Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 20:21:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>http://thespinoff.co.nz/auckland-2016/31-08-2016/shamubeel-calls-bullshit-4-on-john-keys-always-challenging-for-young-people-house-chat/#.V8bvOXP81tM.facebook
Yes it may be; I am trying to remember any prime minister in the past 30 >>>years
that was not equally guilty, and indeed the vast majority of all politicians >>>over the past 50 years! It is part of the 'profession'.
Tony

This is a specific issue relating to the affordability of housing -
and the lie related to young people - and it cannot be regarded as a >>temporary dissembling for greater diplomatic purposes - it was a
blatant lie..

So?

But you may be referring to the general impression that John Key
generally lies.

Another descent into sarcasm - it does you no service.

And you ignore what I
said that most politicians do lie. Labour ones as much as any.

30 years takes us back to David Lange - I would say that your broad >>comparison would not be accepted by the vast majority of those that
can remember back that far at least in respect of David Lange,
Geoffrey Palmer, Mike Moore, Jim Bolger or Helen Clark.

Going back

further than 30 years, Robert Muldoon was not particularly trusted,
but equally was not regarded as a serial liar; and Bill Rowling,
Norman Kirk, Jack Marshall and Keith Holyoake were generally regarded
as being truthful.

I said 30 years, not further back, as far as Prime Ministers are concerned. Why
do you have to do that silly bit of deceit?
I doubt if any of them were innocent despite the fact that some of them were >very good Prime Ministers.

The "but others did it" defence has been a bit over-done in recent
years, don't you think? There really is no reason why it should
somehow excuse the blatant untruths - and thankfully at least some in
the media are starting to call lies when they see them.

Silly, if course it is overused but it still makes a valid point.

Tony

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 21:14:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 20:21:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>http://thespinoff.co.nz/auckland-2016/31-08-2016/shamubeel-calls-bullshit-4-on-john-keys-always-challenging-for-young-people-house-chat/#.V8bvOXP81tM.facebook
Yes it may be; I am trying to remember any prime minister in the past 30 >>>>>years
that was not equally guilty, and indeed the vast majority of all >>>>>politicians
over the past 50 years! It is part of the 'profession'.
Tony

This is a specific issue relating to the affordability of housing - >>>>and the lie related to young people - and it cannot be regarded as a >>>>temporary dissembling for greater diplomatic purposes - it was a >>>>blatant lie..

So?

But you may be referring to the general impression that John Key >>>>generally lies.

Another descent into sarcasm - it does you no service.

What sarcasm? It is a general impression.

It fits the definition.

And you ignore what I
said that most politicians do lie. Labour ones as much as any.

I disagreed with your cynical view - see below.

Not cynical merely a distrust of people who are inclined to put a political >spin on things that are not so. Like you do.

30 years takes us back to David Lange - I would say that your broad >>>>comparison would not be accepted by the vast majority of those that
can remember back that far at least in respect of David Lange,
Geoffrey Palmer, Mike Moore, Jim Bolger or Helen Clark.

Do you disagree with my view of these past Prime Ministers? I can
agree with you that many politicians are required to say lessthan the
truth - I referred to "temporary dissembling for greater diplomatic >>puposes" - I do not regard that as in the same category as the lie
referred to as bullshit by Eaqub.

I am not going to repeat myself - I have said what I mean.

Going back

further than 30 years, Robert Muldoon was not particularly trusted,
but equally was not regarded as a serial liar; and Bill Rowling,
Norman Kirk, Jack Marshall and Keith Holyoake were generally regarded >>>>as being truthful.

I said 30 years, not further back, as far as Prime Ministers are concerned. >>>Why
do you have to do that silly bit of deceit?
I doubt if any of them were innocent despite the fact that some of them were >>>very good Prime Ministers.

I believe that in general, blatant lying for partisan political
purposes has increased in recent years - yuo may have noticed that I
did not include all Prime Ministers in the last 30 years in those who
I believe seldom lied - and certainly not to the extent that has
become common from our current government.

That is opinion, do you have a measurement?

The "but others did it" defence has been a bit over-done in recent >>>>years, don't you think? There really is no reason why it should
somehow excuse the blatant untruths - and thankfully at least some in >>>>the media are starting to call lies when they see them.

Silly, if course it is overused but it still makes a valid point.

Tony

Tony