The fascist regime that made you a moron: Thanks dJonkey

[puddytat]

Wakey wakey....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/18...ng-sycophancy/

[Akzle]

Wakey wakey....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/18...ng-sycophancy/

tl.dr.
The jews are at it again?

[oldrider]

Wakey wakey....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/18...ng-sycophancy/

What a lot of left wing twaddle ffs!

[Brian d marge]

It doesnt matter just as long as u have your bases covered and are cool with ya daily grind

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[puddytat]

Well you're going to love this then Oldy....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/19...2014-election/

[puddytat]

tl.dr.
The jews are at it again?

When do they stop?
Er wots tl.dr?

[BoristheBiter]

Well you're going to love this then Oldy....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/19...2014-election/

Man how true is that.

And it will continue as the majority of people do not want the greens or mana anywhere near the beehive as they are to prone to personal attacks than coming up with anything coherent.

At the moment the nats have around 47% support but will probably lose due to labour's ability to sell the voting public down the river buy giving into the greens and mana and any other party that will get them over the threshold of power.

This would have to be the single biggest reason why i would never vote for them and i know a lot of other people that feel the same.
More of a vote against the left than a vote for the right.

[Bassmatt]

At the moment the nats have around 47% support but will probably lose due to labour's ability to sell the voting public down the river buy giving into the greens and mana and any other party that will get them over the threshold of power.

.

ACT, Maori Party, Peter Dunne.

[BoristheBiter]

ACT, Maori Party, Peter Dunne.

Yep you're right, but they haven't needed all of them at the same time.
in fact they have never needed the Maori party ever.
They have even tried to work with the greens but that lot would cut their nose to spite their face.

The nats have shown how to use MMP without giving up the core party beliefs, something that labour has never been able to do and this i feel is the main cause of their poor showing in the poles.

I guess it helps when you have such a clear majority.

[oldrider]

Well you're going to love this then Oldy....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/19...2014-election/

Left or right leaning extremists are like birds with one wing clipped, they fly around in ever diminishing circles until they disappear up their own arse hole!

Balanced Journalists are few and far between ... probably because extremism gathers more temporary traction and people have to eat!

[Banditbandit]

What a lot of left wing twaddle ffs!

So how do you account for or explain the stance of the British Rightwing party - the Tory party ... Cameron certainly put the issue of human rights abuses and war crimes on the table - loud and clear ...

Man how true is that.

And it will continue as the majority of people do not want the greens or mana anywhere near the beehive as they are to prone to personal attacks than coming up with anything coherent.

At the moment the nats have around 47% support but will probably lose due to labour's ability to sell the voting public down the river buy giving into the greens and mana and any other party that will get them over the threshold of power.

This would have to be the single biggest reason why i would never vote for them and i know a lot of other people that feel the same.
More of a vote against the left than a vote for the right.

The difference is that the New Zealand left wing have always been a collection of parties ... Labour, the Alliance, New Labour, Values party, etc etc. The right wing have managed the same processes but within the party - the Natuional Party - do you seriously think that the curretn bunch of Nats are a coherent group? The diversity is within the party - the left have a tendency to set up separate parties .. same thing, different names ...

The Nats did start as a coalition government - between the Reform and Liberal parties .. which formed one bloc in 1936 ... (You all think coalition Governments came to Godzone following MMP didn't you ... )

Yep you're right, but they haven't needed all of them at the same time.
in fact they have never needed the Maori party ever.
They have even tried to work with the greens but that lot would cut their nose to spite their face.

The nats have shown how to use MMP without giving up the core party beliefs, something that labour has never been able to do and this i feel is the main cause of their poor showing in the poles.

I guess it helps when you have such a clear majority.

The Nats have core beliefs ??? I wonder if John Key knows that ... or are they woerth about 20 pokie machines each ???

And the Greens did not cut off their nose to spite their faces - they refused to give up core beliefs to join a coalition Government - unlike other parties ...

Can't you see the internal inconsistencies in your statements ???

[BoristheBiter]

The difference is that the New Zealand left wing have always been a collection of parties ... Labour, the Alliance, New Labour, Values party, etc etc. The right wing have managed the same processes but within the party - the Natuional Party - do you seriously think that the curretn bunch of Nats are a coherent group? The diversity is within the party - the left have a tendency to set up separate parties .. same thing, different names ...

The Nats did start as a coalition government - between the Reform and Liberal parties .. which formed one bloc in 1936 ... (You all think coalition Governments came to Godzone following MMP didn't you ... ) Never said they did.



The Nats have core beliefs ??? I wonder if John Key knows that ... or are they woerth about 20 pokie machines each ???

And the Greens did not cut off their nose to spite their faces - they refused to give up core beliefs to join a coalition Government - unlike other parties ... I guess you mean Labour.

Can't you see the internal inconsistencies in your statements ???

No. can you please point them out.

[Swoop]

With all the dribble about the Air NZ share sale, this article was very interesting. Perhaps a few from the labour-supporting side of the fence might like a read?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=11159655

Part:
But in essence, Labour invented the mixed-ownership model with its 1980s privatisation of the Bank of New Zealand and its later recapitalisation of the airline in 2001 which put it in the box seat with an 82 per cent stake (later reduced to 76 per cent after a rights issue).

It's also worth recalling that the Clark Government wanted Air NZ to form an alliance with Qantas a decade ago, which would have resulted in the Government's stake being reduced to 64 per cent. No Labour politician - including Cunliffe - raised a squawk then about how allowing another player onto the Air NZ share registry would result in the airline heading towards the knacker's yard, though arguably (and in hindsight) given Qantas' subsequent fortunes that prospect would have held more water than the subjects of this week's politicking.

So, what's the difference now?

The true commercial reality is that the previous Labour Government passed up the chance to recover the $885 million it invested in Air NZ when it recapitalised it in 2001. If Michael Cullen had sold a 25 per cent stake when the share price peaked at $3.12 in June 2007, he would have banked at least $840 million.

[Brian d marge]

With all the dribble about the Air NZ share sale, this article was very interesting. Perhaps a few from the labour-supporting side of the fence might like a read?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=11159655

Part:
But in essence, Labour invented the mixed-ownership model with its 1980s privatisation of the Bank of New Zealand and its later recapitalisation of the airline in 2001 which put it in the box seat with an 82 per cent stake (later reduced to 76 per cent after a rights issue).

It's also worth recalling that the Clark Government wanted Air NZ to form an alliance with Qantas a decade ago, which would have resulted in the Government's stake being reduced to 64 per cent. No Labour politician - including Cunliffe - raised a squawk then about how allowing another player onto the Air NZ share registry would result in the airline heading towards the knacker's yard, though arguably (and in hindsight) given Qantas' subsequent fortunes that prospect would have held more water than the subjects of this week's politicking.

So, what's the difference now?

The true commercial reality is that the previous Labour Government passed up the chance to recover the $885 million it invested in Air NZ when it recapitalised it in 2001. If Michael Cullen had sold a 25 per cent stake when the share price peaked at $3.12 in June 2007, he would have banked at least $840 million.

Strange the
I wonder how the bond market would react if labor went left and or if the greens became the dominant playa

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[BoristheBiter]

Strange the
I wonder how the bond market would react if labor went left and or if the greens became the dominant playa

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Crash. then crash some more.