Cunt Key [Archive] - Page 2 - Kiwi Biker forums

Hinny

29th September 2008, 18:08

My biggest problem with Labour is that they opened up the border gates, Otherwise they probably would have got my vote this year.
That bloody Aussie Malcolm had a lot to answer for with his immigration agency. And bloody Delamere as well. Both former Nat ministers of Immigration. Knowledge of the loopholes and using that knowledge for their own pecuniary gain.
The immigration hui that was held a few years ago when Max Bradford was Minister in charge was postponed and then held without anymore advertising of the new date. Part of the procedures was televised. Not a single face to be seen that one could reasonably assume had parents born in this country.
Acquaintances with family members in the immigration service tell of the rorts that go on within the dept. with immigrant workers not following the rules.
There were howls of indignation when Lianne Dalziel tried to kick out one overstayer. Lost her job over it. When Winnie raised the subject of the predominance of ethnicity and level of immigration from Asia again there were howls of protest and he was vilified in the media for expressing such views.
Given my view that NZ is grossly overpopulated it may be reasonably assumed that I would like to see Winnie in a coalition govt. getting the immigration portfolio.

sinned

29th September 2008, 18:43

The main difference that I see is not the possible conflict of interest but one of shall we say philosophical credibility. Key was engaging in a trade when he was aware of the Governments intention of a buyback to which Key was opposed. And this is fundamental point of difference. Fitzsimmons on the other hand held shares in a company that was consistent with her philosophy.

I along with many others have no doubt that there may well have been some ‘dodgy dealings by both sides of House on this sorta thing. This in no way lessons Key’s guilt in this. He’s just got a bigger profile and as a leader should show further intelligence than what we have seen to date.
Skyryder

You can't let it go can you? But then this is the liarbor tactic - throw as much mud as you can and some will stick. Yes JK should have got rid of those shares earlier and fully disclosed earlier. Yes he got caught out and was upfront about that. Let's put those shares into perspective - they had stuff all value for someone worth $50 odd million and I can't see how increasing or protecting the value of them would have been a motivation. Ask yourself what is the motivation for someone worth that much to be a politician - it sure isn't for the salary and he could earn more by managing his assets.

The refreshing thing about Key is his passion to do right for NZ. Clark on the other hand is highly experience at playing the political game and will do whatever it takes to survive.

My biggest problem with Labour is that they opened up the border gates, Otherwise they probably would have got my vote this year.
They don't need your vote - the border gates are open to attract more left leaning voters and the 44,000 who left to go to Australia this year also helps the weighting of voters for the left.

Brett

30th September 2008, 01:18

I think I detect the mild, yet growing, panic of a punter who suspects they have backed the wrong pony!

LMFAO!!!

Good on Key. Since when was it unethical to buy some shares in a company to make some profit?
Talk of Unethical and hypocritical...add to that immoral and you have a large portion of Helen Clarks influence as Prime Minister.

Helen Clark. HAHAHA. She makes me laugh. And Cry. Scary Lady.

Hinny

30th September 2008, 07:54

This thing with Key's shares is minor. Three 'Hail Mary's' and you are forgiven.
To get a better gauge of what a man he is go see 'The Hollow Men' or read the book.
It would be like voting for George Bush.

The suggestion that he would be usurped if National did carry the election I believe is without foundation.
Who have they got that could replace him?
Answer: no-one.
The are a party bereft of talent and that is why their last leader was a first term, non-elected member and this one is a second term member. They have to appeal to optimists. Those that will believe their assertions that they can do the business without reference to historical performance.
Or conveniently overlook past performance.

MisterD

30th September 2008, 08:29

To get a better gauge of what a man he is go see 'The Hollow Men' or read the book.

Christ, you didn't swallow that leftist bullshit did you? It really makes me despair that people can't see through this Liarbour misinformation.

Take the Exclusive Brethern thing - "big business buys elections" FFS, one of those "business fat-cats" owned a lawnmower shop. Then this time around when the secret taping thing happened we get the left wing banging on about "ignore the messenger, that's not important - listen to the message"

Do I need to draw a map to point out the rank hypocrisy in those two positions?

The are a party bereft of talent and that is why their last leader was a first term, non-elected member and this one is a second term member. They have to appeal to optimists. Those that will believe their assertions that they can do the business without reference to historical performance.
Or conveniently overlook past performance.

Have you had a look at the National list recently? There's a fuck of a lot more talent coming through than on Labour's....

With a National government, you might get such radical concepts as:

Economics qualifications in the top two jobs
An Attorney General who is actually a lawyer (Simon Power)
A public service not stuffed with political cronies able to give real advice

Skyryder

30th September 2008, 10:22

Christ, you didn't swallow that leftist bullshit did you? It really makes me despair that people can't see through this Liarbour misinformation.

Key talks about his credibility and running a clean election. He was up to his neck in the Brethren scam. That is not misinformation but fact along with the lies that he supported when the the Nats denied their links to this Church. He has not changed his spots one iota as my first post shows.

Skyryder

MisterD

30th September 2008, 10:35

Key talks about his credibility and running a clean election. He was up to his neck in the Brethren scam. That is not misinformation but fact along with the lies that he supported when the the Nats denied their links to this Church. He has not changed his spots one iota as my first post shows.

"The Brethren scam" - a bunch of blokes, who know each other because they go to the same church, decide to use their own money to circulate anti-Green Party information (notice please that nobody has actually claimed any of the content of the leaflet is not true).

I still don't actually see what the problem is here.

Hitcher

30th September 2008, 10:48

I still don't actually see what the problem is here.

But it scared sufficient shit out of the Rt Hon The Prime Minister for her to action the bizzare Electoral Finance Act.

At least she hesitated from providing taxpayer money to fund political parties' campaigns. If her lot get back, expect this with some urgency.

Skyryder

30th September 2008, 10:55

"The Brethren scam" - a bunch of blokes, who know each other because they go to the same church, decide to use their own money to circulate anti-Green Party information (notice please that nobody has actually claimed any of the content of the leaflet is not true).

I still don't actually see what the problem is here.

Key lies. Not a problem…………………….??

Skyryder

Cajun

30th September 2008, 10:56

Key lies. Not a problem…………………….??

Skyryder

they in politics they ALL lie

MisterD

30th September 2008, 11:02

But it scared sufficient shit out of the Rt Hon The Prime Minister for her to action the bizzare Electoral Finance Act.

What a fantastic shot to the pedal extremity that was too - the left are flat broke because the only reason for people with dosh to donate to them was in return for favours, and nobody wants that exposed to the light (eh Owen?) That of course leads through to the second part of your post...

At least she hesitated from providing taxpayer money to fund political parties' campaigns. If her lot get back, expect this with some urgency.

...tax payer funding will always be a step too far for the NZ voter, but that won't stop a Liarbour/Green/Winston 1st coallition ramming it through. Secret agenda anyone?

If you want to know what Clark is doing behind closed doors - look at what she's accusing National of.

Skyryder

30th September 2008, 11:05

But it scared sufficient shit out of the Rt Hon The Prime Minister for her to action the bizzare Electoral Finance Act.

At least she hesitated from providing taxpayer money to fund political parties' campaigns. If her lot get back, expect this with some urgency.

Yes I agree. After this shit from Peters and the SFO investigations whatever they lead too I have no doubt that this will be on Labours priority list. I have long held the belief that to reduce 'outside' influence with NZ politics and our parties NZ elections should be taxpayer funded. I have deep misgivings about overseas interests and contributing to parties operating in our elections.

Whenever this has been mooted their have been howls from the far right. I wonder why.

Skyryder

MisterD

30th September 2008, 11:15

I have long held the belief that to reduce 'outside' influence with NZ politics and our parties NZ elections should be taxpayer funded.

Whenever this has been mooted their have been howls from the far right. I wonder why.

That'll be "far right" defined as "anyone who's a net taxpayer with a brain" th
en?

It's simple - if you can't craft policy that attracts people to support you, don't expect support, and don't expect my tax $$.

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 13:10

I didn't really expect it to happen but congrats to the US Congress for at least having the balls to say 'fuck you' to the capitalists.

Why should taxpayers bail out those who've fleeced others for millions or even billions? Why allow them to continue doing so?

Capitalism is in another of its death throes; yes, another. The crash of 29 and all the other crashes are much the same; proof that allowing sheer greed to dictate the economy is foolish and bound to end in tears.

Wake up; the same capitalists were beating their chests not long ago saying that free markets were self regulating and would mean financial gain for all (trickle down bullshit).

On the contrary, free markets merely allow abusers and white collar crooks to get away with crimes that would see ordinary citizens locked up for years.

The real question is how many more crashes will have to happen before the ignorant masses wake up and realise that free markets are only a free ride for those prepared to abuse the good will of the people? The ordinary citizen will lose in the long run and the free market philosophy merely speeds the transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

Amerikan capitalism has failed again and it's taking the world with it. Why the fuck would you vote for a party that wants to impose the same policies on NZ?

You have a big choice this election:

you can vote on personality or you can vote with common sense and information about the kinds of policies that will end in failure.

The US destroyed most of its Roosevelt social welfare system long ago and made it virtually impossible to reinstate it. Costs skyrocketed after a brief hiatus and the rich got very much richer at the expense of all others.

National tried to do the same last time and will try again this time. It will fail but not before more wealth has moved to the wealthy and the less wealthy are left with crumbs and modern wage slavery.

Remember the past: National tried to get rid of ACC; that was a disaster and it will be again.
National introduced the Employment Contracts Act and that drove wages down so that Kiwis still leave for Aussie because of the disparity.

Vote with your brains not your emotions; vote left, vote for society not for greedy individuals.

The Pastor

30th September 2008, 13:14

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 13:14

That'll be "far right" defined as "anyone who's a net taxpayer with a brain" th
en?

It's simple - if you can't craft policy that attracts people to support you, don't expect support, and don't expect my tax $$.

rubbish!

funding by wealthy individuals and companies always means that your sovereignty is sold out to foreign interests and that policies will be made with regard to the rich and disregard for the poor.

National is terrified of state funding because it will take away that major advantage National gets from wealthy foreigners or greedy capitalists after personal gain.

MisterD

30th September 2008, 13:47

I didn't really expect it to happen but congrats to the US Congress for at least having the balls to say 'fuck you' to the capitalists.

I suggest you read this link (http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/open_letter.htm) that I posted in the Economic Depression thread. It very nicely puts the lie to your socialist spin...

devnull

30th September 2008, 13:49

rubbish!

funding by wealthy individuals and companies always means that your sovereignty is sold out to foreign interests and that policies will be made with regard to the rich and disregard for the poor.

National is terrified of state funding because it will take away that major advantage National gets from wealthy foreigners or greedy capitalists after personal gain.

Owen Glenn

:jerry:

What's the going rate for a consul's job these days?

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/02/owen-glenns-sha.html

Hitcher

30th September 2008, 13:56

I didn't really expect it to happen but congrats to the US Congress for at least having the balls to say 'fuck you' to the capitalists.

Au contraire. They said "fuck you" to the communists.

MisterD

30th September 2008, 14:02

rubbish!

funding by wealthy individuals and companies always means that your sovereignty is sold out to foreign interests and that policies will be made with regard to the rich and disregard for the poor.

National is terrified of state funding because it will take away that major advantage National gets from wealthy foreigners or greedy capitalists after personal gain.

Don't be soft. That's just a standard lefty straw-man argument, people with money = bad.

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 14:09

I suggest you read this link (http://myslu.stlawu.edu/%7Eshorwitz/open_letter.htm) that I posted in the Economic Depression thread. It very nicely puts the lie to your socialist spin...

i read the link and it was just more right wing propaganda trying to excuse the capitalists for abuse.

yes, there is some regulation in the finance industry but the failure of the markets AGAIN proves that there needs to be MORE regulation to protect society from wanton greed and abuse.

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 14:12

Owen Glenn

:jerry:

What's the going rate for a consul's job these days?

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/02/owen-glenns-sha.html

dead right!

Owen Glen, Brierly, Michael Faye, Richwhite and all the other wealthy few promoting their own profit margins by corrupting democracy.

get rid of it all and fund all parties through the state. it's a small price to pay for more transparent government and policies written by and for the people of NZ as a whole rather than for and by foreign corporations and the wealthy few.

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 14:14

Au contraire. They said "fuck you" to the communists.

the 'communists'???

that's fucking hilarious claptrap, the democrats are more right wing than the NZ National party.

keep it up, nonsense like this makes a fool of the right wing

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 14:16

Don't be soft. That's just a standard lefty straw-man argument, people with money = bad.

nah, it's just a fact: people who give away money to politicians rarely to never do it without expecting some gain on their 'investment'.

it looks like it's not just the national party who are afraid of a level playing field, the whole right wing is too!

MisterD

30th September 2008, 14:18

i read the link and it was just more right wing propaganda trying to excuse the capitalists for abuse.

yes, there is some regulation in the finance industry but the failure of the markets AGAIN proves that there needs to be MORE regulation to protect society from wanton greed and abuse.

Translation: socialism doesn't work, so we need more socialism. <_<

The mess we see in the US is what happens when well-intentioned idiots think they know better than the market. Government incentivised lending to bad credit risks at unrealistically low rates and guess what happened.

MisterD

30th September 2008, 14:25

nah, it's just a fact: people who give away money to politicians rarely to never do it without expecting some gain on their 'investment'.

it looks like it's not just the national party who are afraid of a level playing field, the whole right wing is too!

Yeah, let's level the playing field. Allow people to opt of out funding unions through their subs, itemise and deduct all the time of Union employees spent supporting Liarbour electioneering...

It's a fundamental tenet of right leaning economics that people know best how to spend their own money. Simple. As. That.

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 14:33

Translation: socialism doesn't work, so we need more socialism. <_<

The mess we see in the US is what happens when well-intentioned idiots think they know better than the market. Government incentivised lending to bad credit risks at unrealistically low rates and guess what happened.

nope;
translation: the markets were not regulated enough and greedy capitalists saw easy profits in marginal mortgages. We need more regulation to reduce the ability to abuse.

The government remember, has been in the pocket of big business for decades in the US. Without their money, no politician stands a chance in hell. The rules were made to allow them to fleece more people.
They start illegal wars for the very same reason.

One thing that is totally guaranteed: if you provide completely free markets, we will almost all end up as serfs

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 14:37

Yeah, let's level the playing field. Allow people to opt of out funding unions through their subs, itemise and deduct all the time of Union employees spent supporting Liarbour electioneering...

It's a fundamental tenet of right leaning economics that people know best how to spend their own money. Simple. As. That.

Nobody forces me to join a union. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, unionism is totally voluntary in NZ.
Isn't that the opt out?

Of course that means they will be back to the old ECA where employers abused us en masse and drove wages down to near 3rd world level.

"It's a fundamental tenet of right leaning economics that people know best how to spend their own money."

Oh sure; that's why the US health system costs about twice as much as ours per capita and why they pay wayyyy more for insurance and even more for litigation than we do.

good grief! what specious crap

MisterD

30th September 2008, 14:46

good grief! what specious crap

I couldn't have summed up your arguments better if I'd tried.

Some things require some public consolidation - health, defence, education but without private market involvement you just end up with bloated beaurocratic inefficiency - shit you only have to look at the public sector in the last nine years of Cullenomics. Have all those tax $$ actually helped patients?

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 14:56

I couldn't have summed up your arguments better if I'd tried.

Some things require some public consolidation - health, defence, education but without private market involvement you just end up with bloated beaurocratic inefficiency - shit you only have to look at the public sector in the last nine years of Cullenomics. Have all those tax $$ actually helped patients?

some things need public consolidation????

so you're a socialist after all! a real right winger would deny that anything needs anything but market forces.

you obviously haven't been paying attention: i'm not anti trade or anti wealth, i just don't believe that what's best for the wealthy is best for all.

as for bloated government; look at your own model the USA, now THAT is a bloated bureaucracy!

BTW: Yes, our tax dollars HAVE helped patients and no, we don't have 15% of our population unable to receive good health care because they don't have insurance.

illcacophony

30th September 2008, 15:02

If you have any sort of ethics and integrity you do not profit from that which you oppose. Pretty simple realy. I think even a baboon could understand that.
Skyryder

I don't need to keep reading this thread. Mate, politicians are constantly under the spotlight so will no doubt have 'dirt' dug up about them by hungry journalists. What you need to worry about is not John Key's personal money and investments, cast your mind back to the last election where Helen got busted for spending tax-payers money on their election campaign. They changed the law to make it o.k, then gave the spent money back to 'charity'. That's my fucking tax money they spend on themselves, illegally, then change the law to make it alright, then go give the money they spent to a charity to look like the good guys.

If you're a hard working Kiwi, then voting Labour would be insane. Skyryder, if you're a student or on the benefit, no explanation needed.

idleidolidyll

30th September 2008, 15:06

I don't need to keep reading this thread. Mate, politicians are constantly under the spotlight so will no doubt have 'dirt' dug up about them by hungry journalists. What you need to worry about is not John Key's personal money and investments, cast your mind back to the last election where Helen got busted for spending tax-payers money on their election campaign. They changed the law to make it o.k, then gave the spent money back to 'charity'. That's my fucking tax money they spend on themselves, illegally, then change the law to make it alright, then go give the money they spent to a charity to look like the good guys.

If you're a hard working Kiwi, then voting Labour would be insane. Skyryder, if you're a student or on the benefit, no explanation needed.

and that's what happens when elections are funded by capitalists; the opposition must find other ways to pay for a campaign.

the kicker is that if national wins, your taxpayer dollars will go out of the country even faster and in the long run, as in the US, every social cost today that is privatised will cost way more for everyone.

a vote for national is a vote for foreign control.

we need state funded elections NOW

sinned

30th September 2008, 15:36

and that's what happens when elections are funded by capitalists; the opposition must find other ways to pay for a campaign.
Absolutely spot on - isn't that what Owen Glenn did? - gave capitalist dollars to Labour. I know that most of National's funding comes from small donations from members and profit from selling raffle tickets etc. Labour get donations from unions - surplus from government work etc. Yep as a tax payer I am already funding Labour - this makes me feel really good.

the kicker is that if national wins, your taxpayer dollars will go out of the country even faster and in the long run, as in the US, every social cost today that is privatised will cost way more for everyone.

Right again - this democratic system should be scrapped. Why not replace it with the system running in Cuba and employ lots more efficient public servants?

a vote for national is a vote for foreign control.

we need state funded elections NOW
Now how does this work? What do you think National is going to do to give control to foreign interests? I really need to know so please feel free to enlighten us.

Swoop

30th September 2008, 16:37

we need state funded elections NOW
Buahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
:rofl::rofl:

Yes, this Looney Labourite Sect gubbinment is closer to the Mugabe regime than we realise, but this statement is gold!
:rofl:

"State funded elections!!!"
:rofl:

MisterD

30th September 2008, 16:51

some things need public consolidation????

so you're a socialist after all! a real right winger would deny that anything needs anything but market forces.

you obviously haven't been paying attention: i'm not anti trade or anti wealth, i just don't believe that what's best for the wealthy is best for all.

Well as it happens, I do believe that what's good for business, is good for me. A business employs me to sell their stuff to other businesses...rocket science, it ain't.

as for bloated government; look at your own model the USA, now THAT is a bloated bureaucracy!

Bullshit is the US some kind of experiment in pure capitalism - their protectionist trade policy is as far from market driven as you can get. You need to find another bogeyman if you want to run those kind of arguments.

Skyryder

30th September 2008, 18:08

Don't be soft. That's just a standard lefty straw-man argument, people with money = bad.

It's not people with money=bad. That's baloney. You realy think that off shore 'resources' realy give a shit about New Zealanders.
They could not give a fuck about Joe Blog or for that matter anyone here on KB. If there was a profit for them they would ban all bikes............period.

That some here actually believe that these people have our interests at heart. Jeez...........the mind boggles. The only way to keep out offshore meddling in our elections is to have our elections funded by the those who are 'entitled' to vote.

If Carke has any political smarts left she would make that an election issue.

Skyryder

Skyryder

30th September 2008, 18:20

get rid of acc yay, cheaper regos :D

Bollicks. ACC was a contract that Muldoon took out on our behalf. In short it said give up the right to sue and the State will give you two thirds of your income if you are injured. etc.
There were levies because of this. If you think for one minute that a private insurer is going to give you a cheaper deal than at present you gotta be on another planet. If ya wanna know here's a link.

http://www.psa.org.nz/Libraries/Work%20Issues/Price%20Waterhouse%20review%20of%20ACC%20report%20 March%202008.sflb

Skyryder

Hinny

30th September 2008, 21:06

...the bizzare Electoral Finance Act.

.

If we had this in '75 we would not have got the Muldoon govt.
nuff said.

Salival

30th September 2008, 21:09

I honestly don't think you can trust anyone who seeks power. Very few people have entirely altruistic intentions, everyone has agendas which - if made known to the public - would embarass them.

If we go with the idea that no political party is entirely trustworthy, as can be reasonably demonstrated to a greater or lessor degree, the question becomes not who you can trust, but what to what ends they can be expected to misuse their power.

Now...

John Key is a business man. The National Party are heavily backed by members of the Business Round Table, conservative and right-wing groups. The campaign purse-strings are therefore controlled by a conservative, right-wing agenda. That much should be obvious. National looks out for private enterprise and has a focus on building personal financial wealth through enterprise. This is noble enough.

Labour is backed and funded largely by worker's unions and the like. Sure there'll be some private companies and special interests in there, but in general Labour has a socialist-based agenda - from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That kinda thing, although I admit they get it wrong some of the time (tax cuts could've come MUCH sooner, for example).

I don't vote Labour or National. Surely if the trust issue is taken off the table (we can't trust any of the bastards), the question becomes more about which party would best support you in your hour of need. And I can't help but think that isn't going to be the National Party.

Ocean1

30th September 2008, 21:20

I the question becomes more about which party would best support you in your hour of need. And I can't help but think that isn't going to be the National Party.

I rather think it's more about the propensity of the respective parties to engender that hour of need.

Bunch of extrordinarilly needy fuckers we've become, time to look a bit closer to home for support.

Quartermile

30th September 2008, 21:35

Sorry about the thread name but I can think of no other word that 'so' describes this man.

John Key has got to be the ‘most’ hypocritical cunt in Parliment. He stands up in Parliament and pontificates on Clarke’s dishonesty in respect to the Owens/Peters loan and yet his lack of integrity is demonstrated by his purchase of 50,000 shares of Tranz Rail in Keys own name, and get this, while at the same time criticizing the Labour Government for wanting to buy back the Rail. Keys lame excuse on TV news that no one 'asked' and he lost money in no way excuses the fact that Keys purchase of the shares was too profit. Too profit while at the same time oppose Labour's buy back of the rail has got to be one of the most cynical and unethical actions I have ever witnessed in all my time of political activity. I’ve seen some shockers but this without exception beats all.

Skyryder.
Vote for your communist party then, and enjoy the shit slope the countries already on.

Cos all politicians are 100% honest 100% of the time!

Hinny

30th September 2008, 21:49

... cast your mind back to the last election where Helen got busted for spending tax-payers money on their election campaign. They changed the law to make it o.k, then gave the spent money back to 'charity'. That's my fucking tax money they spend on themselves, illegally, then change the law to make it alright, then go give the money they spent to a charity to look like the good guys.

If you're a hard working Kiwi, then voting Labour would be insane. Skyryder, if you're a student or on the benefit, no explanation needed.

That isn't very factual.
Labour submitted the bill for the pledge cards to Parliamentary Services for payment. It was paid as it was considered lawful and proper to pay it. It was standard practice. The raising of a question of the legitimacy of that payment led to a declaration that it wasn't within the prescribed parameters. Similarly for all parties except the Progressives. This interpretation was in contrast to legal opinions from Queen's Counsel. The law needed to be changed to reflect the reality of common historical practice.
I would gladly pay my share of the cost of a pamphlet from every political party which pledges to enact their stated pre-election policies.
It would certainly make rating each party on their historical performance a lot easier.
If you are still pissed that your tax money was spent in this manner send me your address and I will send you 20c to reimburse you for this 'stolen' money.

Don't, don't, don't,don't ...don't believe the hype.

Max Preload

30th September 2008, 21:58

Capitalism is in another of its death throes; yes, another. The crash of 29 and all the other crashes are much the same; proof that allowing sheer greed to dictate the economy is foolish and bound to end in tears.

How's the USSR doing these days? :rofl: :rolleyes:

Hinny

30th September 2008, 22:17

Vote for your communist party then, and enjoy the shit slope the countries already on.
!

If we are on a shit slope it's because the polls are showing National ahead.

Much has been publicised about the recession we are in. Technically we are in a recession as there was a decline in productivity for the second successive quarter. It went down 0.2% But FFS look at the bigger picture and see how far ahead we are from where we were when Labour came into office. The country is booming.
Get out and about and look at the wealth in this country now. The size of the new homes being built all over the place. Dairy farmers in particular seem to be doing really well.
Interesting also to see the figures published by the AA showing that even with petrol at $2.15 a litre over the last ten years it is 2/3rds the cost of owning and running a car as it was in the previous two ten year periods. During those two periods the cost changed about 0.2%
The statistics suggest that we are better off now than we have been since the demise of the third Labour govt.

Quartermile

30th September 2008, 22:21

If we are on a shit slope it's because the polls are showing National ahead.

The statistics suggest that we are better off now than we have been since the demise of the third Labour govt.

:clap:lol.

pete376403

30th September 2008, 22:50

How's the USSR doing these days? :rofl: :rolleyes:
If there is such a thing as the USSR anymore. Russia on it's own is doing rather well, given that much of Europes oil and gas come from there.
Apart from sideshows like Chechnya and Georgia they have managed to stay out of expensive and ultimately futile wars (unlike the US)

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/RUSSIANFEDERATIONEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20888536~menuPK:2445695~pagePK:14976 18~piPK:217854~theSitePK:305600,00.html

MisterD

1st October 2008, 07:16

Don't, don't, don't,don't ...don't believe the hype.

...convieniently ignoring the fact that the Auditor General (you know, the fella who's ruling actually matters) gave specific instructions and warnings ahead of the election - which Liarbour deliberately ignored. Please also note btw, that although a few individual National candidates broke the rules, the central party did not.

Oh, and for those connoisseurs of good ranting: my new favourite blog Old Holborn (http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2008/09/4-scenarios.html), yes it's a pommie one, but equally applicable to our own version of the socialist paradise.

Quartermile

1st October 2008, 12:10

If there is such a thing as the USSR anymore. Russia on it's own is doing rather well, given that much of Europes oil and gas come from there.
Apart from sideshows like Chechnya and Georgia they have managed to stay out of expensive and ultimately futile wars (unlike the US)

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/RUSSIANFEDERATIONEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20888536~menuPK:2445695~pagePK:14976 18~piPK:217854~theSitePK:305600,00.html
Yes, but they are no longer a communist dictatorship, and even though the US does have these wars their economy(ignoring the current fuckup) is booming.

Jantar

1st October 2008, 13:01

Bollicks. ACC was a contract that Muldoon took out on our behalf. ....... Skyryder

ACC was introduced by the Labour Govt under Kirk in 1973 and became law in 1974. That is one of the reasons I resigned from the Labour Party in 1973.

Skyryder

1st October 2008, 13:21

ACC was introduced by the Labour Govt under Kirk in 1973 and became law in 1974. That is one of the reasons I resigned from the Labour Party in 1973.

I stand corrected. Had this thing that it was Muldoon for some reason.

The 1972 Parliament voted unanimously to pass the Bill into law. The Act covered injuries to earners (both work and non-work injuries) and motor vehicle injuries. The Labour Government came into power later that year, and in 1973 passed an Amendment to the Act providing cover for those not already covered by the 1972 Act (including students, non-earners and visitors to New Zealand).

This would have been Marshal. I never knew that ACC was a bi-partisan piece of legislation.

So who took away the right to sue for liability or was that core
ACC from the start??

Skyryder

Finn

1st October 2008, 13:23

I've never really been able to understand why calling someone a cunt is offensive. A cunt (aka vagina) is actually very useful and provides hours upon hours of fun and pleasure. If there were no cunts in the world, women would be piled 6 high in a scrapheap somewhere. Thankfully, my new 25 year old Brazilian girlfriend has a good one and I must say that I absolutely adore it.

Key is no cunt. He is a man with a penis and a penis is just what this country needs to get it out of the shit. NZ has had over 8 years of economic prosperity (nothing to do with Liarbour by the way) and what have we got to show for it? Absolutely fucking nothing.

So, sorry to all you lefties out there but Key will be the next PM of NZ. I say good luck to him although it's going to take at least 2 terms to attempt to fix up this gigantic pile of turd in the south pacific.

But if it makes you feel better... GO KEY YAH CUNT!!!

Skyryder

1st October 2008, 13:47

Finn

1st October 2008, 14:01

The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of cunt as 2: an unpleasant or stupid person.

Skyryder

Well now that we've cleared that up, how could you possibly find Key unpleasant and stupid particularly when comparing him to Helen Clark? I've met him and find him quite charming and charismatic. As for stupid, perhaps his only sign of stupidity was returning to NZ but perhaps he's a better man than me in that he believes he can make a difference. Sure NZ is a great country, it's just the people that are fucked.

However, if you were to ask most NZers who they think is unpleasant and stupid, I think they'll point in Clark's direction. She is very unpleasant in both looks and personality and she has most definitely shown signs of gross stupidity in what she has done to NZ. Some might say she is a good leader but so was Hitler.

So stop being an unpleasant stupid person Skyryder.

RiderInBlack

1st October 2008, 16:12

So, sorry to all you lefties out there but Key will be the next PM of NZ. I say good luck to him although it's going to take at least 2 terms to attempt to fix up this gigantic pile of turd in the south pacific.
Yep I'm sure he'll single handedly fix up the South Pacific if takes a he takes a few lessons how ta do it from Bush. Best laugh I've had for ages. Thanks. Now pass me a Tui's and get back ta reality.

RiderInBlack

1st October 2008, 17:31

Skyryder

1st October 2008, 17:51

Well now that we've cleared that up, how could you possibly find Key unpleasant and stupid particularly when comparing him to Helen Clark? I've met him and find him quite charming and charismatic. As for stupid, perhaps his only sign of stupidity was returning to NZ but perhaps he's a better man than me in that he believes he can make a difference. Sure NZ is a great country, it's just the people that are fucked.

However, if you were to ask most NZers who they think is unpleasant and stupid, I think they'll point in Clark's direction. She is very unpleasant in both looks and personality and she has most definitely shown signs of gross stupidity in what she has done to NZ. Some might say she is a good leader but so was Hitler.

So stop being an unpleasant stupid person Skyryder.

You may well be right in what you say about Clarke but I doubt if Key will be at the helm of the Nats for the same period that Clarke has been with Labour.

How History will compare the two is open to debate but I'd not want to have an even bet that Key will be seen as greater or even an equal of Clarke. Personly I don't think he will even make the grade. I've heard rumours that even if he wins Key he will be rolled because of his opposition to Douglas in Cabinet. And Key does not have any control over his fellow MP's. He's seen as weakling, by his collegues, charisma or no charisma.

As for Hitler being a good leader? I had a little not ,much but a little respect for your political opinions, even though they are polls apart from my own but to suggest that Hitler was a good leader puts that little bit in jeopardy.

Skyryder

Skyryder

1st October 2008, 18:10

I wouldn't be surprised that in 2-3 terms time (if and that is a big if, Nat lasts 2-3 terms and still has Key as their leader) to see pics of him in a Nazi Uniform with a Hitler Mo (much the same as we are seeing Helen in a Commie Uniform), and being blamed for all that has gone wrong in this Country. Yep, People are that Stupid and Petty.

The thing that gets me RIR is that one minute she is portrayed as some kind of Nazi Sieg Heil bitch or some kind of Communist proletariat slag. That these two opposing ideologies, with nothing in common, are used to demonise Clarke and and Labour indicates that those who use these epithets have little or no knowledgeof NZ politics. Opinions yes but knowledge no. Current Labour policies with few exceptions are centre right. Nats too are in this catorgory but more so than Labour's. Much of Labours so called social policy is borrowed from other legislature and tweaked for home grown use.

For example Congress has banned the use of the incandescent light bulb by 2014. Australia was the first country to ban the bulb with an outright use by 2010. Just one example.

Skyryder

trustme

1st October 2008, 18:25

You may well be right in what you say about Clarke but I doubt if Key will be at the helm of the Nats for the same period that Clarke has been with Labour.

How History will compare the two is open to debate but I'd not want to have an even bet that Key will be seen as greater or even an equal of Clarke. Personly I don't think he will even make the grade. I've heard rumours that even if he wins Key he will be rolled because of his opposition to Douglas in Cabinet. And Key does not have any control over his fellow MP's. He's seen as weakling, by his collegues, charisma or no charisma.

As for Hitler being a good leader? I had a little not ,much but a little respect for your political opinions, even though they are polls apart from my own but to suggest that Hitler was a good leader puts that little bit in jeopardy.

Skyryder

Well where do we start.???
Clark & Piggie are arguably the 2 most dominant NZ politicians in living memory.
Both brilliant at the game, but both flawed. Will Key ever become the consumate politician ?? I hope not , I would hope he has the sense to get out before his ego gets the better of him & he loses his moral authority to run a government as has happened to Clark & Piggie
Ryder you will screech that he has no morals as per his recent fuck up ,but it is no where near what Clark has done over the last 3 years with the election overspend , legal cover up & electoral finance act
Clark will be regarded much as Piggie was brilliant but flawed
She represents the opportunity squandered , in a time of economic boom we went backwards in comparison to other countries

Hitler was the same in spades,brilliant leader but totally flawed, he led Germany out of the mire & turned it around to a point where it could take on the world, thats why they followed him
Fuckwits were sucked in & followed Hitler
Fuckwits have been sucked in & followed Clark, & she has taken us backwards

All I want is someone with a bit of vision & a plan
I don't care who it is or what party
Helen has had 9 years & we all know she ain't it

Finn

1st October 2008, 18:45

As for Hitler being a good leader? I had a little not ,much but a little respect for your political opinions, even though they are polls apart from my own but to suggest that Hitler was a good leader puts that little bit in jeopardy.

Skyryder

But Hitler was a brilliant leader. You can't deny him that.

Nice try trying to link me to being a white supremest just cause I think a little to the right. Typically bloody lefty. :laugh:

Skyryder

1st October 2008, 19:13

But Hitler was a brilliant leader. You can't deny him that.

Nice try trying to link me to being a white supremest just cause I think a little to the right. Typically bloody lefty. :laugh:

Hitler brilliant??...............I don't think so but as an orator.............no ones come close.

A little to right??....................:bash: Jeez Finn have you realy been in retreat meditating on the folly Friedman economic theory. :Oops: Maybe it's the recent Wall St crash so much for the market knows best and all that sort of thing.

You bought up Hitler not me................and as for me linking you to the White Surpremists...................I've given you some stick:angry2: in my day but I've never even implied such a link............but then credit is not on the menue at the moment...........is it.:buggerd:again :rofl::rofl:

Skyryder

MisterD

1st October 2008, 19:17

And Key does not have any control over his fellow MP's. He's seen as weakling, by his collegues, charisma or no charisma.

You're just comparing JK with the narcissistic control freak that is Dear Leader - yes he's a more of a team captain than a dictator but anyone who thinks that's not a good thing ought to have their bumps read...actually come round to my place and I'll give you some free retrophrenology with a sledgehammer.

Flatcap

1st October 2008, 19:22

Much of Labours so called social policy is borrowed from other legislature and tweaked for home grown use.

Skyryder

What! You mean Labour are too stupid to think up their own Nazi Seig Heil Proletariat Commie policies!

Winston001

1st October 2008, 19:40

I stand corrected. Had this thing that it was Muldoon for some reason.

The 1972 Parliament voted unanimously to pass the Bill into law. The Act covered injuries to earners (both work and non-work injuries) and motor vehicle injuries. The Labour Government came into power later that year, and in 1973 passed an Amendment to the Act providing cover for those not already covered by the 1972 Act (including students, non-earners and visitors to New Zealand).

This would have been Marshal. I never knew that ACC was a bi-partisan piece of legislation.

So who took away the right to sue for liability or was that core
ACC from the start??

Yes. ACC grew from the Woodhouse Report and removing the right to sue was fundamental. It was introduced by National and completed by Labour. ACC ranks with womens suffrage and old age pensions as a world-leading innovation. NZ was first with all three.

Winston001

1st October 2008, 19:55

"The Brethren scam" - a bunch of blokes, who know each other because they go to the same church, decide to use their own money to circulate anti-Green Party information.....

I still don't actually see what the problem is here.

Yeah, good man. Once again we were let down by our numbbskull populist media. The Exclusive Brethren are a tiny invisible group among our 4 million kiwis. They have no influence whatsoever.

So - a few of them, about a dozen, decided they wanted to question some political issues. They printed and circulated some pamphlets. That low level and reasonable exercise of freedom of speech created panic and shrieking terror amongst Labour MPs. I don't get it, I really don't.

I'd have thought each and every one of us was guaranteed the right to express our poltical opinions without fear of oppression. Not so - enter the extraordinarily clumsy and plain wrong, Electoral Finance Act. This is what we get with an Attorney General who is not trained in the rule of law. Phil Goff might be very competent but he ain't a legal thinker.

paturoa

1st October 2008, 19:55

blah blah blah ....John Key has got to be the ‘most’ hypocritical cunt in Parliment. b b b

Surely the chief thief deserves that title.

I heard a rumour that there are tax cuts & banding changes due about now?

All of a sudden, just before the Election....

Compare his retoric around the other parties tax proposals before and after his tax changes.

If that doesn't rate way above Key's performance then I need a LOT more beer.

trustme

1st October 2008, 20:56

Hitler brilliant??...............I don't think so but as an orator.............no ones come close. Skyryder

Unfortunately for the rest of the world he didn't just talk the talk
He walked the walk unlike your beloved Clark
He brought a country out of total financial ruin, he rebuilt an economy, he recreated a country that actually produced something, unfortunately that something was death & destruction
Clark/ Cullen are doing their best to walk us back into financial ruin

Hitler was brilliant but evil
Clark is almost brilliant but misguided.

fstfzr

1st October 2008, 21:09

i agree...
the man has been a spineless cock sucker from the start.

but most of you think the govt should own buisness, so stop your bitching when they fuck you over for their own ends

National = just as socialist as labour

Libertarianz

Hate to say this carver but maybe if we had more of those so called spineless cocksuckers in power during the last 9 years they may have taken more notice of you and I on issues such as smacking, tougher sentnceing and the drinking age to name a few, rather than aunties Helen and Bradford making our desisions for us.... phew heavy

MisterD

2nd October 2008, 07:23

This is what we get with an Attorney General who is not trained in the rule of law. Phil Goff might be very competent but he ain't a legal thinker.

The AG is Cullen...snide, smarmy, pin-striped dwarf that he is.

trustme

2nd October 2008, 07:34

An AG that is not a lawyer , that is why we have got total fuckups like the electoral finance act & the anti terror law that failed so miserably with Tama & his lot

You need a strong & competent AG to run the rule over legislation & make sure it will actually work . Sullen is not even a lawyer , bang goes the privy council, We are expected to respect the rule of law but this labour administration has devalued the rule of law to a point where no one respects it anymore.

So much damage to be repaired.

Salival

2nd October 2008, 19:52

Yeah, good man. Once again we were let down by our numbbskull populist media. The Exclusive Brethren are a tiny invisible group among our 4 million kiwis. They have no influence whatsoever.

So - a few of them, about a dozen, decided they wanted to question some political issues. They printed and circulated some pamphlets. That low level and reasonable exercise of freedom of speech created panic and shrieking terror amongst Labour MPs. I don't get it, I really don't.

I'd have thought each and every one of us was guaranteed the right to express our poltical opinions without fear of oppression. Not so - enter the extraordinarily clumsy and plain wrong, Electoral Finance Act. This is what we get with an Attorney General who is not trained in the rule of law. Phil Goff might be very competent but he ain't a legal thinker.

Yep, I wouldn't deny their right to do this. However this isn't really a freedom of speech issue. It was more about what went on at the time with Don Brash lying through his teeth about the whole thing.

It's also worth noting that the Exclusive Brethren (who are genuinely nice people as my grandparents lived next to some when I was a kid) and similar groups have certain tax exemptions on the understanding that they won't interfere in political matters.

I think it was those two things that caused the shit storm - Brash's lying and their tax agreements rather than the pamphlets themselves.

Winston001

2nd October 2008, 20:36

The AG is Cullen...snide, smarmy, pin-striped dwarf that he is.

Ach a blonde moment :doh: My bad. Anyway we all agree about the ignorance of the rule of law.

MisterD

3rd October 2008, 15:08

Friday fun - Hitting Metal Blog

idb

3rd October 2008, 15:22

Sooo...we need more lawyers in Gummint?
What an odd turn this thread has taken!

MisterD

3rd October 2008, 15:27

Sooo...we need more lawyers in Gummint?
What an odd turn this thread has taken!

No, just one or two in the right places, otherwise fuck-ups are made which mean more lawyers are needed downstream...

Winston001

3rd October 2008, 16:26

No, just one or two in the right places, otherwise fuck-ups are made which mean more lawyers are needed downstream...

Yeah......so actually things are fine the way they are......:niceone: In fact let's have Trevor Mallard as Attorney General, that would be fun. Or maybe Tariana Turia.... :laugh:

Winston001

3rd October 2008, 16:38

Sooo...we need more lawyers in Gummint?
What an odd turn this thread has taken!

I'll try to be serious for a moment.

There are some fundamental concepts which underlie the basis of law. The study of them is called jurisprudence and while it's for egg-heads, it actually does matter. You can think of it as our constitution.

Imagine a hospital manager devising a cost-cutting rule regarding a surgical procedure. Lets say, no anesthetic. Ok, well Cullen is like that - he has no conception of greater issues than purely getting what his party wants. Thus we have the Electoral Finance Act which the Law Society (along with plenty of others) told Parliament would not work. Even the Government doesn't understand it.

Patrick

3rd October 2008, 16:57

So here we are at post #327, 22 pages of political stuff, and not a single person has asked the most important political question...

Is John KEY changing his name to Don after the election?????

Robert Taylor

3rd October 2008, 20:45

Party vote National, electorate vote National. Get rid of the Labour morons and their loonier left wing friends

SPman

3rd October 2008, 20:52

Yes, but they are no longer a communist dictatorship, and even though the US does have these wars their economy(ignoring the current fuckup) is booming.Been there lately? - a large part of the population would not agree with you on that one.....

Winston001

3rd October 2008, 21:36

Been there lately? - a large part of the population would not agree with you on that one.....

Actually I sometimes wonder about the same question with China, India, Vietnam....the Asian Tigers. There are hundreds of millions of peasants in these countries who still struggle for a daily living, for whom fresh clean water, medicine, and plentiful food is unknown.

The cities aren't much different - at least from what I could see of Mumbai, Delhi, and Agra. Vibrant, extraordinarily busy, industrial, and filled with poverty.

pete376403

3rd October 2008, 22:23

Winston001

3rd October 2008, 22:34

So the USA - the remaining "superpower" - is really on par with third world China, India or even their old enemy Vietnam?
If it wasn't for the nukes the US wouldn't even be on par. I guess one day China will want to cash in all those US Treasury bonds they have been buying up and end up owning the country
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Quoi?? :shit: I think we were talking about Russia. The average American's lot is equivalent to the upper class in any of those Asian Tigers. Yes, there are poor in the USA, but it's all relative. Compared to the real poor in the world - a couple of billion people, those in poverty in the West are still very privileged. Go and have a look at the beggars in Mumbai or Sao Paulo.

The USA is a looooonnnggggg way from having fallen. But if it does, in the sense of withdrawing from international peace-keeping, UNESCO, etc, who is going to take up the reins? The Europeans?? Like they did in the Balkans?? :jerry: NOT.

Swoop

4th October 2008, 14:48

I guess one day China will want to cash in all those US Treasury bonds they have been buying up and end up owning the country.
Personally I would like to have them checked for "authenticity" since the Chinese fakes are getting very good.

Quartermile

5th October 2008, 16:16

Been there lately? - a large part of the population would not agree with you on that one.....
No, but assuming you have, do the people hate or even dislike that situation?

"A recent controversial poll revealed that over thirty-five percent of Russians would vote for Stalin if he were still alive."

"A survey from late 2006 revealed that 47% of Russian respondents viewed Stalin as a positive figure, and only 29% as a negative one."

-Wikipedia

Dilligaf

6th October 2008, 11:13

Friday fun - Hitting Metal Blog

This one hasn't even been photoshopped.
Seriously, they need to think about their advertising agency...

idleidolidyll

10th October 2008, 17:14

Robert Taylor

10th October 2008, 20:53

This is well worth reading. It's about the UK but translates to all capitalists:

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/05/banks.marketturmoil
This terrifying moment is our one chance for a new world

The past 20 years has seen an unparalleled boom in the money markets. As the free market blossomed, so too did cheap debt, huge bonuses and ostentatious wealth. Now, as our financial system lies on the brink of collapse, it is time to build a new one, based on fairness instead of naked greed, and with long-term commitment to building businesses and supporting investment

Sunday October 5 2008

Click the link and read the entire article: it speaks volumes about the naked greed behind the current crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/05/banks.marketturmoil

And I bet millions of socialists also profited...................but candidly I do agree that the financial institutions have indeed been a bunch of filthy money grubbing bastards. Capitalism is good, as long as business is truly productive ( and actually doing something useful ) rather than brazenly speculative and it carries along people with it.

The Stranger

10th October 2008, 21:41

Hitler brilliant??...............I don't think so but as an orator.............no ones come close.

Seriously Skyryder you are deluded if you don't think Hitler was both brilliant and a great leader.

The fact that I find his ideals and very many of his deeds repugnant in no way detracts from him being a great leader of men and a brilliant mind.

Has anyone else in history achieved so much?

Winston001

10th October 2008, 22:00

Seriously Skyryder you are deluded if you don't think Hitler was both brilliant and a great leader.

The fact that I find his ideals and very many of his deeds repugnant in no way detracts from him being a great leader of men and a brilliant mind.

Has anyone else in history achieved so much?

Oh well, always up for a challenge :woohoo:

Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Muhummad (blessed be his name), Saladin, Jesus Christ, Charlemagne, Atilla the Hun, Julius Ceasar, Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin.......

The Stranger

10th October 2008, 22:22

Oh well, always up for a challenge :woohoo:

Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Muhummad (blessed be his name), Saladin, Jesus Christ, Charlemagne, Atilla the Hun, Julius Ceasar, Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin.......

Hmm, how many of these people inherited a country in absolute ruin and sans military immediately prior to attempting world domination in a 13yr reign?

Either way, the fact that you would compare him to these people only bares out my argument - he was a brilliant leader.

Winston001

10th October 2008, 23:36

Fair enough. Adolf Hitler was a charismatic man, a mesmerising speaker, and politically brilliant for the times he lived in. That makes him a leader in most senses of the word and he certainly impelled the German people on an extraordinary growth path.

However that path was fed by resources and Germany was fast running out of them. Its one of the problems of fascism - its a type of war economy, highly aggressive, controlling, and dynamic. No standing still and having a cup of tea.

The Anschluss of invading Austria had to happen, as did Poland etc to feed the German economy. That isn't actually a sign of success.

Hitler was no economist, no industrialist, and certainly no military leader.

RiderInBlack

11th October 2008, 05:16

Hmm, how many of these people inherited a country in absolute ruin and sans military immediately prior to attempting world domination in a 13yr reign?

Either way, the fact that you would compare him to these people only bares out my argument - he was a brilliant leader.Yes but brilliant Leader doesn't necessarily make the one that is good for the Country, or the World, which is more important to me (to bad USA does think about that when they are voting). Know who ya know now about Hitler, would ya still vote him in?

By the way, see the gap is closing between Nat and Labour. Going ta be a close one. See Winnie is sucking in the Gray Powers again too.

The Stranger

11th October 2008, 05:39

Yes but brilliant Leader doesn't necessarily make the one that is good for the Country, or the World, which is more important to me (to bad USA does think about that when they are voting). Know who ya know now about Hitler, would ya still vote him in?

Sure - similar to Klark
This however seems to be a point Skyryder overlooks, I don't, hence I didn't vote for him, nor her.

Yes interesting about the polls, just goes to show the stupidity of man, I won't be at all surprised if she manages to bribe and hoodwink enough to get elected.

People should vote what's best for the country, not what's best for them. However it becomes easy for labour as they simply bribe soft targets like Maori, women and students with candy and they lap it up, not wondering for a second where the bribes come from and if they are sustainable.

We get what we deserve.

Robert Taylor

11th October 2008, 09:30

Sure - similar to Klark
This however seems to be a point Skyryder overlooks, I don't, hence I didn't vote for him, nor her.

Yes interesting about the polls, just goes to show the stupidity of man, I won't be at all surprised if she manages to bribe and hoodwink enough to get elected.

People should vote what's best for the country, not what's best for them. However it becomes easy for labour as they simply bribe soft targets like Maori, women and students with candy and they lap it up, not wondering for a second where the bribes come from and if they are sustainable.

We get what we deserve.

What you have just stated is the cold hard reality, sad and true.

RiderInBlack

11th October 2008, 15:46

Yes interesting about the polls, just goes to show the stupidity of man, I won't be at all surprised if she manages to bribe and hoodwink enough to get elected.

People should vote what's best for the country, not what's best for them. However it becomes easy for labour as they simply bribe soft targets like Maori, women and students with candy and they lap it up, not wondering for a second where the bribes come from and if they are sustainable.

We get what we deserve.Agree with that statement (too many think that tax cuts are really going ta help the Country), but disagree as to whom would be best. For me it is a choice between the two evils and personally think that Key will be worse than Helen.

The Stranger

11th October 2008, 16:03

Agree with that statement (too many think that tax cuts are really going ta help the Country), but disagree as to whom would be best. For me it is a choice between the two evils and personally think that Key will be worse than Helen.

I will share with you a maxim. It's really very very simple and over the years has enabled me to anticipate the outcome of many a policy - usually to my advantage.

The more you tax something, the less of it you get.
The more you subsidise something the more of it you get.

That simple!, no smoke and mirrors, no tricks.

You can candy coat it, spin it left or right, call it a tariff or a levy, you can pay millions for PR and it will still be the same outcome.

The more we tax the rich, the less of them we get, the more we subsidise the poor, the more of them we get and vice versa.

As I say, we get what we deserve. Vote for more tax if you like. You know the outcome.

Swoop

14th October 2008, 08:48

Superb.
10 char

davereid

14th October 2008, 16:06

...too many think that tax cuts are really going ta help the Country....[/COLOR][/FONT]

Prosperity through taxation !

If losing 50% of your income in tax hasn't made you hard working and rich, lets make it 70%.

Still not rich and hardworking ? Then we could make tax 100%.

Then, you would be a slave.

You may not be rich as a slave.

But I can assure you, you would be hard working.

buggerit

23rd September 2014, 10:29

Sorry about the thread name but I can think of no other word that 'so' describes this man.

John Key has got to be the ‘most’ hypocritical cunt in Parliment. He stands up in Parliament and pontificates on Clarke’s dishonesty in respect to the Owens/Peters loan and yet his lack of integrity is demonstrated by his purchase of 50,000 shares of Tranz Rail in Keys own name, and get this, while at the same time criticizing the Labour Government for wanting to buy back the Rail. Keys lame excuse on TV news that no one 'asked' and he lost money in no way excuses the fact that Keys purchase of the shares was too profit. Too profit while at the same time oppose Labour's buy back of the rail has got to be one of the most cynical and unethical actions I have ever witnessed in all my time of political activity. I’ve seen some shockers but this without exception beats all.

Skyryder.

The minority have spoken,cunts are still useful,nothing to see here folks, move on<_<

SPman

23rd September 2014, 12:50

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/JonL_photo/1522141_10203821582412066_3563025520330817648_n_zp sf3794be4.jpg (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/JonL_photo/media/1522141_10203821582412066_3563025520330817648_n_zp sf3794be4.jpg.html)

sidecar bob

23rd September 2014, 12:58

http://s198.photobucket.com/user/JonL_photo/media/1522141_10203821582412066_3563025520330817648_n_zp sf3794be4.jpg.html

A highly intelligent & well thought out post with substance. Well done!! Except you got John Key & Hone Harawira's photos mixed up somehow.

Oscar

23rd September 2014, 13:02

A highly intelligent & well thought out post with substance. Well done!! Except you got John Key & Hone Harawira's photos mixed up somehow.

He's a very bad loser.
He can't stand the thought that well over half the electorate don't share his world view.

mashman

23rd September 2014, 13:07

He's a very bad loser.
He can't stand the thought that well over half the electorate don't share his world view.

over half eh :rofl: of those who voted yes, of the electorate, no.

Oscar

23rd September 2014, 13:18

over half eh :rofl: of those who voted yes, of the electorate, no.

.

If you could read for comprehension, I said that over half the electorate didn't agree with him.
Obviously those who didn't vote, didn't agree with him as they couldn't be bothered to get off thier arses..

mashman

23rd September 2014, 13:49

If you could read for comprehension, I said that over half the electorate didn't agree with him.
Obviously those who didn't vote, didn't agree with him as they couldn't be bothered to get off thier arses..

Sorry, I'm limiting fuckknuckle interaction these days for the very reason that they only understand 1 way and serve only 1 person. Having said that, you asked them all personally I take it?
Obviously you didn't coz you're still breathing. Again, you asked everyone that didn't vote why? Turns out you're stupid. Go figure.

SPman

23rd September 2014, 14:40

He's a very bad loser.
He can't stand the thought that well over half the electorate don't share his world view.Could I care less that over half those who voted don't agree with my world view?
Nah!
My brothers think the sun shines out JK's arse - I think they're thicko's - that's the way the world turns.

The "highly intelligent & well thought out post with substance" came from my Night-Rod riding, be-tattooed nephew from Brisbane (or one of his mates).
Ill pass on the compliments....:lol:

5150

23rd September 2014, 14:41

Well, if he was a Queen, he'd had a Queensland

If he was a King, he'd have a Kingdom.

But he only has a country, that would explain why he is a Cunt....;)

Oscar

23rd September 2014, 15:17

Sorry, I'm limiting fuckknuckle interaction these days for the very reason that they only understand 1 way and serve only 1 person. Having said that, you asked them all personally I take it?
Obviously you didn't coz you're still breathing. Again, you asked everyone that didn't vote why? Turns out you're stupid. Go figure.

So you're limiting fuckknuckle interaction eh?
Suicide is obviously an option then?

mashman

23rd September 2014, 16:04

So you're limiting fuckknuckle interaction eh?
Suicide is obviously an option then?

Yup.
Well that's obviously entirely up to you... however I'd rather you stayed around.

Swoop

23rd September 2014, 16:23

Holy thread-dredge Batman!
6years?

Glad to see the retarded fuckwits are still whining about the loss.

JimO

23rd September 2014, 16:44

any body know what happened to skyrider

oldrider

23rd September 2014, 19:01

any body know what happened to skyrider

Ask Dangerous I think he will Know! :yes:

SPman

23rd September 2014, 23:33

Holy thread-dredge Batman!
6years?

Glad to see the retarded fuckwits are still whining about the loss. Did you lose something?

avgas

24th September 2014, 02:52

.
If you could read for comprehension, I said that over half the electorate didn't agree with him.
Obviously those who didn't vote, didn't agree with him as they couldn't be bothered to get off thier arses..
Your maths is wrong now. :laugh:
A third. Which is slightly more than those who didn't vote, and slightly less than those who voted against them.

Electorate is not those who cast a vote, it is those who are eligible. Rocket science I know.

dangerous

24th September 2014, 06:30

The minority have spoken,cunts are still useful,nothing to see here folks, move on<_<
fuck me... a SIX year dredge, is that a record :confused:

http://s198.photobucket.com/user/JonL_photo/media/1522141_10203821582412066_3563025520330817648_n_zp sf3794be4.jpg.html

thats quite funny LOL... however its as good as it gets, kuntlips, horries, dope heads, fat kruts austrians what ever...

any body know what happened to skyrider

Ask Dangerous I think he will Know! :yes:
I think I do... pushing daisies up at a guess

Oscar

24th September 2014, 07:49

Your maths is wrong now. :laugh:
A third. Which is slightly more than those who didn't vote, and slightly less than those who voted against them.

Electorate is not those who cast a vote, it is those who are eligible. Rocket science I know.

I know what an electorate is. If people agreed with him they would have got off their arses and voted.

avgas

24th September 2014, 08:02

I know what an electorate is. If people agreed with him they would have got off their arses and voted.
They didn't.
(eagerly await you to go an edit your comment, I understand you typed something other than what you wanted to say)

But all fun aside.
In broad statements......
1/3 of the country think he should be in power, 1/3 (+ a bit) think he shouldn't and 1/3 (- a bit) think its not worth voting anymore.

Which is a solemn statistic really. Regardless of whom is in power.
I wonder what the stats would have been if they voted:
"Should John Key be in power?"
or
"Are you happy with the way elections are run?"

Both of those only require a binary response, but the results would raise the right questions.
Right now we ask the wrong questions.

Jantar

24th September 2014, 08:08

Those who don't vote are saying that they are happy with the status quo. If they wanted a change then they would vote. Simple really.

mashman

24th September 2014, 08:25

Those who don't vote are saying that they are happy with the status quo. If they wanted a change then they would vote. Simple really.

:killingme... poor deluded soul.

Scuba_Steve

24th September 2014, 08:38

Those who don't vote are saying that they are happy with the status quo. If they wanted a change then they would vote. Simple really.

Next you'll be telling us domestic abuse victims that don't straight up leave their partners like getting the bash :facepalm:

Oscar

24th September 2014, 09:19

They didn't.
(eagerly await you to go an edit your comment, I understand you typed something other than what you wanted to say)

But all fun aside.
In broad statements......
1/3 of the country think he should be in power, 1/3 (+ a bit) think he shouldn't and 1/3 (- a bit) think its not worth voting anymore.

Which is a solemn statistic really. Regardless of whom is in power.
I wonder what the stats would have been if they voted:
"Should John Key be in power?"
or
"Are you happy with the way elections are run?"

Both of those only require a binary response, but the results would raise the right questions.
Right now we ask the wrong questions.

By my maths 22.96% didn't vote.
That's not even close to a third or even a third minus a bit.

As for somehow indicating that the non-vote means they're not happy with the systems, that assumption is just as silly as saying they didn't vote because they're happy with the status quo or are prepared to let other people decide.

What makes you think that those 700,00-odd people would respond to your question anymore than they respond to the general election?

SPman

24th September 2014, 13:12

I believe in some systems, a non vote is counted as a vote for the status quo. The effect is the same, anyway, with a "right" leaning government. Their supporters are more liable to vote than not.
Where there is choice (ie, not 3 parties all the same - as in the UK), if you want to change anything by conventional methods, you should vote. And, under MMP, vote strategically. Unfortunately, too many people seem to have trouble with this concept.

Heirachical stupidity plays a part here.......

Naki Rat

24th September 2014, 13:19

Major Fisheries swoop on Hawkes Bay fishing company (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10537974/Alleged-illegal-fish-export-business-hooked) who are accused of exporting more fish than they claim to catch.

http://www.hawkesbayseafoods.co.nz/uploads/85795/images/Prime.jpg
Surely not. These guys keep such good company (http://www.hawkesbayseafoods.co.nz/About-Us.html) :rolleyes:

Oscar

24th September 2014, 13:22

Voltaire

24th September 2014, 13:36

Whats wrong with not voting? If you went into a shop and there was nothing you liked would you buy something just because your there?

mashman

24th September 2014, 13:37

Oscar

24th September 2014, 13:48

My non vote is a strategic vote. Rather that than a protest vote which accomplishes absolutely everything and encourages change.

You should stand then.
I certainly wouldn't vote for you...

mashman

24th September 2014, 13:59

You should stand then.
I certainly wouldn't vote for you...

When I get my ducks in a row I intend to do that very thing.
No surprises there as you're displaying typical voter behaviour.

SPman

24th September 2014, 15:33

Someone casting aspersions of stupidity should probably use a spell check. Do you actually know what hierarchical stupidity is?.....

Oscar

24th September 2014, 16:34

Do you actually know what hierarchical stupidity is?.....

The propensity of people to assume that people above them in the hierarchy are automatically smarter and/or better informed than them.
It is a great theory to use if you're trying to explain outcomes or opinions that you don't agree with.
It can also explain why, despite you knowing just how smart you really are, you are getting nowhere in life....

Swoop

24th September 2014, 17:21

Did you lose something?
No.
But apparently leftists' have. They will also be losing their "leader" in the foreseeable future too.

1/3 of the country think he should be in power, 1/3 (+ a bit) think he shouldn't and 1/3 (- a bit) think its not worth voting anymore.
There is also a percentage who are too stupid to be allowed to vote.
A case in point. A family friend decided to vote for Winston. Unfortunately she couldn't see his name on the voting papers.
She lives in the East Coast Bays electorate... :facepalm::bash::wacko:

SPman

24th September 2014, 17:41

The propensity of people to assume that people above them in the hierarchy are automatically smarter and/or better informed than them. - Also the propensity of people at the top of a hierachy to become totally disconnected from those at the bottom.
It is a great theory to use if you're trying to explain outcomes or opinions that you don't agree with. - true
It can also explain why, despite you knowing just how smart you really are, you are getting nowhere in life....
Can also be termed "functional stupidity"
Mats Alvesson and André Spicer, writing in Journal of Management Studies (49:7 November 2012) present “A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8650451/Alvesson and Spicer 12 JMS.pdf)” which details studies they have done into it - a bit wordy, but sort of lays things out.

Functional stupidity is neither delusional nor irrational nor ignorant: organizations restrict smartness in rational and informed ways which serve explicit organizational interests. It is, if you will, a sort of “enlightened stupidity”:
Functional stupidity is organizationally-supported lack of reflexivity, substantive reasoning, and justification (my italics). It entails a refusal to use intellectual resources outside a narrow and “safe” terrain. It can provide a sense of certainty that allows organizations to function smoothly. This can save the organization and its members from the frictions provoked by doubt and reflection. Functional stupidity contributes to maintaining and strengthening organizational order. It can also motivate people, help them to cultivate their careers, and subordinate them to socially acceptable forms of management and leadership. Such positive outcomes can further reinforce functional stupidity.

I often wonder how much people are affected in their general lives, those who are allied with, or work in such organisations, (Large businesses, corporations, government, etc ) when they're subjected to this - perhaps this ties in with the Milgram theory that 2/3rds of people will obey or go along with perceived authority even if they think it's morally or ethically wrong.

I've always been an anarchistic loner who's done his best to avoid anything that reeks of a structure, so where I am in life is just fine.

mashman

24th September 2014, 21:37

There is also a percentage who are too stupid to be allowed to vote.
A case in point. A family friend decided to vote for Winston. Unfortunately she couldn't see his name on the voting papers.
She lives in the East Coast Bays electorate... :facepalm::bash::wacko:

The ironic thing that this election has shown is that the left will not vote for their own party if they have little confidence in it. The right will vote for the right irrespective. The left is the thinking mans totty... quite possibly why tories rarely breed outside of their political circles and have such a retarded view on life.

She wanted to vote for Winston, whoop dee... and OMG she doesn't know how the political/voting system works (or doesn't as the case is). Irrespective, that is the exact same sentiment used when a right whinge voter ticks that box. Vote nat local candidate, party vote nat. Both can communicate what they like in their candidate/party and the odd policy here and there, yet both voting for reasons other than policy. Rather be dead than vote red oft being the cry I've heard.

avgas

25th September 2014, 03:35

Those who don't vote are saying that they are happy with the status quo. If they wanted a change then they would vote. Simple really.
Because the alternative would be voting for the status quo?

So just to clear this up:
- if you don't vote you are happy with the government, so you don't feel the need for change.
- if you do vote you should be happy with the government because you voted for them.

Your right - it is simple. I believe the term is "lose-lose situation".
But who knows - your elected government might deliver exactly what you ever wanted in life. If so - congratulations to you, and I am so horribly wrong.

avgas

25th September 2014, 03:37

avgas

25th September 2014, 03:59

Whats wrong with not voting? If you went into a shop and there was nothing you liked would you buy something just because your there?
"Welcome to the store sir, how can I help you?"
"I was hoping to buy some food"
"Certainly, Red of Blue?"
"No, I don't think you understand - I need something that will fix my hunger"
"Red, Blue or Green......I might even have some black stuff lying around"
"What do they taste like? Is there a difference?"
"Well not really - there is a subtle difference in taste.......but they all taste like shit"
"Well will it cure my hunger?"
"No actually, in fact if you go with the blue one it might make you hungrier"
"What about the red one?"
"Ah good choice - the red one will just make you shit more often"
"That sound terrible - what about the black and the green ones"
#blank look#
"You're not one of those weirdo's are you, no one eats black or green - its full of crazy shit"
"No but red and blue sound horrible to eat - so I think I should try something else"
"Ah! Well unfortunately even if you buy black or green, your going to have to eat some Red or Blue anyway."
"What the fuck, why would I have to eat some red or blue, if I buy black and green"
"Because that is how we sell black and green, usually Black comes with blue, and Green usually comes with Red.....but it changes every day"
"So basically nothing here is healthy, or food, or going to cure my hunger - in fact everything here is bound to put me in a worse position than I am right now"
"Correct sir - but which would you like?"
"None - didn't you hear what I said"
"As so you mean blue sir - a fine choice"
"NO! I said none, I want none!!!"
"No sir you have to have one - its the law, now sit back and eat your blue"
"This isn't even fucking good for meejskdnfsjklbgsuidfuisfhbekj....."

MisterD

25th September 2014, 09:53

The ironic thing that this election has shown is that the left will not vote for their own party if they have little confidence in it. The right will vote for the right irrespective.

No, the tribal left will vote for the tribal left - it appears that a hard floor of about 24% of people vote Labour because that's what Grandad did, and about another 10% will vote for other left parties if the Labour Party are in utter disarray.

On the other side a similar number will always vote National, even when they're in utter disarray (what did Blinglish get? 22.4%?)

There's then a chunk of vote that floats in the middle that wants reassurance and stability and competence in whoever they're voting for but doesn't like one party to have too much power hence Winston's vote increasing and limiting National's vote (they only have the ability to govern alone because of the wasted vote that went to the CCCP), hence also the highwater mark of Untied Future in National's obliteration under Bill.

Banditbandit

25th September 2014, 10:05

I bet she gave up and voted for National or Labour. Which she knew as "Red team" or "blue team".

I hope she knew which was which ...

mashman

25th September 2014, 10:26

No, the tribal left will vote for the tribal left - it appears that a hard floor of about 24% of people vote Labour because that's what Grandad did, and about another 10% will vote for other left parties if the Labour Party are in utter disarray.

On the other side a similar number will always vote National, even when they're in utter disarray (what did Blinglish get? 22.4%?)

There's then a chunk of vote that floats in the middle that wants reassurance and stability and competence in whoever they're voting for but doesn't like one party to have too much power hence Winston's vote increasing and limiting National's vote (they only have the ability to govern alone because of the wasted vote that went to the CCCP), hence also the highwater mark of Untied Future in National's obliteration under Bill.

Did you ask them all? :bleh:

Voters, they're all fucked in the head, especially those who vote for the lesser of two evils. "So sir, would you prefer nails through the palms or through the wrists.".

sidecar bob

25th September 2014, 10:44

When I get my ducks in a row I intend to do that very thing.
No surprises there as you're displaying typical voter behaviour.

you could call it "The Delusional Self Righteous Party"
Or the "All Day To Waste Arguing On The Internet" party

mashman

25th September 2014, 10:58

you could call it "The Delusional Self Righteous Party"
Or the "All Day To Waste Arguing On The Internet" party

I could, but the left and right already have the IP, TM and Copyright according to the internet.
Isn't that what the internet's for?

Oscar

25th September 2014, 11:05

you could call it "The Delusional Self Righteous Party"
Or the "All Day To Waste Arguing On The Internet" party

How about "The I just know better" Party?
Or the "Fucked in the scone raving looney on the interweb party" (actually that's probably too close to Internet Mana)?

MisterD

25th September 2014, 12:08

Did you ask them all? :bleh:

Any actual logical arguments against those hypotheses? You're right, none of us would expect that from you.

mashman

25th September 2014, 12:51

Any actual logical arguments against those hypotheses? You're right, none of us would expect that from you.

From the man that says an R.B.E. can't work because people won't like it? Not because they know about it, but that once they do know about it they won't like it?

There is NO logical argument for voting for the lesser of 2 evils, just as there is no logic in voting for a party on the basis that you'd never vote for another. So whilst I agree with large chunks of your post, in principle, I see it as inherently naive of a person to vote for a party that has the bare minimum of policy detail on display... and given that there isn't a NO CONFIDENCE option on the ballot, I guess they simply don't want to know or present options to ALL voters. Fuckin pathetic given that the very same politicians claim to be my representative without giving me the option of voting for what I believe. Where's the logic in that?

SPman

25th September 2014, 13:11

(they only have the ability to govern alone because of the wasted vote that went to the CCCP), I thought the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991..........and who'd vote for them.

sidecar bob

25th September 2014, 13:39

I could, but the left and right already have the IP, TM and Copyright according to the internet.
Isn't that what the internet's for?

Im sure that the strength of this proposed party, will be its leader's ability to accept the viewpoints of others that dont align exactly with his own, to also be valid.

mashman

25th September 2014, 13:49

Im sure that the strength of this proposed party, will be its leader's ability to accept the viewpoints of others that dont align exactly with his own, to also be valid.

Typical 2 dimensional fuckwit. The requirement of a leader is archaic and would only be uttered by those who wish to be led. Sorry to disappoint, but that's you as an R.B.E. does not require A leader. :killingme irony of all ironies. Look son, I grew up thinking almost exactly the same as you and have used the arguments that spew from your cockhole in the days when I was a naive fucktard. In english, that means I've changed my viewpoints, primarily because the one's that I used to use, and you currently use, are moronic.

Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news... or should I have lied to you and led you around by the nose for a bit?

Banditbandit

25th September 2014, 15:11

... or should I have lied to you and led you around by the nose for a bit?

That one .. it makes for a better spectator sport ..

sidecar bob

25th September 2014, 15:32

Typical 2 dimensional fuckwit. The requirement of a leader is archaic and would only be uttered by those who wish to be led. Sorry to disappoint, but that's you as an R.B.E. does not require A leader. :killingme irony of all ironies. Look son, I grew up thinking almost exactly the same as you and have used the arguments that spew from your cockhole in the days when I was a naive fucktard. In english, that means I've changed my viewpoints, primarily because the one's that I used to use, and you currently use, are moronic.

Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news... or should I have lied to you and led you around by the nose for a bit?

Awesome rant bro!! Crack on with setting this party up, It should make for some fantastic spectator sport. You may be able to out do the Kim & Hone show.

avgas

25th September 2014, 15:34

I hope she knew which was which ...
I used to know the answer to that question. Now.......I wonder if we don't just have 2 shades of purple.

Oscar

25th September 2014, 15:44

Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news... or should I have lied to you and led you around by the nose for a bit?

For someone to lie, they would need to actually know what the truth was.

mashman

25th September 2014, 16:36

That one .. it makes for a better spectator sport ..

It does... but until they plop the contract under my nose with me having the major share of the media rights, fuck 'em, I'll do eet my own way ;).

Awesome rant bro!! Crack on with setting this party up, It should make for some fantastic spectator sport. You may be able to out do the Kim & Hone show.

I've got to find funding first, eh, eh, eh. I can guarantee the odd f-bomb and lots of coughing of the word bullshit. No point going into it without having confidence that the electorate will see the sense in what will eventually be presented and then vote it into existence. It's an inevitability and a long life. I feel for Hone, I really do. Not afraid to call a spade a spade :shifty: and likely a focus on the people he believes he can help. Politics is a rough game when it's people v's the economy, I know this :laugh:.

But first, I need to generate a revenue stream. Ironically, an R.B.E. wouldn't require such a thing as a revenue stream, coz a good idea is a good idea and should see the light of day... not be left on the drawing board due to budget constraint. Sigh, some day you kids'll get it ;)

For someone to lie, they would need to actually know what the truth was.

Nah, public perception trumps that.

MisterD

25th September 2014, 17:49

From the man that says an R.B.E. can't work because people won't like it? Not because they know about it, but that once they do know about it they won't like it?

An RBE won't work because it complete fucking nonsense. I didn't say anything about people "not liking" it.

So whilst I agree with large chunks of your post, in principle, I see it as inherently naive of a person to vote for a party that has the bare minimum of policy detail on display...

Like I've said before, most voters don't vote for anyone, they vote against what the most dislike. That's why I'm such a fan of preferential voting, it allows people to give support to parties they actually agree with, without the fear they're letting the other guy in.

mashman

25th September 2014, 18:21

An RBE won't work because it complete fucking nonsense. I didn't say anything about people "not liking" it.

Like I've said before, most voters don't vote for anyone, they vote against what the most dislike. That's why I'm such a fan of preferential voting, it allows people to give support to parties they actually agree with, without the fear they're letting the other guy in.

So why is it a complete fucking nonsense? Don't you understand it?

So you've asked them all? You reckon that the majority vote negatively? I don't. The system of voting is going to change what exactly? It's a facade.

Jantar

25th September 2014, 18:41

Because the alternative would be voting for the status quo?

So just to clear this up:
- if you don't vote you are happy with the government, so you don't feel the need for change.
- if you do vote you should be happy with the government because you voted for them.

Your right - it is simple. I believe the term is "lose-lose situation".
But who knows - your elected government might deliver exactly what you ever wanted in life. If so - congratulations to you, and I am so horribly wrong.
Not quite:
- if you don't vote you are happy with the government, so you don't feel the need for change.
- if you do vote you should be happy with the government if you voted for them, and they carry out the policies they said.
- if you do vote you should NOT be happy with the government if you voted for them, and they do not carry out the policies they said.
- If you do vote you should NOT be happy with the government if you didn't vote for them.

If you are not happy with the status quo then you must vote to change it, because a non vote will never change it.

Incidentally, I did not vote National, and will not while John Key and Nick Smith are in Parliament.

MisterD

25th September 2014, 21:15

So why is it a complete fucking nonsense? Don't you understand it?

I understand it perfectly well. If you remove any kind of "cost" against a resource, you need some person to decide where to allocate it. Recipe. For. Disaster.

So you've asked them all? You reckon that the majority vote negatively? I don't. The system of voting is going to change what exactly? It's a facade.

Isn't it obvious? How many people might like to vote Social Credit, but are scared of National so vote Labour as the best anti-Nat vote? Look at the other direction, I know plenty of people that didn't vote ACT because a Nat vote was the best guarantee against Labour/Green/Dotcon fuckup.

mashman

25th September 2014, 21:50

I understand it perfectly well. If you remove any kind of "cost" against a resource, you need some person to decide where to allocate it. Recipe. For. Disaster.

Isn't it obvious? How many people might like to vote Social Credit, but are scared of National so vote Labour as the best anti-Nat vote? Look at the other direction, I know plenty of people that didn't vote ACT because a Nat vote was the best guarantee against Labour/Green/Dotcon fuckup.

Why is it a recipe for disaster? We currently have a hodge podge of shite and useful stuff floating around. The shite burns resources that we wouldn't otherwise be burning. Yes some entity will decide what constitutes shite, but I'd rather save the resources for other things than allow the resources to go to the highest bidder in order to make shite. Resources are finite after all. It's called, responsibility, and that is the core of an R.B.E. Which would lead me to think that you don't understand what an R.B.E. really is.

I wouldn't say it was obvious at all. I would say that it would depend on how the person felt at the time given the information available to them. I'd agree that the campaigning was negative, but there are very few people I've spoken to that have voted negatively... especially with tax cuts in the offing.

avgas

26th September 2014, 05:18

- if you do vote you should NOT be happy with the government if you voted for them, and they do not carry out the policies they said.
- If you do vote you should NOT be happy with the government if you didn't vote for them.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eKgPY1adc0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Fool me 51 times?

MisterD

26th September 2014, 08:30

but I'd rather save the resources for other things than allow the resources to go to the highest bidder in order to make shite.

There you go.

Someone who believes in free markets (proper ones, not regulation-skewed ones) thinks that resources should go to the highest bidder because that's who values them most, and will therefore make best use of them. You think you know better and should decide where resources should or shouldn't be used, and that is what I think is a recipe for disaster.

mashman

26th September 2014, 09:03

Someone who believes in free markets (proper ones, not regulation-skewed ones) thinks that resources should go to the highest bidder because that's who values them most, and will therefore make best use of them. You think you know better and should decide where resources should or shouldn't be used, and that is what I think is a recipe for disaster.

Free-marketeers don't value anything, they simply wish to make more money and will use whatever they like however they like irrespective of the consequences. A case of, the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. It's a bullshit argument to hide selfishness and displays zero responsibility or accountability to the society that they lean on. And you say an R.B.E. would be a disaster :laugh:.

When the resources are running out, where's the point in having millions of gallons of fuel under yer mansion when you turn up to the hospital and there's no doctors to fix you due to their being a fuel shortage? I guess free-marketeers really don't think things through very well... or think so short-term that a free-market can never become a possibility, well, a free-market using a financial system.

sidecar bob

26th September 2014, 09:35

mashman

26th September 2014, 11:37

Who really gives a fuck you raving lunatic.
Work hard, pay taxes, drive a flash car & own a nice house with a fantastic wife, have a few bikes you can choose from to ride & a pocket full of money. thats the stuff you can do something about to improve your lot.
Im not sure how becoming angsty about shit you can never change is making your day to day lives any more bearable.
If that makes me a sheeple then great!

Work hard - check.
Pay taxes - check.
Drive a flash car - I see no point.
Own a nice house - check.
Have a fantastic wife - check.
Have a bike that I choose to ride - check.
Have a pocket full of money - check.

So by your measure I've improved my lot. There's more to life and it ain't my lot I'm trying to improve as I'd be doing exactly the same as the govt, although I'd have vastly more success than every single political part that has led on these shores.
But I can change those things you claim that I can't. Fuck you oppressor man.
Your choice... but try to stop telling people what they are and aren't able to do... especially when they've already ticked all of your improved lot boxes.

Oscar

26th September 2014, 11:44

But I can change those things you claim that I can't. Fuck you oppressor man.
Your choice... but try to stop telling people what they are and aren't able to do... especially when they've already ticked all of your improved lot boxes.

You have changed nothing, you pompous git.
You talk a good game but you've changed nowt, apart from making a twat of yourself on the internet.

mashman

26th September 2014, 11:50

You have changed nothing, you pompous git.
You talk a good game but you've changed nowt, apart from making a twat of yourself on the internet.

I fail to see where I said that I had changed anything, fucktard.
Your perception is not my problem.

MisterD

26th September 2014, 11:52

And you say an R.B.E. would be a disaster :laugh:

Jaysus but you're an idiot. Just a collection of bumper stickers and straw-man arguments. :wacko:

mashman

26th September 2014, 12:01

Jaysus but you're an idiot. Just a collection of bumper stickers and straw-man arguments. :wacko:

Calling me an idiot and then tagging on straw-man, really? Turns out you're just another ignorant hypocritical moron:

Any actual logical arguments against those hypotheses?

Priceless... cheers for that mate.

Oscar

26th September 2014, 12:07

I fail to see where I said that I had changed anything, fucktard.
Your perception is not my problem.

You claimed you could:

But I can change those things you claim that I can't. Fuck you oppressor man.

And based on what you say here (without ever actually doing anything), my perception is correct.

Oscar

26th September 2014, 12:08

Jaysus but you're an idiot. Just a collection of bumper stickers and straw-man arguments. :wacko:

A constant stream of propaganda shit looking for a sewer.

MisterD

26th September 2014, 12:13

Calling me an idiot and then tagging on straw-man, really? Turns out you're just another ignorant hypocritical moron:

Where are these mansions with "millions of gallons of fuel" that your straw-men live in?

Like I said, "bumper stickers and straw man arguments".

The price of fuel goes up, and new sources of oil become economically viable. Some numpty thinks he knows better and allocates fuel as he sees fit, and nobody's incentivised to go looking for other sources...end result, living in caves knitting our own yoghurt.

You really do make Russell Norman look like a clever bloke.

mashman

26th September 2014, 12:51

Where are these mansions with "millions of gallons of fuel" that your straw-men live in?

Like I said, "bumper stickers and straw man arguments".

The price of fuel goes up, and new sources of oil become economically viable. Some numpty thinks he knows better and allocates fuel as he sees fit, and nobody's incentivised to go looking for other sources...end result, living in caves knitting our own yoghurt.

You really do make Russell Norman look like a clever bloke.

Ahhhhh, purposefully looking for a straw-man argument given a hypothetical example... irrespective of the fact that when there is a fuel shortage that very thing WILL happen. Pathetic.

And there it is. Nobody will be incentivised:

An RBE won't work because it complete fucking nonsense. I didn't say anything about people "not liking" it.

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme. Don't beat yourself up, your argument against an R.B.E. is full of straw-men (hypocrite), so full in fact the big bad wolf wouldn't be able to blow it over. The outcome of your argument was inevitable and it will always boil down to your lack of faith in humanity, or in my case, my absolute faith in humanity. But thanks for the lulz.

mashman

26th September 2014, 12:57

You claimed you could:

And based on what you say here (without ever actually doing anything), my perception is correct.

I did claim could, not HAVE as you asserted. Fucktard.

Oh I see, I've done nothing now. In my eyes I have. NOW see if you can figure out how such contradictory terms can fit together :killingme... achually don't, you're not equipped for such analysis. Your perception is yours, but at least you finally understand that.

Oscar

26th September 2014, 13:10

I did claim could, not HAVE as you asserted. Fucktard.

Oh I see, I've done nothing now. In my eyes I have. NOW see if you can figure out how such contradictory terms can fit together :killingme... achually don't, you're not equipped for such analysis. Your perception is yours, but at least you finally understand that.

You've done plenty.
You've talked crap for many years here but achieved nothing.
What you've written here is not my perception, but evidence for any thinking person - instead of posting some evidence of you having changed anything (a quote from a grateful student, civic award or nobel prize), you go off on your usual ad hominem rant...

...actually, as I said yesterday, you are becoming quite boring.

mashman

26th September 2014, 13:16

You've done plenty.
You've talked crap for many years here but achieved nothing.
What you've written here is not my perception, but evidence for any thinking person - instead of posting some evidence of you having changed anything (a quote from a grateful student, civic award or nobel prize), you go off on your usual ad hominem rant...

...actually, as I said yesterday, you are becoming quite boring.

So you'd like me to ask those people who have changed their own minds (I don't change their minds for them i.e. not my achievement) to write testimonials that states that due to me offering them a different perspective, they change their own minds?

Oh dear, dear, dear, dear oscar, I knew you weren't equipped for it (statement of fact, no ad hominem anywhere to be seen, other than in your own mind).

You did. You obviously need to up your game.

Oscar

26th September 2014, 13:25

So you'd like me to ask those people who have changed their own minds (I don't change their minds for them i.e. not my achievement) to write testimonials that states that due to me offering them a different perspective, they change their own minds?

Oh dear, dear, dear, dear oscar, I knew you weren't equipped for it (statement of fact, no ad hominem anywhere to be seen, other than in your own mind).

You did. You obviously need to up your game.

So calling someone a Fucktard is not an ad hominem?
Anyway, as far as not being equipped for whatever "it" is, I take this as a compliment.

You see, you claimed that you could change things:

But I can change those things you claim that I can't. Fuck you oppressor man.

I'm merely asking you to show how, or if, you ever changed anything...

SPman

26th September 2014, 13:36

There you go.

Someone who believes in free markets (proper ones, not regulation-skewed ones) thinks that resources should go to the highest bidder because that's who values them most, and will therefore make best use of them. You think you know better and should decide where resources should or shouldn't be used, and that is what I think is a recipe for disaster. will go to the highest bidder not neccessarily because he values them most and will make the best use of them - he may just have the most money and want to stop anyone else getting hold of the resources - it often happens......where do you draw the line between personal advantage and community good. A free market may work well in a small community, where community pressure tempers innate greed, but, once the restrictions, mental or legal, are off, it becomes the sort of free for all that causes a lot of harm in the community - great for the individual concerned, often severely destructive for everyone else.

mashman

26th September 2014, 14:09

So calling someone a Fucktard is not an ad hominem?
Anyway, as far as not being equipped for whatever "it" is, I take this as a compliment.

You see, you claimed that you could change things:

I'm merely asking you to show how, or if, you ever changed anything...

You'd prefer pompous git? Or would you prefer a tissue?
lol, fair enough.

Remember that little poll I did 4 years ago where the Yeses outweighed the Noes. That changed the perception that no one would vote for an R.B.E. That enough for you? Yes there have been other changes, more personal than anything, but there are those who have changed their minds after having a chat about an R.B.E. (more for than against). BUT in all honestly I don't class the changes in the perception of others as me having changed anything. Damn straight there's a satisfaction in seeing the penny drop and knowing that you had something to do with it (even if only the messenger), yet as I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion I don't see it as my change. A double edged sword that the semantically driven seem to seize upon in order to deny themselves the knowledge that they are indeed human beings and not fucktarded robots. I realise I must take office to affect change. So that's what I'll do.

Oscar

26th September 2014, 14:19

You'd prefer pompous git? Or would you prefer a tissue?
lol, fair enough.

Remember that little poll I did 4 years ago where the Yeses outweighed the Noes. That changed the perception that no one would vote for an R.B.E. That enough for you? Yes there have been other changes, more personal than anything, but there are those who have changed their minds after having a chat about an R.B.E. (more for than against). BUT in all honestly I don't class the changes in the perception of others as me having changed anything. Damn straight there's a satisfaction in seeing the penny drop and knowing that you had something to do with it (even if only the messenger), yet as I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion I don't see it as my change. A double edged sword that the semantically driven seem to seize upon in order to deny themselves the knowledge that they are indeed human beings and not fucktarded robots. I realise I must take office to affect change. So that's what I'll do.

Your achievement is a poll you ran on KB?:nya:
And you're going to run for office?
You're a Prince amongst men, a real go-getter....:facepalm:

mashman

26th September 2014, 14:32

Your achievement is a poll you ran on KB?:nya:
And you're going to run for office?
You're a Prince amongst men, a real go-getter....:facepalm:

Did I say that was an achievement? I'd call it proof.
Yup.
Ta.

mashman

26th September 2014, 14:33

will go to the highest bidder not neccessarily because he values them most and will make the best use of them - he may just have the most money and want to stop anyone else getting hold of the resources - it often happens......where do you draw the line between personal advantage and community good. A free market may work well in a small community, where community pressure tempers innate greed, but, once the restrictions, mental or legal, are off, it becomes the sort of free for all that causes a lot of harm in the community - great for the individual concerned, often severely destructive for everyone else.

Lefty faggot.

Oscar

26th September 2014, 14:34

Did I say that was an achievement? I'd call it proof.
Yup.
Ta.

Proof of what?
You talk a good game?:rofl:

mashman

26th September 2014, 14:40

Proof of what?
You talk a good game?:rofl:

That pigs can indeed fly.
Looking forwards to seeing if jk can handle the jandle.

Ocean1

26th September 2014, 18:34

Ocean1

26th September 2014, 18:36

sidecar bob

26th September 2014, 19:05

Rich prick...

Yep, & I couldn't give a fuck about the worlds resources. As long as they want to sell me petrol, I will use my beautiful V8 BMW as much as I want & burn my fair share of fossil fuels.
But seriously mash, the only evidence I need to know you are mentally deficient is that you actually fully believe you are so right & correct & all infidels that dare challenge your warped logic must be crushed. This is amply demonstrated in open forum, plus the twenty odd aggressive & abusive red reps you have given me simply by engaging with you on forum, which don't bother me in the least, as they come from a mind that insist quite right (not really your fault to be fair).
I once knew a kiwi girl that truly & genuinely believed that she was Running Bear or some such, a red Indian girl from teepee land. Nothing anyone could do or say would convince her otherwise & of course, she was actually clinically a nut bar. Your way of thinking really reminds me of that.
I actually only come on here to take the piss & send people like you angry & red in the face for my own amusement between jobs as it gives me something to look forward to at the end of a job, it's fantastic how we'll it works.

Winston001

27th September 2014, 02:09

Those who don't vote are saying that they are happy with the status quo. If they wanted a change then they would vote. Simple really.

Correct.

Research on voting attitudes in open democracies shows that ordinary people really don't care when life is stable and they do not see any big reason to vote for change. So they don't bother. That decision is essentially a vote for the status quo. So the 1 million people who didn't bother (including my uber-relaxed son) said they could care less and we should respect their decision.

Yes, there are a small percentage who feel disenfranchised, who don't believe in politics, and think their vote is pointless.

That small group never reflect upon the price paid by earlier generations some of whom died trying to get the right to vote. Emily Wilding Davison - dead.

Voltaire

27th September 2014, 08:00

Correct.

Research on voting attitudes in open democracies shows that ordinary people really don't care when life is stable and they do not see any big reason to vote for change. So they don't bother. That decision is essentially a vote for the status quo. So the 1 million people who didn't bother (including my uber-relaxed son) said they could care less and we should respect their decision.

Yes, there are a small percentage who feel disenfranchised, who don't believe in politics, and think their vote is pointless.

That small group never reflect upon the price paid by earlier generations some of whom died trying to get the right to vote. Emily Wilding Davison - dead.

The old
price paid by earlier generations some of whom died trying to get the right to vote line.

That's like saying the ones who came back and worked on the big power projects did it so it could be sold off by some government who are only caretakers of the states assets.

I didn't vote, so I must be happy with the Status Quo.

I got off my arse a couple of times, when Labour got in in 1984, I went overseas for 7 years.

I have reflected on wars, old men in suits sending young men off to die and large corporations making lots of money.

mashman

27th September 2014, 08:41

But seriously mash, the only evidence I need to know you are mentally deficient is that you actually fully believe you are so right & correct & all infidels that dare challenge your warped logic must be crushed. This is amply demonstrated in open forum, plus the twenty odd aggressive & abusive red reps you have given me simply by engaging with you on forum, which don't bother me in the least, as they come from a mind that insist quite right (not really your fault to be fair).
I once knew a kiwi girl that truly & genuinely believed that she was Running Bear or some such, a red Indian girl from teepee land. Nothing anyone could do or say would convince her otherwise & of course, she was actually clinically a nut bar. Your way of thinking really reminds me of that.
I actually only come on here to take the piss & send people like you angry & red in the face for my own amusement between jobs as it gives me something to look forward to at the end of a job, it's fantastic how we'll it works.

Seriously huh. In which case I'll answer you seriously, bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... if by angry red in the face you mean heading to the lav in a doubled up fashion trying not to wee all over the couch, then yeah, you're damned good at it. The kids are often asking what I'm laughing at, but it'll be a couple of years yet before they're old enough to come on here to laugh at you too. I hope you're better with kids than you are with women, even if you used to be one. I must try to dredge that thread for the newbies to have a read as it was quite moving. Did you keep the vagina in the end? It looks as though you did.