Asset sale protests!

[oldrider]

Left wing country? and you call yourself "oldrider"? Have you forgot Sir Rob, Sir Keith Jacka et al. Used to be at least 3 terms Nat, one term Lab, then at least another 3 term Nat.
You be seeing reds under your bed, time to raise your head.

:corn:

Hmmm, didn't think much before that emotional response did you!

Sir Rob, the worst socialist this country has ever known ... subsidising farmers with outrageous taxpayer funded SMP's! (Supplementary minimum price payouts)

The only right wing government in that time was the 1984 Labour government ... didn't last long but was exceptionally effective while it lasted!

From the first Labour government to today the socialist mentality has grown and grown in this country, driven by the State controlled education system!

Simply means more and more (state control) government monopoly, interference in personal lives and less and less individual freedom and responsibility!

[oneofsix]

Hmmm, didn't think much before that emotional response did you!

Sir Rob, the worst socialist this country has ever known ... subsidising farmers with outrageous taxpayer funded SMP's! (Supplementary minimum price payouts)

The only right wing government in that time was the 1984 Labour government ... didn't last long but was exceptionally effective while it lasted!

From the first Labour government to today the socialist mentality has grown and grown in this country, driven by the State controlled education system!

Simply means more and more (state control) government monopoly, interference in personal lives and less and less individual freedom and responsibility!

The only emotion I invested was humour.
You calling Sir Rob socialist will have his dancing cossacks spinning in their graves. He was very nearly the closest thing we had to Senator McCathy.
However you are correct that the Act subset of the 1984 Labour government were right wing and didn't Rogernomic serve us unwell?

[Oscar]

The only emotion I invested was humour.
You calling Sir Rob socialist will have his dancing cossacks spinning in their graves. He was very nearly the closest thing we had to Senator McCathy.
However you are correct that the Act subset of the 1984 Labour government were right wing and didn't Rogernomic serve us unwell?

Actually the old fella is correct.
Muldoon's control of every aspect of the economy would have made Joe Stalin jealous.

[mashman]

:2thumbsup
Top job as it is about time people stopped thinking that housing is a be all and end all of investing for one's future.

Hell that makes me larf. Housing investment is absolutely unavoidable. The population is growing, there is a housing shortage (supposedly), people will always figure that they'll spend X on rent and if that X equals a mortgage payment, they'll get a mortgage. Someone has to fund the houses being built... Better to get something for your "rent" money than absolutely nothing... unless of course landlords put in place an option to own :rofl:. If you have no money left after you have paid the "rent" and bills etc... That means whether you rent or buy, you still have X amount of money left and therefore there's still nothing left to invest in one's future. Why would I pay rent where I can pay a mortgage and end up owning? Like I said, unavoidable, houses will always need to be built and they aren't free to build. I'd say that housing was still a damned fine investment.

[Brian d marge]

I heard an argument the other day that said uncle Rob was quite socialist.....either way..NZ was easier to live in,a whole lot less of "me me me.".back in the day,,,,,, well there were the screaming me me's...
let me just repeat my stance before moving on , Company’s are there to make a profit they will do that the best and most efficient way they can. They are not there to provide a service, the service is the vehicle which they use to make the profit. the part of the operation that makes the most profit will be massaged and kept the other will not,
think freight and passenger in NZ rail.
if you sell to investors, they will demand a profit how will that profit be made,,? investment in more efficient equipment, higher charges, job losses ? is some poor sod going to lose his job,or are the prices going up
sometimes inefficient organizations are better as a whole
Now are you telling me that Mr and Mrs average,with 1000 to spare will keep those shares for three or more years? or after the minimum term and as the market fills up with these shares..ie prices start to drop...
or will they flick them off for a quick ten percent?...and who will buy these shares?
now lets look at taxes,not all rich buggers hide the tax,as individuals they pay about 16% with the dole ites paying 1%
The middle classes pay 10 and 12% which when combined , upper middle and lower middle , pay 22%
ok so its only 4 %....what about the taxes companies pay?...coca cola??? or any offshore ?
company how much and to whom?
doesn’t matter how you slice this cake its not looking good for the average man/ woman on the street
we ,as i have said are reasonably informed...how do you expect the great unwashed to grasp it,,,they struggle with "which side of the toast "to butter



remember ,,Mr key,,,salus poluli seprema lex esto. ( welfare of the people to be the highest Law )


finally i reckon this sale is going through..IF the prices go down or stay inflation adjusted,,,i will eat my hat,,,,that’s a promise

Stephen


just swapped a couple of beers and some homemade lavender oil for a months supply of garlic,,,,,,,score,,,,,,,,,,.


Just one more thing , Money talks bullsyhte walks , and out side of New Zealand there IS A LOT OF MONEY ............


pppsss Oscar , google its the second link down under who pays taxes , ( the link is from the NZ treasury ) just in case your wondering where those figures came from ......

[pete376403]

Notwithstanding the fact that the BRT itself doesn't/can't actually buy any shares, could you explain how, even if one corporate gets their hands on the whole offering in three years, how does it control a company with 49% of the equity when the govt owns 51%?

You guys aren't liable to let the facts get in the way of a good scary story, are you?

Gina Rinehart (with approx $A30 billion the worlds wealthiest woman) only owns 14.99% of Fairfax Media - this is enough to get her and one of her associates 2 board seats. That apparently is enough to influence Fairfax.
If anyone did get 49% of the energy companies they would be able to have a lot of influence on how the company operates. Especially if the remaining 51% was owned by a government as craven to business interests as the current nationals

[Oscar]

Gina Rinehart (with approx $A30 billion the worlds wealthiest woman) only owns 14.99% of Fairfax Media - this is enough to get her and one of her associates 2 board seats. That apparently is enough to influence Fairfax.
If anyone did get 49% of the energy companies they would be able to have a lot of influence on how the company operates. Especially if the remaining 51% was owned by a government as craven to business interests as the current nationals

Ohhhh, more scary stories....

If I had 15% of a company, I'd expect a seat on the board too, but it wouldn't give me control of it - and if you'd like to read the whole story, you'd see that Gina tried to gain editorial influence and was rebuffed (she was not willing to sign up to the company's charter of editorial independence). She is now threatening to sell her shares (she actually owns 18.7%).

As I mentioned earlier, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story....

[BoristheBiter]

The two facts that I know matter to me are.
Can I afford to buy shares.
Will it be a good investment.

To answer the first yes I can but all will have to make that decision themselves.

For the second, if I look at the shares I had in other SOE's ,Telecom and PNZ, both lots of shares were sold at a profit so yes to that.

The only thing I could see is if I had sold the Telecom shares now it would have not been such a great investment as due to the Labour party's interference in the business market their price halved over night.
So as long as Labour keep their noses out of the real world then it should be alright.

Any other facts are irrelevant as MRP, at least, will be sold off.

[oldrider]

So as long as Labour keep their noses out of the real world then it should be alright.

Well, the "Green party" are gradually squeezing "Labour" out in the electoral stakes .. but .. out of the frying pan into the fire there I'm afraid! :wacko:

Just part of the problems arising as the overall NZ electorate oozes further and further to the left! :doh:

[puddytat]

Jeebus, you're buying right into the conspiracy thang, ain't you?
Would you care to show us what part of the WTO allows them to do that, or is one stupid comment a day your limit?

Go & fucking look for it yourself, seeing your the eggspurt on everything. I cant honestly be fucked looking for info that you could never be bothered to look for yourself when the WTO agreements & laws were being made.....

[Oscar]

Go & fucking look for it yourself, seeing your the eggspurt on everything. I cant honestly be fucked looking for info that you could never be bothered to look for yourself when the WTO agreements & laws were being made.....

Touchy.
So being as how you were the one brought up the WTO, you're saying that have no idea what you're talking about?

In actual fact, the WTO has absolutely no authority over an investment such as this, so you’ll have to scratch that off of your scary monsters list…

[puddytat]

Look man....I know what I know & you know what you know.....I already understand that its useless waving virtual willies at one another & all it makes me feel that if you dont "get it" or havnt got "It" by now , then you never will. You see black I see white.
Dumb enuff? So dumb in fact that I opt out nowadays of really even bothering to go into detail, though I do appreciate those of my ilk that do go to bat on issues.
I'll just use my only weapon that I can legally use ....my vote.

[Oscar]

I'm not waving my willy (virtual or otherwise) at anyone.
I don't mind having a conversation about issues of the day, and as a rule, I try to stick to the facts.
You say "you know what you know", but obviously in the case of the WTO, you don't.
As going to bat on issues, I've done plenty of that...




Look man....I know what I know & you know what you know.....I already understand that its useless waving virtual willies at one another & all it makes me feel that if you dont "get it" or havnt got "It" by now , then you never will. You see black I see white.
Dumb enuff? So dumb in fact that I opt out nowadays of really even bothering to go into detail, though I do appreciate those of my ilk that do go to bat on issues.
I'll just use my only weapon that I can legally use ....my vote.

[mashman]

"The bill for asset sales is racking up fast: $200 million plus for the share give away, $56 million to share-brokers, and $100 million a year, every year, on the deficit. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14362112/pm-ignorant-of-costs-of-flagship-policy/)

They should used ticketek... much cheaper. John's buddies no doubt, can ya smell the feeding frenzy? Of course I didn't vote for this so see no reason why I should pay... wonder if a general taxation strike would changed the fucktards mind... after all if the right wing ideology holds true they won't miss it as it will open up all sorts of areas to the private sector and they'll gobble it up... or would that mean I end up paying those who the govt pay on my behalf directly? Either way, wonder how much of a bill they'll rack up on behalf of the tax payer.. using tax payer money that is. I wonder if it's part of the 120 million Billy bob Engrish stated would be used to promote and sell the shares?

[mashman]

Look man....I know what I know & you know what you know.....I already understand that its useless waving virtual willies at one another & all it makes me feel that if you dont "get it" or havnt got "It" by now , then you never will. You see black I see white.
Dumb enuff? So dumb in fact that I opt out nowadays of really even bothering to go into detail, though I do appreciate those of my ilk that do go to bat on issues.
I'll just use my only weapon that I can legally use ....my vote.

Watch it fella, he protested once...

[Oscar]

Watch it fella, he protested once...

I voted too...

[mashman]

Touchy.
So being as how you were the one brought up the WTO, you're saying that have no idea what you're talking about?

In actual fact, the WTO has absolutely no authority over an investment such as this, so you’ll have to scratch that off of your scary monsters list…

This would disagree according to the NZ treasury department.

"International agreements tend to focus on protecting investos rather than market access. Agreements through the WTO and bilateral FTAs tend to focus on investor protection mechanisms such as national treatment (treating foreign firms equally as domestic firms) and avenues to resolve disputes, such as expropriation claims, between investors and states, rather than liberalising market access (by increasing screening thresholds, for example). Non-binding agreements between OECD countries and APEC promote general liberalisation of capital flows"

[mashman]

I voted too...

:rofl: like it mattered.

[Brian d marge]

I'm not waving my willy (virtual or otherwise) at anyone.
I don't mind having a conversation about issues of the day, and as a rule, I try to stick to the facts.
You say "you know what you know", but obviously in the case of the WTO, you don't.
As going to bat on issues, I've done plenty of that...

Never seen you supply any "facts"

you say you do , never seen any links dodgy or otherwise

Stephen

56 mill thats a lot of school lunches ,,,,,,

[Oscar]

:rofl: like it mattered.

Oh, it did.



































We won.

[Oscar]

Never seen you supply any "facts"

you say you do , never seen any links dodgy or otherwise

Stephen

56 mill thats a lot of school lunches ,,,,,,

Why should I supply "facts"?
I know that the WTO has nowt whatsoever to do with the sale of an SOE, or the investment therein by a foreign investor.
What's more I'm not the one claiming that it does.

When you see me post an unsupported claim like that, please feel free to ask for proof.

[mashman]

Oh, it did.

We won.

and yet the country lost. Your definition of victory is interesting to say the least... but no more than I'd expect.

[mashman]

I know that the WTO has nowt whatsoever to do with the sale of an SOE, or the investment therein by a foreign investor.


As mentioned earlier, the NZ Treasury disagrees with your position.

"International agreements tend to focus on protecting investos rather than market access. Agreements through the WTO and bilateral FTAs tend to focus on investor protection mechanisms such as national treatment (treating foreign firms equally as domestic firms) and avenues to resolve disputes, such as expropriation claims, between investors and states, rather than liberalising market access (by increasing screening thresholds, for example). Non-binding agreements between OECD countries and APEC promote general liberalisation of capital flows"

[Oscar]

As mentioned earlier, the NZ Treasury disagrees with your position.

"International agreements tend to focus on protecting investos rather than market access. Agreements through the WTO and bilateral FTAs tend to focus on investor protection mechanisms such as national treatment (treating foreign firms equally as domestic firms) and avenues to resolve disputes, such as expropriation claims, between investors and states, rather than liberalising market access (by increasing screening thresholds, for example). Non-binding agreements between OECD countries and APEC promote general liberalisation of capital flows"

That's funny, coz I don't have a position.
I was responding to scary stories about the WTO interfering with the sale of an SOE.
The poster was saying that foreign firms would use the WTO to get preferential treatment.

[Oscar]

and yet the country lost. Your definition of victory is interesting to say the least... but no more than I'd expect.

I don't know what country you live in, but where I live we consider a country without Phil Goff as PM a victory.

[BoristheBiter]

"The bill for asset sales is racking up fast: $200 million plus for the share give away, $56 million to share-brokers, and $100 million a year, every year, on the deficit. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14362112/pm-ignorant-of-costs-of-flagship-policy/)

They should used ticketek... much cheaper. John's buddies no doubt, can ya smell the feeding frenzy? Of course I didn't vote for this so see no reason why I should pay... wonder if a general taxation strike would changed the fucktards mind... after all if the right wing ideology holds true they won't miss it as it will open up all sorts of areas to the private sector and they'll gobble it up... or would that mean I end up paying those who the govt pay on my behalf directly? Either way, wonder how much of a bill they'll rack up on behalf of the tax payer.. using tax payer money that is. I wonder if it's part of the 120 million Billy bob Engrish stated would be used to promote and sell the shares?

Can you explain how the brokers can get $56 million? there has not been any indication on what the share value will be so how do they come up with these figures?

Brokers only get paid by buying and selling. It is the buyers and sellers money that pay the brokers so after the initial sell off the government will not be paying any brokers so ho will that cost the government 100 million each year?

And if you look at the total cost of shares that they estimate at around 5 billion the costs they are using is only 4% so what is the big deal?

[Oscar]

Can you explain how the brokers can get $56 million? there has not been any indication on what the share value will be so how do they come up with these figures? Brokers only get paid by buying and selling. It is the buyers and sellers money that pay the brokers so after the initial sell off the government will not be paying any brokers so ho will that cost the government 100 million each year? And if you look at the total cost of shares that they estimate at around 5 billion the costs they are using is only 4% so what is the big deal? Stop it! You're letting facts ruin a good story....

[BoristheBiter]

Stop it! You're letting facts ruin a good story....

Sorry my mistake,

Bastards using 4% of the money when it should go to the pot smoking hippys, just who do they think they are?
Giving that money to the poor will fix all our troubles and we can live happily ever after in a glorious land of peace.

Is that better?

[mashman]

That's funny, coz I don't have a position.
I was responding to scary stories about the WTO interfering with the sale of an SOE.
The poster was saying that foreign firms would use the WTO to get preferential treatment.

I'm sure they will seek advice from the WTO or representatives of in regards to their rights should the left get in and decide to pull the plug?



I don't know what country you live in, but where I live we consider a country without Phil Goff as PM a victory.

I doubt it would have made too much of difference... he and his govt will have been expected to "trade" something in return for borrowing money... however they did offer up a CGT and if they had taken their partners seriously, they may have even introduced a financial transaction tax. I doubt it would have mattered who had been the leader of the opposition, hell Key coulda been in the same position as Goff and he wouldn't have been voted in. Key is strong, Goff is a poof, Norman hugs trees and anyone with brown skin is a racist :yawn:



Can you explain how the brokers can get $56 million? there has not been any indication on what the share value will be so how do they come up with these figures?

Brokers only get paid by buying and selling. It is the buyers and sellers money that pay the brokers so after the initial sell off the government will not be paying any brokers so ho will that cost the government 100 million each year?

And if you look at the total cost of shares that they estimate at around 5 billion the costs they are using is only 4% so what is the big deal?

"Budget 2012 contains a $56 million multi-year non-departmental appropriation for "direct sales costs" of asset sales." erm, erm erm

"$100 million a year, every year, on the deficit."

That makes it alright then.


Stop it! You're letting facts ruin a good story....

What facts? The ones that he didn't read in the article he didn't read? :rofl: take your pills, get yer nose out of his arse and calm the fuck down... you'll do yourself an injury.

[mashman]

Bastards using 4% of the money when it should go to the pot smoking hippys, just who do they think they are?
Giving that money to the poor will fix all our troubles and we can live happily ever after in a glorious land of peace.

Is that better?

They think they are the ones who are paying for the costs of sales that they don't want.

Not even close.

[BoristheBiter]

"$100 million a year, every year, on the deficit."

That makes it alright then.



So show me where the treasury said this? It was the green party that used these figures


They think they are the ones who are paying for the costs of sales that they don't want.

Not even close.

No because like most of the shit you write on here it's bollocks.

[mashman]

So show me where the treasury said this? It was the green party that used these figures

Where did I say the Treasury said that? You're making things up as per.


No because like most of the shit you write on here it's bollocks.

:killingme so the money that has been spent by the govt so far is from the private sector? even though, oh dear do I have to, according to some polls that have been undertaken, a majority of the country don't want the asset sales? Go ahead, let your ideology stop you accepting the truth.

[puddytat]

That's funny, coz I don't have a position.
I was responding to scary stories about the WTO interfering with the sale of an SOE.
The poster was saying that foreign firms would use the WTO to get preferential treatment.

I was infering that it'll only be a matter of time before the foreign investor/s own the majority if not all of the shares that are floated on the stock exchange, somewhere I read that there would be only a negligible kiwi percentage in 10 years time.....I was not infering that they would get preferential treatment during the original float.Whether that makes a differance to you.....i dont know. My apologies if I was unclear .
The American example of electricty supply should serve as an example of what happens when private companies run a power grid.A system on the verge of collapse when its too hot/cold relying on an originally publicly funded system, that was split up into private /cartel like entities that have raped it for all its worth.
A fuck up is a fuck up even if its only a 49% one.
I personally will get off grid if this goes ahead,& invest in my own energy system....because the next thing the "sunset clause "will come into effect....now does this scenario have anything to do with the actual sale?

Govt Wants “Fair” Solution For Rural Power

The Govt is seeking feedback on how electricity should be supplied to remote rural users beyond 2013. Under the Electricity Act, the obligation for lines companies to keep supplying electricity to many rural properties ends on March 31, 2013. This sunset clause in the Act is mainly relevant to remote rural consumers, whose lines are expensive to maintain, and may be considered uneconomic by lines companies. The clause only applies to customers who connected before April 1993. Customers connected since then have terms and conditions around the continuance of supply, as part of their connection agreement.

Energy Minister David Parker says the Govt wants a solution that is “efficient, fair, reliable, and delivered in an environmentally sustainable manner.” The Govt has put out a discussion paper with several options. These include requiring lines companies to continue supply obligations indefinitely beyond 2103; extending a transition period beyond 2013; and lines companies providing assistance to consumers to manage a transition to alternative systems.

[BoristheBiter]

Where did I say the Treasury said that? You're making things up as per.



:killingme so the money that has been spent by the govt so far is from the private sector? even though, oh dear do I have to, according to some polls that have been undertaken, a majority of the country don't want the asset sales? Go ahead, let your ideology stop you accepting the truth.

Ok then show me where they will spend 56 mill on brokers.
Is says it will pay brokers and they have set aside 56 million for direct sales costs. At no point does it say it will pay brokers the 56 mill.

Who said the money was from the private sector?
Now who's making shit up.

[mashman]

Ok then show me where they will spend 56 mill on brokers.
Is says it will pay brokers and they have set aside 56 million for direct sales costs. At no point does it say it will pay brokers the 56 mill.

Who said the money was from the private sector?
Now who's making shit up.

Reading the article might be a good start :niceone:

[BoristheBiter]

Reading the article might be a good start :niceone:

Have done, doesn't say anything about paying 56m to brokers.

[Brian d marge]

Coming to a town near you

A great opportunity to buy , stunning Vista, great community

Beasley St ....<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/37QUUwp9xIs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Stephen

[toebug]

I tried selling my wifes assets but.............

[oldrider]

I tried selling my wifes assets but.............

You just didn't believe, did you, ye of little faith! :mellow:

[Brian d marge]

I live in Japan......I wish somebody would invest in big assets...
Stephen:weep:

[gsxr]

Right at the bottom, John Key was teetering on the $50m cut-off threshold, down $5m from last year.

The Prime Minister, who made his money as a currency trader owns several properties around New Zealand and around the world.
Because of his political position, his money is invested for him in a blind trust, meaning he doesn't actually know where it is held so cannot be accused of political interference to line his own pocket.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7355530/Foreigners-invade-Rich-List

Seriously are they trying to convince us that he has no idea or control of his OWN money and has NO advisors on policy to not only protect but increase his wealth FFS

[Brian d marge]

must share the love etc etc ..... , so here is one for the ladies

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/31bhzxhu44Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stephen

[BoristheBiter]

Right at the bottom, John Key was teetering on the $50m cut-off threshold, down $5m from last year.

The Prime Minister, who made his money as a currency trader owns several properties around New Zealand and around the world.
Because of his political position, his money is invested for him in a blind trust, meaning he doesn't actually know where it is held so cannot be accused of political interference to line his own pocket.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7355530/Foreigners-invade-Rich-List

Seriously are they trying to convince us that he has no idea or control of his OWN money and has NO advisors on policy to not only protect but increase his wealth FFS

Who cares?

All on here seem to be in love with Dotcom and his only attribute is he is wealthy so whats the difference?

[oneofsix]

Who cares?

All on here seem to be in love with Dotcom and his only attribute is he is wealthy so whats the difference?

Nah Dotcom's attribute is his fight over his servers and their contents. His money might have been his only attribute of worth for immigration and their political masters.

[BoristheBiter]

Nah Dotcom's attribute is his fight over his servers and their contents. His money might have been his only attribute of worth for immigration and their political masters.

So why does it seem that the country has fell in love with this "rich prick" when they hate all others?

[oneofsix]

So why does it seem that the country has fell in love with this "rich prick" when they hate all others?

First sentence. We love a fighter when he's the underdog and against the USA media rights groups he is the underdog, we don't like being told we can't have content that is available else where, we don't like being ripped off (look at the threads on here about getting stuff cheaper off the web) and we, like Aussie, pay more than other countries.

But if you just want to focus on being jealous of his money, you go right ahead. For the rest of the country that will come after he has won his battle with the media moguls, if he loses he might still get sympathy and wont be as rich.

[BoristheBiter]

First sentence. We love a fighter when he's the underdog and against the USA media rights groups he is the underdog, we don't like being told we can't have content that is available else where, we don't like being ripped off (look at the threads on here about getting stuff cheaper off the web) and we, like Aussie, pay more than other countries.

But if you just want to focus on being jealous of his money, you go right ahead. For the rest of the country that will come after he has won his battle with the media moguls, if he loses he might still get sympathy and wont be as rich.

He's not a fighter, he has lawyers for that.
It has nothing to do with content, it is the not paying for things.
No one likes being ripped off, still can't see the relevance.

But when the top rating tv shows are about scum criminals I can see why you would back dotcom.

Never have or ever will be jealous of money, not the main part of my life.

[SPman]

So why does it seem that the country has fell in love with this "rich prick" when they hate all others?

Because he seems to have become "our" rich prick, against the faceless tyranny of government and a . foreign country...?

[Robert Taylor]

The politics of envy are alive and well in NZ. I personally have no problem with anyone becoming a ''rich prick'' Providing:

1) They do so legitimately

2) They dont rip anyone off

3) They do something that is productive for the country and carry people along with them, as opposed to making money out of speculation. ( on that score I am at odds with John Key but he is still on balance better than the alternatives )

4) They invest back into the local economy

and 5) My pet hate, that they dont get preyed upon by all and sundry for a ''free lunch'' I.E ''let him pick up the bar tab, hes got the money"' ( and I took advantage by ordering more drinks )

[mashman]

heres one for ya then...evil credit ,,,,,,

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/in-debt-we-trust/

:jerry:

Stephen

ps , I cant breakeven , as fast as I produce it I drink it .....might have to step up production ,,,,,Costco , for sugar then ...

heh... evil debt, evil credit, evel knievel, evil edna, evil law makers... but fear not... cutting up your credit cards means that you won't run the risk of going in to debt and if you do, well at least you did so honestly, everyone in America should be taught financial awareness... which unfortunately was the one thing missing from the doco. If they really wanted to teach awareness they'd teach that money comes from one place. Banks. The banks issue this money as a loan, more commonly referred to as debt. Someone has to be in debt and weeeeeeeee around and around we go... but apparently, as long as no one goes in to debt everything will be ok, the economy will thrive, 90% of divorces won't happen and the lovely folk on capital hill will do what's right instead of what pays well :facepalm:. Tis truly tragic to see that people believe that no one having debt would redress the balance for everyone. Still, people are a sucker for brand loyalty and money has a seriously good brand hardly surprising that they can't do without it :killingme the world will end, we'll all head back to the stone age, communism will rise (that's non-consumerist communism :msn-wink:), my entitlement complex won't be serviced, people might start using their brains, OMG what a catastrophe. Best to roll over and play dead whilst the brains trust deal with the issue, they've been doing well so far.

[mashman]

The politics of envy are alive and well in NZ. I personally have no problem with anyone becoming a ''rich prick'' Providing:

1) They do so legitimately

2) They dont rip anyone off

3) They do something that is productive for the country and carry people along with them, as opposed to making money out of speculation. ( on that score I am at odds with John Key but he is still on balance better than the alternatives )

4) They invest back into the local economy

and 5) My pet hate, that they dont get preyed upon by all and sundry for a ''free lunch'' I.E ''let him pick up the bar tab, hes got the money"' ( and I took advantage by ordering more drinks )

So you're envious that

1) People can get rich illegitimately
2) They rip people off whilst getting rich
3) Sociaites spend daddies money on paintings, cars, boats, parties etc... that service only high end business (are they really that serious about suspension?)
4) They've squirrel between 21 and 37 trillion dollaroonies in offshore accounts
5) They spend their money how they want to

hmmmmm... I'm not convinced that your list provisions is entirely based on good honest values there

[mashman]

So why does it seem that the country has fell in love with this "rich prick" when they hate all others?

Do you know everyone in the country personally? or is this just more of your propagandist bullshit?

[BoristheBiter]

Do you know everyone in the country personally? or is this just more of your propagandist bullshit?

Yes I do know everything about everyone, I thought you would have known that by now.
This is KB after all.

[mashman]

Yes I do know everything about everyone, I thought you would have known that by now.
This is KB after all.

Yeah but I didn't know you were Santa (or god)... I'm on the good boy list right (or going to heaven)?

[Oscar]

Yeah but I didn't know you were Santa (or god)... I'm on the good boy list right (or going to heaven)?

If you don't believe in money, how will you pay the ferryman?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Lytovchenko_Olexandr_Kharon.jpg/800px-Lytovchenko_Olexandr_Kharon.jpg

[mashman]

If you don't believe in money, how will you pay the ferryman?

I'll do his job instead and he can go on permanent vacation as he has Hades day... if that pic is anything to go by, it doesn't look like a bad gig and I could do with losing a few pounds.

[Oscar]

I'll do his job instead and he can go on permanent vacation as he has Hades his day... if that pic is anything to go by, it doesn't look like a bad gig and I could do with losing a few pounds.

If you can't pay Charon a coin, you must wander the banks of the river Styx for a hundred years.
In your case it may be that you are doomed to post here about currency reform for a century...
...no, wait a minute....that would be a punishment for the rest of us...

[mashman]

If you can't pay Charon a coin, you must wander the banks of the river Styx for a hundred years.
In your case it may be that you are doomed to post here about currency reform for a century...
...no, wait a minute....that would be a punishment for the rest of us...


ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... Hell on earth eh. I always figured I'd be more of a toga guy hangin with da big G instead of beach combing for a century before having my arse smoked by da big D (more commonly known as JK... the mere thought is more than my stomach can bare)

[BoristheBiter]

Yeah but I didn't know you were Santa (or god)... I'm on the good boy list right (or going to heaven)?

I would say yes but I am greater than both of them as I exist.

[mashman]

I would say yes but I am greater than both of them as I exist.

more propagandist bullshit eh... they're both one in the same person and currently wearing a blur tie and offering gifts to the good capitalist boys and girls :eek:

[Robert Taylor]

So you're envious that

1) People can get rich illegitimately
2) They rip people off whilst getting rich
3) Sociaites spend daddies money on paintings, cars, boats, parties etc... that service only high end business (are they really that serious about suspension?)
4) They've squirrel between 21 and 37 trillion dollaroonies in offshore accounts
5) They spend their money how they want to

hmmmmm... I'm not convinced that your list provisions is entirely based on good honest values there

Well I thought my comments would be pretty agreeable to anyone with a sense of fair play, but the nature of your response speaks volumes about you having an argumentative disposition.( and doubtless you will argue about that ) I am in no way envious of such people, conversely I am in awe of people that accumulate wealth through success that actually does something productive and employs people

[BoristheBiter]

more propagandist bullshit eh... they're both one in the same person and currently wearing a blur tie and offering gifts to the good capitalist boys and girls :eek:

Then you're proper fucked then.

[Brian d marge]

Well I thought my comments would be pretty agreeable to anyone with a sense of fair play, but the nature of your response speaks volumes about you having an argumentative disposition.( and doubtless you will argue about that ) I am in no way envious of such people, conversely I am in awe of people that accumulate wealth through success that actually does something productive and employs people

you are not wrong in that last sentence , and have that kiwi sense of fair play , ( to which we all agree) BUT the current hot topic in america on the talk back radio , is how much these wealthy people are A; paying themselves , B; where is it , and probably the most important ,,The vote buying and hiding in offshore accounts

they have estimated that the national economy of JAPAN ( makes NZ look like a homeless beggar ) is offshore and non tax paying ,,,,and MOST of the big names are involved Mit Romney etc

The problem is you have a kiwi sense of fair play , others in this world don’t, and they have quite a few more dollars than u and I , and if they can make a few percent , THEY WILL

times have changed ,,,,,sorry about that , it wasn’t MY idea

Stephen

[mashman]

Well I thought my comments would be pretty agreeable to anyone with a sense of fair play, but the nature of your response speaks volumes about you having an argumentative disposition.( and doubtless you will argue about that ) I am in no way envious of such people, conversely I am in awe of people that accumulate wealth through success that actually does something productive and employs people

:rofl: I'd love to believe that what takes place in this day an age is fair play, but I don't. My response was 90% "troll" (you must see the irony of posting a list of acceptable moral terms and conditions when talking about money?) and 10% truth. I'd apologise, but I see no reason to do so. I find it funny that people label me argumentative, as that highlights a certain ignorance. Not saying that you're ignorant, but like yourself I'm merely voicing an opinion from my perspective, based on my "moral" values and that opinion looks to be at odds with your opinion to a degree. Have it your way, I can't change the way that I am perceived. I'm not in awe of people who accumulate financial wealth. They eat, shit, and fuck like the rest of us, what's so special about "earning" lots of money? Some knowledge that someone else doesn't have and is valued by someone else somewhere as a great money making skill, and a bucket load of drive? I have knowledge and drive, as do many others... So why does the amount of financial wealth I "earn" diminish my effort? I should be in awe of these people because they have more money? Essentially that seems to be what you are saying? As for the purely financial side of things. Knowing, yes actually knowing where money comes from and knowing, yes knowing again, about the damage it has caused to billions of lives does not scream of fair play to me, morally or financially... but apparently that's ok for some reason. Not for me. Not anymore... and I WILL defend those who get fucked over by a financial system that has replaced morality as the #1 is the lives of a minority. So yes, I'll argue that I'm not argumentative from the point of view that I just like to argue and that I put forwards arguments that from my perspective. Entirely up to you to believe what you wish.


Then you're proper fucked then.

heh heh heh... it would seem that way eh :)

[Brian d marge]

:rofl: I'd love to believe that what takes place in this day an age is fair play, but I don't. My response was 90% "troll" (you must see the irony of posting a list of acceptable moral terms and conditions when talking about money?) and 10% truth. I'd apologise, but I see no reason to do so. I find it funny that people label me argumentative, as that highlights a certain ignorance. Not saying that you're ignorant, but like yourself I'm merely voicing an opinion from my perspective, based on my "moral" values and that opinion looks to be at odds with your opinion to a degree. Have it your way, I can't change the way that I am perceived. I'm not in awe of people who accumulate financial wealth. They eat, shit, and fuck like the rest of us, what's so special about "earning" lots of money? Some knowledge that someone else doesn't have and is valued by someone else somewhere as a great money making skill, and a bucket load of drive? I have knowledge and drive, as do many others... So why does the amount of financial wealth I "earn" diminish my effort? I should be in awe of these people because they have more money? Essentially that seems to be what you are saying? As for the purely financial side of things. Knowing, yes actually knowing where money comes from and knowing, yes knowing again, about the damage it has caused to billions of lives does not scream of fair play to me, morally or financially... but apparently that's ok for some reason. Not for me. Not anymore... and I WILL defend those who get fucked over by a financial system that has replaced morality as the #1 is the lives of a minority. So yes, I'll argue that I'm not argumentative from the point of view that I just like to argue and that I put forwards arguments that from my perspective. Entirely up to you to believe what you wish.



heh heh heh... it would seem that way eh :)

shut up their heads will explode , ok in NZ where medical costs are few , but here , it wiil bankrupt me

Stephen

[mashman]

shut up their heads will explode , ok in NZ where medical costs are few , but here , it wiil bankrupt me

Stephen

Hey, we may yet get a taste of that over the next few years... when ACC is farmed out and all :corn: (just to clarify, the taste does not refer to exploding heads)

[Brian d marge]

Hey, we may yet get a taste of that over the next few years... when ACC is farmed out and all :corn: (just to clarify, the taste does not refer to exploding heads)

Good go for it , ive covered my arse ,,,,,,oh no winters here and the grasshopper has been playing all summer , whereas the ant has been working ,,silly ant !

oh how some will be bent out of shape ,,,For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth

Stephen

[Robert Taylor]

[QUOTE=mashman;1130365560]:rofl: I'd love to believe that what takes place in this day an age is fair play, but I don't. My response was 90% "troll" (you must see the irony of posting a list of acceptable moral terms and conditions when talking about money?) and 10% truth. I'd apologise, but I see no reason to do so. I find it funny that people label me argumentative, as that highlights a certain ignorance. Not saying that you're ignorant, but like yourself I'm merely voicing an opinion from my perspective, based on my "moral" values and that opinion looks to be at odds with your opinion to a degree. Have it your way, I can't change the way that I am perceived. I'm not in awe of people who accumulate financial wealth. They eat, shit, and fuck like the rest of us, what's so special about "earning" lots of money? Some knowledge that someone else doesn't have and is valued by someone else somewhere as a great money making skill, and a bucket load of drive? I have knowledge and drive, as do many others... So why does the amount of financial wealth I "earn" diminish my effort? I should be in awe of these people because they have more money? Essentially that seems to be what you are saying? As for the purely financial side of things. Knowing, yes actually knowing where money comes from and knowing, yes knowing again, about the damage it has caused to billions of lives does not scream of fair play to me, morally or financially... but apparently that's ok for some reason. Not for me. Not anymore... and I WILL defend those who get fucked over by a financial system that has replaced morality as the #1 is the lives of a minority. So yes, I'll argue that I'm not argumentative from the point of view that I just like to argue and that I put forwards arguments that from my perspective. Entirely up to you to believe what you wish.



There is actually much that you and I can agree on. When I refer to accumulating wealth Id like to clarify that I dont see speculation, highly overinflated CEO salaries and big fat bonuses etc etc as legitimate or moral. Neither is multinational companies using countries with cheap labour, and we are all complicit in that evidenced by the cheap imported clothing most of us wear on our backs. And incessant demand for cheap imported goods, that also in many ways drive down our standard of living.
Take the case of JK Rowling the author, she went from rags to riches because of her writing talent, and she still has both feet firmly planted on the ground. A sad example of someone who should have been handsomely rewarded was Walter Kaaden. But in many ways he had his own sense of reward in beinng satisfied with how much he progressed the advancement of the 2 stroke engine. This man was extremely wealthy in engineering talent but the personal wealth that should have very much been his ( but not to an obscene level ) was callously ripped off by people that became industrial giants

[mashman]

Good go for it , ive covered my arse ,,,,,,oh no winters here and the grasshopper has been playing all summer , whereas the ant has been working ,,silly ant !

oh how some will be bent out of shape ,,,For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth

Stephen

but will there be spanking?



There is actually much that you and I can agree on. When I refer to accumulating wealth Id like to clarify that I dont see speculation, highly overinflated CEO salaries and big fat bonuses etc etc as legitimate or moral. Neither is multinational companies using countries with cheap labour, and we are all complicit in that evidenced by the cheap imported clothing most of us wear on our backs. And incessant demand for cheap imported goods, that also in many ways drive down our standard of living.
Take the case of JK Rowling the author, she went from rags to riches because of her writing talent, and she still has both feet firmly planted on the ground. A sad example of someone who should have been handsomely rewarded was Walter Kaaden. But in many ways he had his own sense of reward in beinng satisfied with how much he progressed the advancement of the 2 stroke engine. This man was extremely wealthy in engineering talent but the personal wealth that should have very much been his ( but not to an obscene level ) was callously ripped off by people that became industrial giants

I'm sure there are plenty of things that we all agree upon and once upon a time I would have agreed with you in regards to the rewards people receive for their ideas/effort... I can't any more. For me the case of Walter Kaaden (never heard of the guy til now) is all too prevalent these days, breakthroughs usually being company related as you mention. One of the more obvious being sponsorship. Hey we've got a great line up of talent AND THEY ARE SPONSORED BY xxxxxx who without their sponsorship this event would have never happened. I wonder where we would be had we not had financial constraints that required "sponsorship"? R&D is expensive these days and virtually no small firms have the money for it even though they have the talent... and instead of getting people together to knowledge share, the best we can hope for is that the patent will be cheap enough to allow interested parties to buy some knowledge and extend the current research. So many talented individuals, 2 of the more recent being the lady from Manchester (not that annoying Briscoes lady) folding a protein that has eluded the specialists for over 10 years and the 16 yr old German boy that solved a 300 year old Maths problem. It gets me to wondering how much of this talent and the associated ideas are lost because these people either don't get access to people/knowledge/materials necessary and/or don't have the level playing field that would allow them to learn their subject in greater depth at the facility that teaches the subject best. I blame money for getting in the way of all of these things (R&D for R&D's sake, not because someone can make a killing). We're not all complicit, not fully, we merely defer our decision making, complacent maybe, meh potato potaato. Where would we be eh?

[Robert Taylor]

but will there be spanking?



I'm sure there are plenty of things that we all agree upon and once upon a time I would have agreed with you in regards to the rewards people receive for their ideas/effort... I can't any more. For me the case of Walter Kaaden (never heard of the guy til now) is all too prevalent these days, breakthroughs usually being company related as you mention. One of the more obvious being sponsorship. Hey we've got a great line up of talent AND THEY ARE SPONSORED BY xxxxxx who without their sponsorship this event would have never happened. I wonder where we would be had we not had financial constraints that required "sponsorship"? R&D is expensive these days and virtually no small firms have the money for it even though they have the talent... and instead of getting people together to knowledge share, the best we can hope for is that the patent will be cheap enough to allow interested parties to buy some knowledge and extend the current research. So many talented individuals, 2 of the more recent being the lady from Manchester (not that annoying Briscoes lady) folding a protein that has eluded the specialists for over 10 years and the 16 yr old German boy that solved a 300 year old Maths problem. It gets me to wondering how much of this talent and the associated ideas are lost because these people either don't get access to people/knowledge/materials necessary and/or don't have the level playing field that would allow them to learn their subject in greater depth at the facility that teaches the subject best. I blame money for getting in the way of all of these things (R&D for R&D's sake, not because someone can make a killing). We're not all complicit, not fully, we merely defer our decision making, complacent maybe, meh potato potaato. Where would we be eh?

Its an interesting subject ''sharing knowledge'' and for me one that often hurts. We had a guy attend some Race Tech courses that we had Paul Thede run. Shortly after attending that course he tried to get the agency taken off us so he could have it. He is as bold as brass in the road race scene nowadays but I will remember..........

[mashman]

Its an interesting subject ''sharing knowledge'' and for me one that often hurts. We had a guy attend some Race Tech courses that we had Paul Thede run. Shortly after attending that course he tried to get the agency taken off us so he could have it. He is as bold as brass in the road race scene nowadays but I will remember..........

Looks like experience won the day ?instead of cost?... which is nice to see for a change. Why did he try to "oust" you?

[Robert Taylor]

Looks like experience won the day ?instead of cost?... which is nice to see for a change. Why did he try to "oust" you?

Simple, he talks the talk and is a parasite

[mashman]

Simple, he talks the talk and is a parasite

Is that all... he should become a politician instead.

[Robert Taylor]

Is that all... he should become a politician instead.

I agree!!!!!!!!

[mashman]

I agree!!!!!!!!

:rofl: in which case I better change my point of view :innocent:... tis a shame that that shit goes on day in day out accompanied with it ain't necessarily what you know.

Anyhoooooo, the tribunal has spoken, time to stop the asset sales.

[oldrider]

Anyhoooooo, the tribunal has spoken, time to stop the asset sales.

The Tribunal has spoken but it is "not" the government, never was, never will be! ... Just another political pressure group claiming the moon! :corn:

[Robert Taylor]

The Tribunal has spoken but it is "not" the government, never was, never will be! ... Just another political pressure group claiming the moon! :corn:

I think we should sell all the water...........................and that vwe pay out those that are 100% maori

[mashman]

The Tribunal has spoken but it is "not" the government, never was, never will be! ... Just another political pressure group claiming the moon! :corn:

Of course it isn't, such a shame :yes:... it almost sounds as though they give a shit... don't get me wrong I have no doubt that there are Maori interests that are out there looking out for themselves as much as there are white mother fuckers doing the same thing too... but I've had my fill of the white mother fuckers, I'd like to see what the brown fellas have to offer the country for a change... with any luck it won't be this "ask what your country can do for you" shit that we're currently spoon fed.... as there certainly isn't an attitude of what you can do for your country that I can see... just a bunch of people hoping that the govt don't take a wet bite out of their arse. Pressure groups should be banned, as should govts seeking advice from the old boys network... they seem to have disregarded the ants of this world.

[BoristheBiter]

Of course it isn't, such a shame :yes:... it almost sounds as though they give a shit... don't get me wrong I have no doubt that there are Maori interests that are out there looking out for themselves as much as there are white mother fuckers doing the same thing too... but I've had my fill of the white mother fuckers, I'd like to see what the brown fellas have to offer the country for a change... with any luck it won't be this "ask what your country can do for you" shit that we're currently spoon fed.... as there certainly isn't an attitude of what you can do for your country that I can see... just a bunch of people hoping that the govt don't take a wet bite out of their arse. Pressure groups should be banned, as should govts seeking advice from the old boys network... they seem to have disregarded the ants of this world.

Then fuck off to south Africa, maybe Zimbabwe, if you want closer to home, Fiji. Seems to be a trend there wounder want that is?

Oh that's right colour don't mean shit, humans are greedy.

[mashman]

Then fuck off to south Africa, maybe Zimbabwe, if you want closer to home, Fiji. Seems to be a trend there wounder want that is?

Oh that's right colour don't mean shit, humans are greedy.

Nahhhh, they've been, and still very much are, being fucked over by whitey mcwhite... The trend is whitey mcfuckinwhite rapin and a pillagin every natural resource they can lay their hands of in order to hold influence over the population. NZ is still in with a shout once the racist fucktards get a brain... that's both sides before whitey mcwhite or browny mcbrown decide to go into battle over who is more racist than who... and using the ACC model of apportioning blame by weight of numbers, it ain't lookin good for whitey :no:

So take away that which makes them greedy... duh

[BoristheBiter]

Nahhhh, they've been, and still very much are, being fucked over by whitey mcwhite... The trend is whitey mcfuckinwhite rapin and a pillagin every natural resource they can lay their hands of in order to hold influence over the population. NZ is still in with a shout once the racist fucktards get a brain... that's both sides before whitey mcwhite or browny mcbrown decide to go into battle over who is more racist than who... and using the ACC model of apportioning blame by weight of numbers, it ain't lookin good for whitey :no:

So take away that which makes them greedy... duh

:killingme
You are so full of shit. You rant on about anything as long as you can argue.
I bet if you had a life you would find that most just get on with enjoying the things they have and can't be bothered with dickwads like you trying to stir shit that no one cares about.

back to topic,
yes I know of a lot of people that don't want the assets sold off but they are also the same that will be buying them up when they go on sale.

If you don't like it go find some one that gives a shit as I for one have had enough of your whining, white apologetic rants.

[mashman]

:killingme
You are so full of shit. You rant on about anything as long as you can argue.
I bet if you had a life you would find that most just get on with enjoying the things they have and can't be bothered with dickwads like you trying to stir shit that no one cares about.

back to topic,
yes I know of a lot of people that don't want the assets sold off but they are also the same that will be buying them up when they go on sale.

If you don't like it go find some one that gives a shit as I for one have had enough of your whining, white apologetic rants.


:rofl: he doesn't agree with me waaaaaa, he must be arguing just for the sake of arguing waaaaaa, that means he can't be enjoying life waaaaaaa, I wish he'd stop telling lies waaaaaa, I don't understand waaaaaaa. It's ok, roll over there's a good boy, yes ooos a good boy ooos a good boy... someone will be along shortly to give you your bone as a thank you for being such an disinterested human being. Would you like a side order of war/famine/injustice/rort etc... with your bone?

So who do you believe? The economists that say it's a bad idea, or the economists backed by the govt who have to seek advice (from whom?) before wiping their arse? Some people just hate feeling disadvantaged and have to keep up with the Jones', even if they don't want whatever it is. They're called sheep.

If I don't like it I can vote for one of the other sides, right? coz that'll make me feel better, right? :killingme... and WTF are you on about white apologetic rants?

[BoristheBiter]

:rofl: he doesn't agree with me waaaaaa, he must be arguing just for the sake of arguing waaaaaa, that means he can't be enjoying life waaaaaaa, I wish he'd stop telling lies waaaaaa, I don't understand waaaaaaa. It's ok, roll over there's a good boy, yes ooos a good boy ooos a good boy... someone will be along shortly to give you your bone as a thank you for being such an disinterested human being. Would you like a side order of war/famine/injustice/rort etc... with your bone?

So who do you believe? The economists that say it's a bad idea, or the economists backed by the govt who have to seek advice (from whom?) before wiping their arse? Some people just hate feeling disadvantaged and have to keep up with the Jones', even if they don't want whatever it is. They're called sheep.

If I don't like it I can vote for one of the other sides, right? coz that'll make me feel better, right? :killingme... and WTF are you on about white apologetic rants?

What so agreeing with some one makes me a sheep does it?
then what does that make you, rhetorical as I have a pretty good idea

I have followed your posts and yes you do seem just to disagree with basically everyone so yes it does seem that you argue just for something to do.

see your post #330 for you white apologetic rants.

[mashman]

What so agreeing with some one makes me a sheep does it?
then what does that make you, rhetorical as I have a pretty good idea

I have followed your posts and yes you do seem just to disagree with basically everyone so yes it does seem that you argue just for something to do.

see your post #330 for you white apologetic rants.

Yes.
A fuckin GENIUS by comparison (probably not what you where thinking, just an assumption, not disagreeing like)

No one else disagrees in threads I take it :yawn: :tugger:

I wasn't apologising for anything.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes.
A fuckin GENIUS by comparison (probably not what you where thinking, just an assumption, not disagreeing like)

No one else disagrees in threads I take it :yawn: :tugger:

I wasn't apologising for anything.

...........................Just can't be bothered anymore.:argue::brick:
You just carry on, I'm sure there must be someone on here that really cares want crap you post.

[mashman]

...........................Just can't be bothered anymore.:argue::brick:
You just carry on, I'm sure there must be someone on here that really cares want crap you post.

I care not whether they do or not... the difference being that I'm willing to change my mind given a solid reason :innocent: In this case I'm with those who don't believe that asset sales are the way to go. I also don't believe that whitey mcwhite (that's them folk of any colour, ANY COLOUR, that adhere to the policy's of the "white" man) are doing anyone any good other than themselves and their mates and that is to the detriment of all of us. Like I said, give me a solid reason and I'll go back to happy go lucky not give a fucky :yes:

[Brian d marge]

Bend over Maori , the government commin through ...Heeeee HAAAAAAAA

Stephen