such a fine job.
Just be aware of when to stop, lest you drown in your own vomit.
Or get the Nanny State to tell you when enough is enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You have done nothing but make ad hominem attacks, without providing a basis for your venom. So typical of the Left.
You remind me of the young Green thugs I encountered on the weekend. Upon seeing my car (covered with ACT logos) go through the Drive-Thru at the New North Road McDonald’s on Saturday night, they yelled out:
- “f**king redneck c**t”
- “Vote Green, not fascism”
- “f**king right-wing f**got”
Out of the 4 guys, one was wearing a Green t-shirt (the one with the baby giving the finger), and another had Green badges. Clearly, your ilk.
And their behaviour is testament to the offensive, bigoted and immature depths that you lot are willing to stoop to, rather than engage in civil, intellectual debate.
I suggest the former makes up for the latter.
Now, all this talk of lies and bulls**t reminds me of some George Bernard Shaw too:
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
What you accuse us of now, you will be adopting as your policy platform one day. That’s if you come to that realisation.
There is no need for me to vomit in your swamp, BJ; you already seem to be doing such a fine job.
Just be aware of when to stop, lest you drown in your own vomit.
Or get the Nanny State to tell you when enough is enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(Frog, stop blocking my posts…)
I’m pretty sure this will show.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn –
As BJ has so rightly put it, you make yourself into an absurdity.
Read WordPress’ own parameters and you will find that your choice of vocabulary has caught the automatic filters (which here on frogblog are set for very high standards of interaction, unlike sites you may frequent elsewhere)
Once frog had moderated your posts so that they appeared, you are seen to be not only wasting a lot of time ‘spinning’ over here, but also to be a venomous species that we don’t need in our environment.
We try to engage in rational, adult discourse on this forum – perhaps you may have engaged in this at university somewhere?
In the meantime, on behalf of other regular posters here, I suggest you take your negativity and obscenity elsewhere. Kiwiblog seems to be an obvious destination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmmm…so you are saying their blasphemies were great truths???
Weren’t they aimed at you??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
venomous species – that’s good katie. Shawn – you and your minions have been directed to harrass greens through their blogs, public opinion sites and pages, feedback sites etc. etc. Come clean shawn, get it off your chest. Act like a man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
Obviously you have not read my post: I was quoting the obscenities directed at me by YOUR ilk on the weekend. And mind you, when I quoted, I used asterisks in order to satisfy the requirements of WordPress.
Thanks for trying to censor free speech (again). I do post on Kiwiblog too, FYI.
If you read the posts above, it’s actually the likes of greenfly and BJ who’ve engaged in negativity. I’ve responded in the same spirit. But obviously, you have no problem with their vitriol.
I suggest you re-read the posts above (and on other threads) before embarassing yourself against with mindless jibberish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
First, do me the courtesy of posting in your ‘real’ name.
Secondly, cut back on your childish banter, and I’ll actually engage you in proper debate. You reap what you sow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn, you spent a lot of time on frogblog when you were in the Green Party where you didn’t post your real name. Don’t expect of others what you didn’t do!
Would you like me to quote your posts as “red-green” back to you?
Sauce for the goose Shawn. And as you well know, some people have to use blognames to protect their employment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shawn – thank you for your offer. I accept. Where can prospective parents get information on how to plan a family? Can you nominate some sources of information for those parents to be who don’t know how? Thanks shawn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, if you look at my later posts as “RedGreen”, I started signing off as “Shawn Tan” at the end – because I began to realise that it’s an act of courtesy.
You’re starting to sound rather petty, toad. But do what thou wilt, toad. It’s a free world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Well, there are family planning websites out there, both by government agencies and private organisations.
If you look on the net, I’m sure you’ll find a plethora of info.
I haven’t actually undergone this search personally, because I’m not planning a family at this stage. But I can imagine info being out there in the public domain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie:
As you can see, my latest exchange with greenfly has been civil. That’s the way I always intended it anyway.
My first few posts here were not “negative” by any means. It’s only after a few posters started getting personal that my tone changed.
I try and be as magnanimous and courteous as possible (ask anyone in the Greens who knows me). My politics may have changed, but not my personality.
However, when ad hominem attacks start being made, that’s when I have ‘zero tolerance’.
I have a sharp tongue which I try and use sparingly; but when I sense the debate becoming personal, I open the floodgates.
I have nothing personal against the Greens, now that I’m in ACT. But it’s a number of Greenies–whom I shall not name–who haven’t quite shown me the same courtesy when my political conversion came to light.
That’s rather unfortunate. I believe friendships transcend politics.
Not everyone sees it that way though. Not my loss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn
If you offend the younger generation they are far more apt to express themselves directly and offensively back at you. They know better than you appear to understand, just who gets to foot the bill for the excesses of ACT. They find the sentence of wage-peonage handed to them by the ideology of ACT objectionable. They express themselves. You feel offended? Swear back at them. Point out your right to freedom of speech, however offensive it may be and maybe they will cease to offend you. Me, I reckon you reap what you sow.
Nobody on this blog has posted such obscenity directed at you… though I reckon I have taken a couple of swipes at you. You had your free expression, now I think we are going to start paying you back in kind. A fair number of Greens here ARE p!55ed off enough to confront your boorish behavior.
Cheney shot his hunting buddy, Bush went to war in the wrong country and you mistake this blog for a street corner outside McDonalds someplace…. it may be coincidental or maybe there is some strange sort of brain damage associated with extreme right-wing thinking.
Since you don’t know how to get around the obscenity filters this advice…. it WILL pick up common epithets masked by common asterisks. It hasn’t quite caught onto upside down letters, numbers and punctuation marks… apparently you aren’t as technologically superior as you imagined either.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
thank you shawn – I can now go ahead and add responsibly to New Zealand’s flagging population
Really though, the point I was painstakingly making (hence the prolonged extraction) was that there is a need for managed ‘educational’ programmes to support independent decision making by free thinking members of the public. The Greens are advocating just that with the details of their population policy (at least, that’s my reading of it from my distant watchtower. I don’t have the benefit of years of association with the Green Inner Circle, as you seem to do
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
> Cheney shot his hunting buddy, Bush went to war in the wrong country and you mistake this blog for a street corner outside McDonalds someplace…. it may be coincidental or maybe there is some strange sort of brain damage associated with extreme right-wing thinking.
How would that have affected George Bush? can you catch it just by being in the same room as extreme right-wingers who have been thinking?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ:
Well, I am disappointed that you condone the thuggery and obscenity of some, but not others, showing that you are selective in your code of conduct.
So you’re saying that just because I am wronged, I have the right to go around yelling obscenities and behaving in a moronic manner?
And so the murderers in South Auckland should be sympathised with, because they are the “products of Rogernomics”, as Sue Bradford suggested?
Now you’ve lost me. I thought you were attempting to be rational.
For the record, I smiled and waved at the youth who abused me on the weekend, and yelled “Vote ACT!” in a good-natured manner as I drove off. No need for me to stoop to their level.
Can I ask what “boorish behaviour” and “obscenity” you are referring to again? The only vulgarity I can think of is the direct quoting that I did.
I never claimed to be “technologically superior”. It’s this false attributation of remarks–putting words in people’s mouths–that really deteriorate the quality of discussions here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly:
Theoretically, this sounds fine: “[T]here is a need for managed ‘educational’ programmes to support independent decision making by free thinking members of the public.”
But see, that’s where my concerns lie: I’m wary of ‘managed’ programmes because they suggest that manipulation has occurred.
I won’t say I’ve necessarily had “years of association with the Green Inner Circle”. But having associated with enough office-holders and general members, and knowing where lots of Greens stand on population policy, I am rather sceptical that population minimisation/control isn’t off the agenda.
The interesting things is: Within the Greens, there are those who favour a minimal state (like we in ACT do), and those who favour state intervention as a corrective means. I have no idea which ‘clan’ dominates the population policy group; that’s my worry.
If you look at some of the Green parties in parts of Europe, their population policies border on social engineering. That’s rather frightening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, this one probably fits best:
boorish: implies rudeness of manner due to insensitiveness to others’ feelings and unwillingness to be agreeable (a drunk’s boorish behaviour)
Have a look back over your posts of the last several days to see what bj means.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well shawn, I think you are letting your ideology get in the way of common sense here. I’d suggest to you, as you did to me, that there is a plethora of information on family planning methods out there already, some of it contradictory, some of it good, some bad, and parents will be able to browse and choose as they prefer. You seem to want to protect them from having that choice, which puzzles me. The Greens, it seems to me, want to encourage parents-to-be to do some ‘research’ and put themselves in a position to make good judgements. Is it not so? Leaping up and down about ‘state control’ and manipulation does sound a bit shrill, I thought. And that’s why I sought to ‘sound you out’ on this.
btw – I too found many of your comments boorish
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn
You had JUST claimed that the Green ad campaign was “irrefutably” a copy of an earlier ad campaign. That was a lie. Heck, it was a statement of an absolute and could not in any real world, be true in any case. I pointed out how it was clearly NOT irrefutable quite promptly. I have followed several threads on this blog and you have been tagging the place with your false claims on pretty much every single thread. I’m getting RSI just explaining the truth… because I do believe that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech, but I am flat TIRED of your diatribes… everywhere.
Your bald assertions, unsupported by any evidence, that we don’t understand economics, don’t support innovation and don’t like technology.
I’ve answered on almost every occasion because letting that sort of thing pass unanswered isn’t useful, but at this point I have to wonder just what it is you do besides harassing us here. This has to be like a full time job assignment. Either that or you have some sort of obsession to work off.
Either way, if you have something constructive, or a decent REASONED argument go ahead and most of us will be happy to smooth this over. If all you can offer is your opinion of us, and your descriptions of what you THINK we think, you’re basically out of place here and should return to kiwiblog or somewhere else where unsupported opinion is treated as fact.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea
VERY good…. no brain, no damage, I like it
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn
you condone the thuggery and obscenity of some, but not others
How is THAT true of what I said? I told you to give it right back at them. Bad speech is corrected by more speech… or not. Didn’t say I condoned anyone’s actions. I explained them, which is a matter of understanding, not condoning.
Putting words in my mouth isn’t a good way to get back on my good side. I speak and write MY words MY way and I am a little touchy about people changing what I said into what they wish I’d said so they can give the answer they wish they could give.
So you’re saying that just because I am wronged, I have the right to go around yelling obscenities and behaving in a moronic manner?
I told you that bringing your grievance here was wrong. I expect kids who are out on a Saturday night to act like idiots. I understand when they do. The political affiliation is irrelevant.
“Vote ACT” Well done. It shows that there is hope of us getting past this. I hope.
so the murderers in South Auckland should be sympathised with, because they are the “products of Rogernomics”, as Sue Bradford suggested?
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/19192
Please explain where in that speech she “sympathised with” the thugs in South Auckland? I just read it through, to be sure that she hadn’t said something that could be interpreted as you just did, and I don’t see it. So you are putting words in her mouth as well. She isn’t my favorite Green MP, but she doesn’t deserve such treatment either. That she blames “Rogernomics” for the situation is right enough, but the untruth doesn’t help your case.
True, you never actually claimed superior technological skills. I inferred that incorrectly from some of your diatribes about our belief in human ingenuity. Re-reading them I see that the bit that really torqued me tight was some guy you were quoting.. not you. My apologies on this point.
The problem for ACT and for Libertarians is pretty much the same. Government is the only real counter to absolute corporate control that the people can exert. As imperfect as democracy is, it is the only way to control government…. and so it does follow that the limits placed on corporations and on governments must be constantly scrutinized, adjusted and refreshed.
Just as a good democracy is the only real counter to absolute government control of everything.
While a good education is a NECESSARY foundation for democracy
And the only way you want education is through private sector operations that penalize the poor and reward the wealthy.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, bjchip et al,
I’ll try and summarise my response as best as possible.
What you consider boorish comments, I consider robust debate. I refrained from uttering any obscenities (bar the quotes I made, which you’ve now acknowledged – and I thank you for that), only vigorously debating the points. I never engaged in ad hominem attacks – until they were actually directed at me first.
I’ve always believed that you attack the idea, not the person; it’s one of the basics taught in the Politics and Philosophy Departments at University. So, for instance, saying the Greens have “no understanding of economics” is quite different from saying “XXX, you’re an economic halfwit”.
Go through the threads, and I see ACT and the right lambasted for having no heart, not caring for the poor, and so on. That’s fine, because you’re critiquing right-wing ideas. I could say that a statement like “ACT exploits the poor” is dishonest and an outright lie; but I also recognise that in political debates, hyperhole is used to get a point across, e.g. ‘ACT could do more to care for the poor’.
I must say I’m not used to PC-talk anymore. So if my comments are a little edgy, offence is not intended; like I said, I have nothing personal against the Greens. I do believe in robust debate, and will vigorously critique ideas and policies I disagree with.
This is an Election Campaign, let’s not forget. I think we can all do away with cordial superficiality when important points of policy ought to be debated.
There are Green policies that I am genuinely offended by, such as Population, Peak Oil, ETS, and so on. And I reserve the right to critique them. Why should I simply preach to the converted on Kiwiblog? Besides, everyone has the right to post here. I’m starting to get the feeling that non-Green (even liberal/libertarian) views aren’t welcome here.
I should know: I used to be one of the posters giving David Seymour and other ACT posters plenty of grief every time they made a comment on frogblog.
Anyway, I hope I have made my stand clear above.
Greenfly:
If all the Greens are advocating is individuals being empowered to do their own research, I don’t have a problem with that at all. But I do think the Greens do want a bit more than that; deep down inside, I believe the Greens are hoping that after doing their own research, people will hopfully choose to have no kids, or fewer kids. And if this is the desired outcome, I worry about the schemes the Greens will implement to ‘guide’ parents into reaching these decisions. This is the point I’m trying to get across.
BJ:
You claim: “This has to be like a full time job assignment. Either that or you have some sort of obsession to work off.”
Neither. I monitor the blogs and post where I see fit. This is the last weeking of campaigning, so everything is stepped up a notch. We’re turning up the heat, as all parties will be doing.
Besides, I can’t be revealing our campaign strategy. Everything happens for a reason, and there is a reason why I am posting here. Some reasons I have already revealed; others I will not reveal. Time will tell.
You said: “If you offend the younger generation they are far more apt to express themselves directly and offensively back at you. They know better than you appear to understand, just who gets to foot the bill for the excesses of ACT. They find the sentence of wage-peonage handed to them by the ideology of ACT objectionable. They express themselves.”
I read this as you trying to rationalise why I should have expected to be verbally abused, that the kids have a right to vent their anti-Rogernomics frustrations on me. I’m sorry, but I stand by this interpretation. Not putting words in your mouth dude; just gleaning a different understanding from your words.
And I wasn’t bringing my grievance here. On a certain level, I’m glad I experienced the abuse: I had passengers in the car, mind you, one of whom was going to vote Green, but has now changed his mind after witnessing the behaviour of the kids. (I’ve been trying for months to convert him, so naturally I was relieved.)
I was simply trying to draw a parallel between their behaviour and that of some of the Green posters here, to make a point that ad hominem attacks are non-constructive.
Your apology is accepted re “superior technological skills” is accepted. I too acknowledge making incorrect inferences at various points, and apologise accordingly.
But in the case of Sue’s comments, I stand by my interpretation of her speech. I attributed the “products of Rogernomics” inference to Sue, not the fact that the murderers should be sympathised with – that was my interpretation. Please re-read my comments.
By blaming Rogernomics, this has the effect of:
(a) Rationalising, justifying and exonerating the actions of the murderers; and
(b) Engendering sympathy in the public, by portraying the murderers as somehow unwitting and unwilling perpetrators of crime due to external factors beyond their control.
If find the scapegoating of Rogernomics offensive and intellectually dishonest. Leaving aside one’s opinion of Rogernomics, what really bugs me is the implicit shirking of personal responsibility: negating the fact that the act of wrongdoing itself should be chastised, and that it was rational, sane beings who committed these acts. Where there is mens rea, there is intent, and where there is intent, there is liability – thhis means someone being held responsible and accountable.
Can you imagine a defence lawyer defending these murderers in a Court of Law, citing the ‘effects of Rogernomics’ as a legal defence? :-S
To much deference is paid to extenuating and mitigating circumstances, which I believe are irrelevant in situations like these.
And that’s where the Left and Right will differ on Law and Order Policy.
The reason I was once a socialist was because of my belief in the whole ‘government vs corporations dynamic’, and that the state was the people’s last vestige of hope and bastion of defence against the evil multinationals.
I have now come to realise that this is a very simplistic model of how society works, but I fear this discussion will take us off to various tangents, and right back to core political ideologies. This is probably not the place to delve into this. I am happy to continue this discussion elsewhere, in another setting.
I enjoy political debate, so you’re welcome to e-mail me anytime at shawn.tan@act.org.nz. I respond to all e-mails.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn Tan Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 1:01 am
>> By blaming Rogernomics, this has the effect of:
(a) Rationalising, justifying and exonerating the actions of the murderers; and
(b) Engendering sympathy in the public, by portraying the murderers as somehow unwitting and unwilling perpetrators of crime due to external factors beyond their control.
yes, it can be used that way, and it shouldn’t be. We also know that most murderers are men, and that most murderers have below-average IQs, but we don’t allow either of those as mitigating factors.
I think it’s most unfortunate thatdon’t seem to be able to take into account social and economic factors in crime prevalence for the purpose of dealing with those factors, without someone deducing from it that those factors make the individuals less culpable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)