Priorities – according to the ‘gospel’ of Colin Craig (part rua)
Four days after I blogged this - Priorities – according to the ‘gospel’ of Colin Craig – the NZ Herald followed up with it’s own story,
.
.
The NZ Herald story reports Colins as stating,
“It does cost money to be in politics, and it’s helpful that I’ve got an income. But having said that, it wouldn’t be possible if we didn’t have such a base of volunteers.”
This is absolute rubbish.
The lealet’s were not delivered by “volunteers”. The leafet in question,
.
.
- appeared with two or three other other bits of commercial junk-mail (despite a “No Junk Mail” sign clearly visible) in our letterbox.
So unless Conservative Party “volunteers” are also delivering promo-leaflets for a pizza company, Mr Craig is fibbing.
The Conservative Party leaflet was obviously delivered by a commercial company specialising in mail-dropping advertising material.
.
.
= fs =
I hate to point out the obvious, but Craig didn’t say that the volunteers he has delivered anything.
It is even a stretch of the imagination to take the comment about volunteers and think it implied they were used to deliver the leaflets…
I think it’s fairly clear what he was implying.
Lol, really? He was asked if his income helped him politically, he said yes but that volunteers helped a lot.
Why would you think that an answer to a question not directly related to the leaflets would imply that he used volunteer labour to deliver them?
For a target with some many weaknesses, you sure don’t need to invent stuff to poke him about.
19 February 2013
Hi Frank!
The BIG question ti ask Colin Craig and the Conservative Party – is WHAT IS THEIR POSITION ON A ‘CAPITAL GAINS TAX’?
(Given that CC is a millionaire property developer and all……. ?)
Cheers!
Her Warship
It would indeed, Penny. He’s only record as opposing state asset sales, but that doesn’t seem to tie in with nthe rest of his business-friendly policies…
As I said, it’s fairly clear what he was implying.
Now, if you’re going to carry on here, as you have done on Facebook, with your puerile trolling, you’ll find your welcome here measured in mere seconds.
Your call.
As I have said, I find it a huge stretch of the imagination to figure that acknowledging volunteers in general implies they were used for this specific task.
If you had some further quotes or evidence that he was meaning this, I am all keen to hear it, but from the source you quote, I can’t see the leap that you have made makes sense.
If you find my query here about the logic to be ‘trolling’ or try to conflate my asking you this here with a more jovial version on Facebook, well, that is on you and your ability to handle reasoned criticism.
Perhaps that’s the problem. If you’re going to rely on a black and white admission, you’ll be waiting a long time.
It’s when political figures slip with an unintended admission or comment that dots can be joined.
If you “can’t see” the dots, that’s something you’ll have to contend with.
Otherwise, ask yourself in what context did he make that remark? Just out of the ‘blue’, for no reason?
Think about that before you respond.
Given the source you have quoted, the question he was replying to in which he mentioned volunteers was, does having heaps of cash help in politics? In that context he answered that volunteers are a help. Quite a general question to take that he meant specifically for the leaflet drop.
I am all for connecting hidden dots, I just query the finding of them when they aren’t really there.
But hey, at least this way you can keep an ‘honest belief’ defense if Craig thought this was serious enough for defamation
No, Simon. The context was the leaflet drop. You are shifting the issue to suit whatever game you’re playing.
Do you deny that the issue was the leaflet drop?
Do you deny that another issue was funding?
And what is your take on the fact that the leaflet was delivered along with advertising material from a pizza outlet and another commercial company?
Add the three together. What does it point to?
The article was primarily sparked by the leaflet drop, sure.
However, this doesn’t mean that every single question in the interview is specifically and only related to this topic.
The muppet was asked if having heaps of money helped in politics (in general), not if it helped in the leaflet drop. And he replied that volunteers helped (with politics in general) a lot.
My take on him using a commercial service is that it seems a cost effective method if you have the start up cash for it.
Let me see, so the upshot is he publishes leaflets with his own money and gets them delivered commercially… What is the big deal? None, unless you try to imagine he was implying that the volunteers he has in general helped with this specific drop.
He has volunteers, they didn’t do the drop, he also didn’t say , nor even, in my opinion, indicate that they did.
Right. Thank you.
All obfuscation and silly ego game-playing aside, you finally got it.
Thank you for your contribution to this issue.
So we have finally decided that he didn’t ‘fib’ and that this has all been a giant over reaction in thinking he did? Cos that has been my point the whole time, and still is…
Goodbye Simon. Come back when you’re more clear-headed.
So you’re a fan of Colin Craig eh? Maybe you should make that a bit more clear.
Lol, fan of Colin Craig? No, not even close. I just don’t see a lot of point in trying to attack him over things that don’t exist, when there are plenty of good solid and valid reasons to take shots at him.
Mate, it’s pretty fucken clear isn’t it. You may think your some kind of clever dick, but all your doing is proving Frank’s point.
If Craig’s phantiom volunteers didn’t drop those leaflets then either Craig did it all himself or he got a commercial company to do it. All your doing is playing games and looking like a prize pratt in the process.
Your mummy never said no to you did she?
I would figure from what Frank says that it is pretty clear he got a commercial company to deliver them.
The only thing here that I disagree with Frank on is whether Craig implied he had volunteers deliver these leaflets.
“The only thing here that I disagree with Frank on is whether Craig implied he had volunteers deliver these leaflets.”
And?
He sez he thinks Craig implied it. You disagree.
So fucken what? Are you obsessed or something?
Don’t let him get to you Theo.
Simon, don’t be an egg.
It’s fairly clear what craig was meaning in the article. Everyone gets it but you. You’re arguing for the hell of it and looking like a idjit in the process. Fact is that Craig hasn’t got a nationwide network of volunteers. He uses his money. What I don’t get is how you can be so thick that you don’t get this. Write your own blog and let us see how well you do. But no you’re too lazy.
+1 Theodore
Tell us Simon, when are you going to contribute a blogpost so we can nitpick what you’ve written and make sure it meets our approval? Or are you just one of those bored trolls that thinks you’re oh so clever?
I read Frank’s post and processed the info fairly well. It’s simple basic stuff. Your nitpicking is a pathetic attempt at trying to put someone on the defensive without giving a shit what his response to you was.
He spelled it out and you kept ignoring it, trying to make a point that didn’t exist. If you were on my blog I’d kick your juvenile ass to the kerb and delete your egotistical bullshit.
Seems pretty clear to me. Money. Commercial leaflet distributors. No volunteers. A few slow ones may take some time to get this.
It’s a sign of your success Frank that you’re attracting right wing trolls. Keep up the good work.
By the way I actually saw my leaflet being delivered. The same woman dropped other junkmail into my letter box as well. So you’re on the nail Colin Craig didn’t use volunteers to deliver his trashy leaflet.