Tag teamed
March 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm by David FarrarTony and Jordan have combined forces to try and pummel me into submission. If only it was as easy as weight of numbers.
Firstly Tony do please try to come up with an original title for your posts, instead of stealing mine. I’ll report you to the music industry for copyright theft if you do it again!
I enjoy seeing them persist in their efforts to deny common sense. I have to stop myself laughing everytime I hear one of them repeat the mantra that this bill does not ban smacking, because smacking has already been illegal for the last 100 years. Quick go arrest three generations of parents. The fact they have left in reasonable force on certain grounds (such as good parenting) but left it out for correction, makes it very clear the intent is to ban smacking for correction.
I enjoy the irony that the more I show up how ridiculous their claims are, the more they try to paint me as confusing the public. Yes the poor thick gullible public who are so stupid that they have been brainwashed by the religious right.
The left’s denial of reality that the public do not support them on this can be seen by comparing this to the civil union bill. The “religious right” opposed that bill fiercely but NZers continued to support the legislation with 60% to 70% support in polls. On this issue only 15% of NZers support the Govt. You can’t blame an hideously unpopular policy on your opponents, when NZers have shown in the past they are quite capable of forming their own views on these issues.
You will notice in the House that the PM is incapable of answering questions on this bill. All she does is repeat her mantra that smacking is already illegal, and try and raise the bogeyman of the US religious right.
But anyway while we are talking about misleading communications, let’s shine the torch back on Jordan. In this post he claims NZers are not overtaxed because our tax wedge is only 20.9%, and this is the third lowest in the OECD.
Never mind that this excludes indirect taxes like GST. Of course one has lower income tax rates, when you also have a relatively high no exceptions indirect tax.
But the real beauty is his hyperbole over student loans. Jordan blogs how wonderful the scheme is now and that $9 billion of debt is fine because it is under Labour’s policies. His exact words:
Overall our student support system now is a generous system that helps low income earners most. It is hundreds of times better than what we had under National in the 1990s
Wow. Get that. It isn’t 10% better or 20% or even twice as good,. It is hundreds of times better. You student should get down on your knees and pray to Helen and Michael every night. they have made your lives hundreds of times better you ungrateful students. Bow down now.
And be grateful to Labour that you get to live at all. Yes again a direct quote:
Instead of lives being stolen by the debt monster, people now have a system that is bearable, nigh on generous
Yes students of NZ. Your lives of misery and slavery are over. Rise up and be free. The debt monster has been slayed by St Labour and you can all sing and be happy now.
No tag for this post.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother
http://stuff.co.nz/4011184a10.html
“Police have told a Feilding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).”
So even if the Police don’t prosecute according to the Helen Clark, Sue Bradford, etc. yu’ll get a visit from a CYFSs social worker. Actually that frightens me a whole lot more! At least the Police are restrained by law in what they can do, and if in court I can rely on the jury for sensible decision. With CYFS I have to deal with an indoctronated social worker who is both judge, jury and executioner, with no right of appeal, if anything I read of the stories of any other parents is to go by.
I have had to deal with CYFS in trying to adopt a child from a orphanage in the Ukraine, and while they agree that the child will be far better off living in NZ it Ukraine “doesn’t have the right process” so they are unwilling to help. Ideology and purity of thought seems to over rule any practical considerations in any of the dealings we have had with them.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I wouldn’t call that tag teaming, more like slaps with wet bus tickets.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Not to worry, once Jordan et al. get jobs earning more than the student loan pay back threshold they’ll rapidly change their tunes.
For my 2 cents, both Nat and Lab have screwed me. Nat for bringing the loans in and Lab for making “tertiary education” so broad that universities and their meaningful research are now pitifully funded. That would be why you have on one hand many cafe and petrol station workers with Bachelors and on the other hand a lo-tech sharemarket rife with vodka and juice companies.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Your “problems” have just begun mein host.
“I enjoy seeing them persist in their efforts to deny common sense.”
First stop plagiarising United Party leader “commonsense” “speak”. Especially when he supports the bill.
“I have to stop myself laughing everytime I hear one of them repeat the mantra that this bill does not ban smacking, because smacking has already been illegal for the last 100 years. … The fact they have left in reasonable force on certain grounds (such as good parenting) but left it out for correction, makes it very clear the intent is to ban smacking for correction.”
How then do you explain the government’s position that they expect no one will be prosecuted for smacking?
As I see it, while violence against people is illegal parents have been protected by the reasonable force section of Section 59 and ALSO their role as custodians of minors (custodial roles implying some latitude in maintaining discipline). Thus they can move their children – out of shops and into time out areas without any legal worries.
“Good parenting” is also sufficient cause for a jury to prevent any conviction for smacking. And given poll results of late, police would not lay such a charge, as it would be a waste of time. Thus the government’s confidence no one will be prosecuted for smacking.
The reason the government refers to the 1986 law change and the Civil Union Bill is that they are now mainstream in the western world and there is little public support for any review anywhere where this has happened. Public smoking also attracted opposition but this is also becoming commonplace and is also unlikely to be changed.
Once the public becomes aware that the only ones to be prosecuted will be those who beat up children – people they would also convict of the violent assaults themselves, this will also go away.
2. The indirect taxes on petrol and other purchases are higher than Europe. Also little different to that in Oz. The fact is we have low income taxes on families. This because Labour targeted tax support to families. Labour does not want children beaten up, it wants to help support their family. Whereas National preferred across the board tax cuts and offering official targeted support for families who resorted to smacking rather than those who did not.
3. The 9 billion dollars in tertiary debt burden IS easier to cope with when it is interest free for those who give something back to Enzed by working here. And the higher minimum wage ensures that students get more money from their work than ever before (and work is available). The problem is the rising cost of rent and power and how benefits/allowances increased by the across the board CPI do not take this into account.
The irony is that the middle class kids want access to the allowance and have offered no support to students from poorer families on the low level allowance (on which they increasingly struggle). They want middle class welfare equivalent to that offered students from poorer families. This is not targeted support but advocacy for universal allowances. National should take no comfort from this.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
well..they did end the interest on the loans..
and once again..
no matter how ‘reasonable’ any complaints against/about labour from you may seem..
you always have to pause and ask..
what would national do..?..what is their policy..?
wot with user-pays..and all that..?
you are getting (very) excited in a lot of your posts lately david..
is the bleakness of nationals’ coalition-free codition starting to bite..?
must be hard to put your heart and soul into something when you know defeat is the only outcome..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Greg Bourke
I am of the school that our export sector (a real stock market includes business participating in the global market) is rooted by the floating dollar (the volatility as much as the over-valuation). Thus we have a domestic retail/services sector stockmarket.
Thus whatever is invested in the teaching of students or put into pure research or offered in R and D support at the commerical end – it will not result in much company development output (just a lot of ideas sold off overseas for commerical development).
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Tag-team? In the tradition of The Bushwhackers perhaps.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Thanks to the student loan policy I have enough money saved from my loan and jobs to purchase a house. Who said Labour isn’t doing anything to help people into their first homes.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Yes our ideas are all sold off overseas. Because no matter how much the government taxes us they refuse to spend money on stimulating productive industry that could keep our ideas here.
Did I hear right on the news? $26M for the commission of inquiry into police? Its unbelievable that they could spend that amount of money on another politically motivated inquiry (like the Cartwright fiasco). When that money could have gone into cancer research, shortening waiting lists, child abuse prevention or developing industries around NZ intellectual property to keep the profits onshore. Instead of working together as a nation to improve life for everyone, we would rather squander our money on political infighting – politicians are sick.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Sir David – When the minions are squealing like that you at least know something is working.
Was it just me or was Sonic sounding a little hysterical today?
Hope he/she chills for the weekend, stress like that can’t be good for you.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Tag Team like Shipton/Schollum was be closer
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:34 am
like being gummed by twin 6 month olds i would have thought
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 6:06 am
Hardly a Tag Team as my understanding of these two weak utopian creature’s makes them fit for work on a crab boat (bait) or part of the offal pit down on the farm.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 8:02 am
T L Steel
For generations, my family were too poor to attend university and toiled night and day in the fields for oppressive landlords. Now, due to Labour’s student loans policy, I have my own 40 acres and mule, and my seven sons all have good jobs at the Red Dawn Tractor Manufacturing Collective.
Taking the piss? Well, you started it. The new student loan policy has been in place around two years. According to Ministry for Social Development, the average loan is $7818. Even if you believe the hysterical student leaders (yes, Clair Piper of UCLA, this means you) who claim the average loan is $30-40,000, the amount saved by the changes in two years would struggle to get into the low thousands of dollars.
In the past two years, house prices have gone up by, what, 30%. If your savings from the student loan changes can equal that, I don’t know what kind of one-horse town you are living in.
Seriously Mr or Ms Steel, if you support Labour’s changes, come out and say so and give actual reasons. Claims that your life has been miraculously improved need to be a little more credible.
Bobux
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 9:40 am
I’d like to hear Bradford or Clark interviewed by someone (on broadcast radio or tv) who does not accept mealy-mouthed, “parliamentary” answers to direct questions.
Not only is H1 so arrogant as to assume she knows best how to bring up children, but she is also so arrogant in the House to think she can get away with such “fobbing” behaviour.
The clock is ticking, and she is the one sitting on the bomb (while laughingly pouring petrol over it, and making rude hand signals to all who question her actions).
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 9:46 am
I’d like to hear Bradford or Clark interviewed by someone (on broadcast radio or tv) who does not accept mealy-mouthed, “parliamentary” answers to direct questions.
Not only is H1 so arrogant as to assume she knows best how to bring up children, but she is also so arrogant in the House to think she can get away with such “fobbing” behaviour.
The clock is ticking, and she is the one sitting on the bomb (while laughingly pouring petrol over it, and making rude hand signals to all who question her actions).
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Well hell, this just takes the cake.. here we have two extreme left homosexuals quoting Orwell as justification for a political move aimed at giving government greater powers over the citizenry.
Wait. I can hear the howls from the outraged pseudo-liberals already.. “WHAT HAS THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY GOT TO DO WITH IT..???” Lots actually. Anyone who wants to deny that homosexuals as a collective don’t have a political agenda is as out of touch with reality as Jordan Carter is with the thrust of George Orwell’s writings.
Here’s these two arrogant socialist queers accusing Mr. Farrar of “manipulating language” when they as a sexually defined collective have (just to use the most obvious example) been the prime movers in making the word “gay” mean something entirely different today to what it did a few decades ago. (and how could such a bunch of dimwitted sad packers pick on such an inappropriate euphemism??)
When they are right now assiduously working away to make it illegal to use certain language, and where they have been successful, (Canada for example) are jailing people for using these “banned” words.
Where they have agitated successfully for some acts to be termed “hate” crimes, wherein the penalty is adjusted according to what the offender was THINKING at the time. What would Orwell say about that Mr. Carter???
In criticising Maxim for using the phrase ‘social justice” outside the bounds permitted by crazed leftist control freaks, Jordan carter has this to say-
“It is in the interests of all of us to play inside the rules of decent use of language, using and describing things as they are not as we might wish they were.”
So how about using the word “homosexual” then Mr Carter, and allowing those who valued the word “gay” for its true meaning to reclaim it?
How about recognising that every time there is any increase in the size of government, any legislation aimed at dis-empowering the individual and increasing the power of government, it is done at the direction of leftist zealots like you?? How about sparing readers the sickening hypocrisy of your self serving and deceitful references to George Orwell?
Man you people make me want to puke…
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Good God. One can blame Jordan and Tony for a few things, but really it is ridicolous to hold them collectively responsible for the use of the term gay to denote homosexual.
Redbaiter – lefties not righties are the ones who are meant to judge people on the basis of any collective group they belong to.
Who gives a fuck that Jordan and Tony are gay. I don’t. And if you do, well frankly it’s your issue not their’s.
I wouldn’t go so far as to label Jordan and Tony as friends (especially as that could get them expelled from Labour
but I’d happily go out drinking with either of them, and know I’ll have a fun time. And despite my constant pinging of them on this blog, I think they often make very good contributions to the debate.
And most of all, both of them have the guts to post under their real names, and are prepared to take the flak for that.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
SPC,
Vote:If smoking is a good analogy then why not do it like it was done with smoking? do an anti smacking campaign, until it becomes unpopular then place increasing restrictions on it (in smoking it was age limits and restrictions on where you could do it).
March 31st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Well said DPF
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Radical left homosexuals have an anti Conservative anti Christian political agenda and Tony Milne and Jordan Carter have always been outspoken supporters of that agenda. If you choose to ignore something so patently obvious Mr. Farrar, then it is perhaps you that has the issue with homosexuality.
Furthermore, I do not deny people the right to be what they choose, whether that be a “bigot”, or “prejudiced’ or ‘discriminatory”. It is not the government’s role to outlaw citizens for thinking in an “unapproved” manner.
I repeat my original point- that it is utter hypocrisy for Jordan Carter to use the words of George Orwell to support his political position, when everything Orwell wrote was aimed at confronting the “big brother will tell you what is right” political view that Jordan and other collectivists continuously promote as they press on with their mission to impose secular progressive soviet/ Marxist style political ideas upons NZ’s traditional Christian based culture.
Whereas you Mr. Farrar seem compelled to announce how enjoyable it would be “to go out drinking” with these guys, I myself seek no such gratuitous approval. I once spent a couple of days in hospital for saving a homosexual from a beating, but I am not so cravenly subjugated by politically correct social mores that I am blind to the homosexual political agenda. Neither do I feel compelled to walk on eggshells merely because an issue involves homosexuality, and I will not shrink from making left wing homosexuals accountable for their politics. Or their hypocrisy.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I always thought Jordan’s “National bad, Labour good” (or is that “National bad, Labour better”?) style of blogging was a tongue-in-cheek thing – but eventually I realised it’s not.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I agree basically with DPF that we shouldnt judge people collectively. However the difference is that that we “righties” dont use the machinery of the state (media, universities, government depts and taxpayers money) to ram our political, social and lifestyle agenda and choices down everyones throat at every opportunity – like the left DO. So we are on the back foot, constantly mounting a rearguard action – thats why the anger – anger that is going to spill over one day.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
The S.59 bill is the warmup round for the election spending finance changes that are coming. When people realise Labour is going to clamp down on free speech the outcry will be huge.
These recent measures have shown that Labour at its core consists of two groups who are inherently hostile to the freedoms we enjoy in our society:
1. The Rainbow wing
2. The union wing
The latter especially dominated by communist leadership and now pulling out the stops to sell the financing changes to the public.
These groups do not represent a large proportion of the population but their ugliness is becoming more visible by the day.
We are seeing more and more the ugly face of Labour, how low they will go to hold on to political power.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Now that I have read through the article in more detail the points raised I think really do back up my previous comment. Jordan’s out there selling everything as one of those core Rainbow Labour members, for which the present term of Labour in government has become a do-or-die situation.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
“I agree basically with DPF that we shouldnt judge people collectively.”
Well Porky, I’d take issue with such a blanket declaration. We can judge people in whatever way we may choose. In this situation tho, it is clear that there is a left wing homosexual political faction intent on changing NZ’s culture, and Tony and Jordan are clearly part of that faction. I would be surprised if they denied it. I don’t see the problem.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Excuse me for this digression – but whenever the religious right appears in discussion i am reminded…
what was that christian political party – oh yea the ‘christian heritage party’. My god what outrageous hypocracy! Its one kind of evil to molest young girls, but to preach ‘family values’ while doing it. The mind reels!
How does anyone on the Christian Right deal with this issue? How do those who support the ‘family values’ style of politics feel about it? How do people on the right in general feel about this?
when the next election comes around and political parties start talking about ‘family values’ – do you think its important that we remember graham capel? (was that his name?)
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
If you want to see how rabid the Rainbowers can get then one need look no further than this article (reposted from GayNZ):
http://www.duomo.ac.nz/acnz/?p=362
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Reply to “Posted by idiotboy | March 31, 2007 9:45 PM”
Graham Capill is irrelevant, just as we could waste time talking about Taito Phillip Field’s glorious history with the Labour Party.
So get lost with your crude attempts to smear the Christian community.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
“Man you people make me want to puke…”
aaawww redbaiter – so you’re feeling a bit nauseas – you know thats caused by all that hatred and anger you are feeling. Its not good for you to feel like that all the time you know. You need to relax – don’t even think about these issues for a while and i’m sure you will feel much better.
You might even be able to spend some time implementing some of those family values graham capel holds so dearly.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Taito Phillip Field – well i’m certainly not his biggest fan. But in this comparison he’s got one thing going for him – he’s not a child-molester.
High-fives all round for Taito Phillip Field. lol!
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 9:01 am
“You might even be able to spend some time implementing some of those family values graham capel holds so dearly.”
I disagree with Redbaiter on a hell of a lot of things, but you idiotboy, are a sick little shit.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am
DPF
Take Jordan on, he’s a push over. The man appears to have no idea what he is saying most of the time. He’s so busy with the spin he never notices that he’s constantly contradicting himself.
See this link for Jordan at his best.
ALP doing nicely
The long and short of it, when asked why he was posting poll results from Aussie but had not posted (what were at the time) the latest NZ poll results he came back with.
“As for Roy Morgan, as is clear it’s not part of the series I run on this blog….”
Slightly contrary to one of his previous posts.
Morgan Poll: Jan 07
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
aaawww andrew w – wots with you? i was giving redbaiter some good advice – i mean you know – i dont need to tell you about the kinds of family values graham capell holds dearly – spending time with your family, going to church on sunday etc. etc.
gee i hope it wasnt taken the wrong way. but then – you would think someone named ‘redbaiter’ would be able to put up with a bit of baiting himself. amirite?
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Idiotboy you are well named. You are exactly what DPF was talking about. You try to label people so that their views can be discarded. What a pratt. I am neither Christian or “right” on every issue. But I would always lean to RBs and AWs side because they support freedom of speech whereas you seek to suppreess it by labelling those with a partcular view as child molesters, homophobes or racists. Well after decades I’ve had a gut full of your sort.
And who supports namby pamby short sentences for violent offeders, child molesters and child abusers eh? The leftie freaks who have held real power in this country for the last several decades.
Vote:April 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
hey porcupine – settle down thar you prickly little bugger!
Apparently I “seek to suppress it [free speech] by labelling those with a partcular view as child molesters, homophobes or racists.”
Errrr – show me where i labelled anyone as a child molester etc. Now – my playful little dig at redbaiter could possibly construed as such – but it wasn’t meant that way – even so i am quite happy to offer an apology:
sowwy redbaiter if i hurt your wittle feewings. kiss and make-up?
All I said was that Graham Capill is a child molestor and that he holds certain views that are also held by the christian right – obviously this is a fact – is it not?
in fact i am encouraging free-speech by asking about this issue – and i repeat my questions:
“How does anyone on the Christian Right deal with this issue? How do those who support the ‘family values’ style of politics feel about it? How do people on the right in general feel about this?”
Surely – his behaviour must be utterly condemned as well as his massive hypocracy. Well do you condemn it? Are you embarrassed that this man might hold similar political views as yours? Are you afraid that this might happen again in christian politics? How can we do for this not to happen again?
Vote:April 2nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
hey porcupine – settle down thar you prickly little bugger!
Apparently I “seek to suppress it [free speech] by labelling those with a partcular view as child molesters, homophobes or racists.”
Errrr – show me where i labelled anyone as a child molester etc. Now – my playful little dig at redbaiter could possibly construed as such – but it wasn’t meant that way – even so i am quite happy to offer an apology:
sowwy redbaiter if i hurt your wittle feewings. kiss and make-up?
All I said was that Graham Capill is a child molestor and that he holds certain views that are also held by the christian right – obviously this is a fact – is it not?
in fact i am encouraging free-speech by asking about this issue – and i repeat my questions:
“How does anyone on the Christian Right deal with this issue? How do those who support the ‘family values’ style of politics feel about it? How do people on the right in general feel about this?”
Surely – his behaviour must be utterly condemned as well as his massive hypocracy. Well do you condemn it? Are you embarrassed that this man might hold similar political views as yours? Are you afraid that this might happen again in christian politics? How can we do for this not to happen again?
Vote:April 2nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I see smacking has been illegal for 110 years?
Funny I remember a particular minister of the crown defending himself when it was revealed he had canned some students. He said saying he was not a criminal as he was simply implementing corporal punishment at Bayfield High and that this was legal.
Is David Benson Pope over a 110 now is he?
Matt
Vote: