Discussion:
Labour failed to declare donations Rich!
(too old to reply)
John Bowes
2020-10-28 05:57:48 UTC
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission

Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!

so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
Rich80105
2020-10-28 23:57:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping. Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Tony
2020-10-29 00:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
James Christophers
2020-10-29 01:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies and gentlemen.
Tony
2020-10-29 02:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
James Christophers
2020-10-29 03:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Tony
2020-10-29 03:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that. I have never been a National party supporter. Have you?
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
John Bowes
2020-10-29 08:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that. I have never been a National party supporter. Have you?
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Keith prefer honesty? You jest :)
George
2020-10-29 19:08:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Post by John Bowes
Keith prefer honesty? You jest :)
Well there has to be an outlet for pomposity and verbiage
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
James Christophers
2020-10-29 21:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any political party. I vote. That's all.
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.

Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury trial.

So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Tony
2020-10-29 22:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does, your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
James Christophers
2020-10-29 23:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested "reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition deserve.
Rich80105
2020-10-30 00:37:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested "reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest. To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty; and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone. Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
James Christophers
2020-10-30 01:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested "reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest.
Honesty - an abstraction - is but one of mankind's numberless virtues. From his self-regarding behaviour on this forum one might fairly surmise that Tony believes himself endowed with rather more of such virtues than most; this being the condition of the censorious and the sanctimonious - more often than not one and the same person - as they wallow in their pious conceits.
Post by Rich80105
To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone.
There can be no guaranteed assurance of either.
Post by Rich80105
Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
Tony
2020-10-30 03:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow
up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest.
Honesty - an abstraction - is but one of mankind's numberless virtues. From
his self-regarding behaviour on this forum one might fairly surmise that Tony
believes himself endowed with rather more of such virtues >than most; this
being the condition of the censorious and the sanctimonious - more often than
not one and the same person - as they wallow in their pious conceits.
Honesty is of course an abstraction, one that you do not begin to understand.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone.
There can be no guaranteed assurance of either.
Post by Rich80105
Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
James Christophers
2020-10-30 04:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance
too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move
on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily
mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow
up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest.
Honesty - an abstraction - is but one of mankind's numberless virtues. From
his self-regarding behaviour on this forum one might fairly surmise that Tony
believes himself endowed with rather more of such virtues >than most; this
being the condition of the censorious and the sanctimonious - more often than
not one and the same person - as they wallow in their pious conceits.
Honesty is of course an abstraction,
Already mentioned - therefore redundant, of course.
Post by Tony
...one that you do not begin to understand.
A wilful falsehood on your part since you know I initially referred to honesty as being one of mankind's virtues. You also know I have further expanded on this while sorting and explaining your confusion in having mistakenly associated the disparate concepts of honesty and rhetoric within the same polemic. Indeed, you continue to show no coherent grasp of this, and judging by your dismal showing to date, have no hope of ever doing so either.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone.
There can be no guaranteed assurance of either.
Post by Rich80105
Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
John Bowes
2020-10-30 05:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance
too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move
on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce,
National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the
act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily
mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow
up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest.
Honesty - an abstraction - is but one of mankind's numberless virtues. From
his self-regarding behaviour on this forum one might fairly surmise that Tony
believes himself endowed with rather more of such virtues >than most; this
being the condition of the censorious and the sanctimonious - more often than
not one and the same person - as they wallow in their pious conceits.
Honesty is of course an abstraction,
Already mentioned - therefore redundant, of course.
Post by Tony
...one that you do not begin to understand.
A wilful falsehood on your part since you know I initially referred to honesty as being one of mankind's virtues. You also know I have further expanded on this while sorting and explaining your confusion in having mistakenly associated the disparate concepts of honesty and rhetoric within the same polemic. Indeed, you continue to show no coherent grasp of this, and judging by your dismal showing to date, have no hope of ever doing so either.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone.
There can be no guaranteed assurance of either.
Post by Rich80105
Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
Rubbish! You couldn't be honest if you tried Keith :)
Tony
2020-10-30 05:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should
have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality
just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous
articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably
at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time
the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably
reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is
all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just
poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this
case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and
observance
too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend
its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly
move
on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce,
National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being
the
act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily
mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow
up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest.
Honesty - an abstraction - is but one of mankind's numberless virtues. From
his self-regarding behaviour on this forum one might fairly surmise that Tony
believes himself endowed with rather more of such virtues >than most; this
being the condition of the censorious and the sanctimonious - more often than
not one and the same person - as they wallow in their pious conceits.
Honesty is of course an abstraction,
Already mentioned - therefore redundant, of course.
Post by Tony
...one that you do not begin to understand.
A wilful falsehood on your part since you know I initially referred to honesty
as being one of mankind's virtues. You also know I have further expanded on
this while sorting and explaining your confusion in having mistakenly
associated the disparate concepts of honesty and rhetoric within the same
polemic. Indeed, you continue to show no coherent grasp of this, and judging
by your dismal showing to date, have no hope of ever doing so either.
The only dismal thing here is your determination to be an abhorent old loser,
well you certainly managed to become that. Congratulations on your wasted life.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone.
There can be no guaranteed assurance of either.
Post by Rich80105
Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
John Bowes
2020-10-30 05:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested "reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest.
Honesty - an abstraction - is but one of mankind's numberless virtues. From his self-regarding behaviour on this forum one might fairly surmise that Tony believes himself endowed with rather more of such virtues than most; this being the condition of the censorious and the sanctimonious - more often than not one and the same person - as they wallow in their pious conceits.
Post by Rich80105
To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone.
There can be no guaranteed assurance of either.
Post by Rich80105
Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
BULLSHIT! Beautifully written but bullshit just the same :)
Tony
2020-10-30 03:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest. To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty; and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone. Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
You are dishonest as you have proven time and time again.
This thread started with absolute honesty from me in posting the opinion of
someone else, you have dragged it into your dishonest cesspit of a mind.
Rich80105
2020-10-30 03:29:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:17:27 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in
a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest. To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty; and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone. Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
You are dishonest as you have proven time and time again.
This thread started with absolute honesty from me in posting the opinion of
someone else, you have dragged it into your dishonest cesspit of a mind.
The thread was of course started by a post from John Bowes - are you
now saying that "John Bowes" and "Tony"are the same person?
John Bowes
2020-10-30 05:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:17:27 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in
a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move
on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest. To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty; and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone. Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
You are dishonest as you have proven time and time again.
This thread started with absolute honesty from me in posting the opinion of
someone else, you have dragged it into your dishonest cesspit of a mind.
The thread was of course started by a post from John Bowes - are you
now saying that "John Bowes" and "Tony"are the same person?
Do stop being a fucking imbecile Rich! It's fucking obvious you and the jackbooted Warren are different as are Tony and me :)
Tony
2020-10-30 05:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:17:27 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in
a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or
more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the
act
of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and
jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
Tony's "I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. " carries an
implication that someone, presumably other than him, has been
dishonest. To make such a claim without evidence is in itself an
indication of dishonesty; and under the circumstances appears to be
politically motivated, if not rising to the definition of rhetoric -
it will have not persuaded or motivated anyone. Essentially the thread
started with dishonesty and Tony is carrying that on.
You are dishonest as you have proven time and time again.
This thread started with absolute honesty from me in posting the opinion of
someone else, you have dragged it into your dishonest cesspit of a mind.
The thread was of course started by a post from John Bowes - are you
now saying that "John Bowes" and "Tony"are the same person?
Don't be silly. Are you saying that you and Keith Warren are the same person?
I distinguish between a topic and a thread. You clearly cannot do that.
Go away little man.
Tony
2020-10-30 00:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
James Christophers
2020-10-30 02:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
"Simple English" as in the laughable bugger's muddle you've just posted immediately above? (BTW, "... anyone with even the most modest pretensions to a "classical" education - 70% Latin pass or no, "in and of itself" is both redundant and inane. Plus, referring to the context in which you use it, the vernacular is to "pass up...".
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
Not nonsense but precise and 100% valid in terms of what you have been trying to express but plainly cannot, this doubtless due to your seriously declining cognition.
Post by Tony
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
As I say...
Rich80105
2020-10-30 02:31:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:01:09 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
"Simple English" as in the laughable bugger's muddle you've just posted immediately above? (BTW, "... anyone with even the most modest pretensions to a "classical" education - 70% Latin pass or no, "in and of itself" is both redundant and inane. Plus, referring to the context in which you use it, the vernacular is to "pass up...".
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
Not nonsense but precise and 100% valid in terms of what you have been trying to express but plainly cannot, this doubtless due to your seriously declining cognition.
Post by Tony
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
As I say...
I do not profess to be an expert at the way in which different usenet
programmes work, but I am intrigued at the apparent self-desciption of
himself as "undefined" in tracking who wrote which posts in a thread.
It may be perceptive self-description, ironic humour, a mistake, or a
default setting somewhere. In some ways it seems appropriate.
Tony
2020-10-30 03:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:01:09 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should
have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality
just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous
articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at
a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is
all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance
too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly
move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or
more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the
act
of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and
jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
"Simple English" as in the laughable bugger's muddle you've just posted
immediately above? (BTW, "... anyone with even the most modest pretensions to
a "classical" education - 70% Latin pass or no, "in and of itself" is both
redundant and inane. Plus, referring to the context in which you use it, the
vernacular is to "pass up...".
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
Not nonsense but precise and 100% valid in terms of what you have been trying
to express but plainly cannot, this doubtless due to your seriously declining
cognition.
Post by Tony
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
As I say...
I do not profess to be an expert at the way in which different usenet
programmes work, but I am intrigued at the apparent self-desciption of
himself as "undefined" in tracking who wrote which posts in a thread.
It may be perceptive self-description, ironic humour, a mistake, or a
default setting somewhere. In some ways it seems appropriate.
Once more your cess pit serves you well.
Tony
2020-10-30 03:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or
more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the
act
of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and
jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
"Simple English" as in the laughable bugger's muddle you've just posted
immediately above? (BTW, "... anyone with even the most modest pretensions to
a "classical" education - 70% Latin pass or no, "in and of itself" is both
redundant and inane. Plus, referring to the context in which you use it, the
vernacular is to "pass up...".
Pity that you cannot understand simple concepts, I assume your woeful education
served you badly and still does.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
Not nonsense but precise and 100% valid in terms of what you have been trying
to express but plainly cannot, this doubtless due to your seriously declining
cognition.
Post by Tony
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
As I say...
John Bowes
2020-10-30 05:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished without trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two or more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the act of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge and jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
Funny how the worst liar in the group sticks up for the one competing for his crown. From Keith all I hear is jackboots stamping like a three year old having a tantrum with attitude :)
Tony
2020-10-30 06:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or
more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the
act
of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and
jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
Funny how the worst liar in the group sticks up for the one competing for his
crown. From Keith all I hear is jackboots stamping like a three year old having
a tantrum with attitude :)
John they are puny political failures, both of them, neither has integrity
(none at all) and neither has any real intellect (just self deceiving
sociopathy). All they have is the knowledge that they have wasted their lives
on trivia.
John Bowes
2020-10-30 11:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have
declared
the
huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just
another
lie
from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles
it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to
another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a
fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the
fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected
in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all
very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the
documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping.
That is a guess, nothing more. You don't know.
Post by Rich80105
Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
Not sufficiently, it seems, to the investigators who in this case
appear
to
think defining any borderline line between breach and observance
too
complex
and expensive to engage in. They've simply told Labour to mend its
ways
and
get with current policy. Nothing further to see.....so kindly move
on
ladies
and gentlemen.
You are so right.
Let us just move on and ignore dishonesty.
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce, National's
mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have vanished
without
trace
down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug for himself.
Why would I do that.
For fun.
Post by Tony
I have never been a National party supporter.
You think I care?
Post by Tony
Have you?
Pointless question but to indulge you: I've never been a member of any
political party. I vote. That's all.
Do I care?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I prefer honesty to political rhetoric. Do you?
Muddled premises, I think.
Keeping it brief: honesty/dishonesty occur in interactions between two
or
more
parties. Rhetoric is an ancient art in debate and discourse, being the
act
of
persuading and motivating. But practising rhetoric does not necessarily
mean it
is instrinsically dishonest - e.g. prosecution and defence in a judge
and
jury
trial.
So, as I suggest above, does your 'I prefer' proposition even have legs?
Yes of course it does,
Then no doubt you'll be desperate to show me how and why.
A preferenmce is it and of itself sufficient for all but those who cannot pass
a chance at being offensive. Simple English, nothing too complicted even for
you.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
your "muddled" reasoning stinks of political motivation.
No "political motivation" on my part and you can't show otherwise, so grow up
and quit your infantile imputing and impugning. As for any suggested
"reasoning" (wrong word), I provide nothing other than the briefest definition
and examples of **your** terms, honesty and rhetoric, which as you now make
only too plain has been way more than you and your so far legless proposition
deserve.
What nonsense - just more Keith Warren attempts at vitriol.
You are a waste of space, do grow up.
Funny how the worst liar in the group sticks up for the one competing for his
crown. From Keith all I hear is jackboots stamping like a three year old having
a tantrum with attitude :)
John they are puny political failures, both of them, neither has integrity
(none at all) and neither has any real intellect (just self deceiving
sociopathy). All they have is the knowledge that they have wasted their lives
on trivia.
i.e.:Typical trolls :)

George
2020-10-29 19:06:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Post by James Christophers
Probably best you consult "It's pretty legal" Steven Joyce,
National's mathematics whizz-kid-cum-prophet who appears to have
vanished without trace down that "$11bn fiscal hole" the buffoon dug
for himself.
So where are the 100,000 houses ????
Or the billion trees ???
And the cure for child poverty ???

There are more but that's a start for you to explain away
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Bowes
2020-10-29 08:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300144106/election-2020-labour-must-declare-hutt-south-donations-from-now-on-says-electoral-commission
Seems Labour was at fault in Hutt South in that it should have declared the huge profit it was making from the rent fiddle!
so once again Rich's accusation of me lying is in reality just another lie from the ever more useless fucking imbecile Rich :)
It sound more like sloppy recordkeeping. From previous articles it
seems the Party owned the whole building - they sold it to another
entity (a Union) subject to a lease to the party, probably at a fixed
lease cost. All normal commercial dealings, but over time the fixed
lease cost has become a benefit; which was probably reflected in a
lower purchase price for the union. Sanctity of contract is all very
well, but it is necessary at times to actually have the documentation
. . . So no lying, nothing dishonest, no donations, just poor
record-keeping. Unless they get it sorted, they will have to report
some "donations" - does that really matter to anyone?
It did to you Rich when I first brought it to your attention! But then I guess Labour good, National bad is all you've ever had!
Loading...