Just $70 will keep a billboard alive for another day

December 20th, 2007 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Okay the Free Speech Coalition has spent all its money. In fact slightly over-spent. So the billboards are only up for a month.

But just $70 will keep a billboard alive for another day. If you go and donate $70 at the Coalition’s website, we’ll keep a billboard up for another day. We can even proudly allocate a day to you, so you can claim the credit for a particular billboard on a particular day.

If you wish to donate more than $70, that of course is great. For those “rich pricks” as our Minister of Finance calls them, we have the following options:

  1. $70 for one non-Auckland billboard for one day
  2. $100 for one Auckland billboard for a day
  3. $150 for two non-Auckland billboards for a day
  4. $200 for one Auckland billboard for a weekend
  5. $500 for a billboard for a week
  6. $2,000 keeps a billboard up for an entire month. 11 of these and they are up until election day.
  7. $5,000 gets you an entirely new billboard with a new authoritarian and a new location for a month. You can pick to have it in your local town or suburb.
  8. $10,000 gets you your own personal billboard for three months

And if you are a “poor prick”, you are very welcome to donate less than $70.  Many supporters have given $20 and they are valued.

Tags: ,

128 Responses to “Just $70 will keep a billboard alive for another day”

  1. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    ” 1. $70 for one non-Auckland billboard for one day
    2. $100 for one Auckland billboard for a day
    3. $150 for two non-Auckland billboards for a day
    4. $200 for one Auckland billboard for a weekend
    5. $500 for a billboard for a week
    6. $2,000 keeps a billboard up for an entire month. 11 of these and they are up until election day.
    7. $5,000 gets you an entirely new billboard with a new authoritarian and a new location for a month. You can pick to have it in your local town or suburb.
    8. $10,000 gets you your own personal billboard for three months”

    And to deface these billboards = PRICELESS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    $70 makes me a “rich prick”? Haha I never knew I had made it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    James me boy, defacing the billboards will get you locked up if caught.

    Now that would be priceless: one more Labour party member dragged through the courts. Haha

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    And to deface these billboards = PRICELESS

    We already know you Labour supporters only believe in free speech for yourselves, no need to constantly remind us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    To deface these billboards, without being caught = Priceless

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    It might be priceless to you, but to honest, thinking people it makes you nothing but another tagging hooligan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Colonel Masters (409 comments) says:

    <blockquote>
    1. $70 for one non-Auckland billboard for one day

    3. $150 for two non-Auckland billboards for a day
    </blockquote>

    Why the extra $10 for two?

    [DPF: Just rounding to close amounts. They amounts are approx not exact]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Wycroft (873 comments) says:

    Smoko, two billboards are heavier than one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Bevan – Interesting that you criticise the idea of defacing billboards as suppression of free speech. Surely you are suppressing free speech by stopping him doing this. Just one small step closer to a totalitarian state eh?

    Pascal – given the low opinion thinking people would have of these billboards I can only imagine them being indifferent to their being defaced. In fact they may even like it if the changes were clever and amusing. Pity Farrar et al didn’t aim for that first time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    It’s not a $10 increase, the $70 billboards are on sale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Let the defacing begin ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    So beshakey you pay for a billboard with your money and I come along and deface it and you reckon thats OK cause its my right.

    Tell me Wheres you billboard so I can deface it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. catwoman (123 comments) says:

    Labour deface their Helen Clark billboards before they are even put up. Its called airbrushing………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Those who know where Jimmy S lives suggest you might like to get there are deface the proptery with suitable slogans about the Socialists Whats good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    Labour deface their Helen Clark billboards before they are even put up. Its called airbrushing………….

    Funny you say that. Sure, Clark was probably photoshopped, all politicians do it. Read the Hollow Men and you’ll find Brash was shopped on the Iwi/Kiwi billboards to get rid of his “scary hair”. And that was far more recently too. I mean, I don’t really care that this happens – it’s part of the trade – but it’s obviously a big deal to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Calm down gd, I was actually just making fun of the overly generous interpretation of free speech offered by some, such as the free speech coalition, and suggesting that there are times when it might be ok to suppress free speech. One of those examples might be me defacing your billboard. Stopping me from doing that is clearly suppressing my free speech (particularly with a generous interpretation of it), I’m OK with that, but maybe some of those screaming about the EFB should have a think about about it. I’m sure it is just one of many areas where the vast majority of NZers disagree with Bernard Darnton’s libertarianism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Glenn (69 comments) says:

    I’m curious as to how you would deface these billboards. By writing “Don’t believe this! Helen Clark is really awesome!” Or perhaps by painting big black rectangles over the text?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Well I’m donating. I think its a great idea.

    And Tane, seriously? Scary hair? Even if his hair was ‘scary’ it is uncomparable to the extreme makeover of Clark. I have never seen her with a pearly white smile before…and probably never again

    Did you know that when the PM’s office forwarded a photo of Clark to an expecting party of the Sultan of Brunei, when she arrived they didn’t recognise her? I kid you not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    Right – $US 100 done!

    One of those examples might be me defacing your billboard. Stopping me from doing that is clearly suppressing my free speech…….

    Stopping people suppressing others free speech is itself suppression of free speech?

    Woah – Orwell really nailed his description of you people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    perhaps by painting big black rectangles over the text?

    Not a bad idea for a campaign that: billboards reading

    ‘Vote for [Censored]‘

    might have been a bit more effective than regurgitating the tedious old Kim/Mao comparison for the millionth time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. JamesP (76 comments) says:

    Probably photoshopped? Heh. You “probably” need to have your eyes checked son.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. David Farrar (1,895 comments) says:

    Danyl: Who leaked Stage 2 to you! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    Ok David so how much have the billboards cost? Please put Tane etc out of their misery

    $7k
    $15k
    $17k
    Over $50k (sorry wrong campaign)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Bevan – Interesting that you criticise the idea of defacing billboards as suppression of free speech. Surely you are suppressing free speech by stopping him doing this. Just one small step closer to a totalitarian state eh?

    So what you are saying is Mr Sleep’s free speech is more important than Mr Farrar’s? Each deserve to be heard BeShakey, but unfortunately all James wants to do is stop DPF getting his message across. Mind you that is in line with the legislation that just went through the house so Im not surprised thats how you and James think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Tom – c’mon show a bit of intelligence. If you have a generous definition of free speech then I should be able to express my view without any kind of restriction (roughly the libertarian view). Defacing a billboard is expressing my view. Therefore if you stop me you are suppressing my free speech. I think that that conclusion is silly, but only because the definition of free speech is silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Calm down gd, I was actually just making fun of the overly generous interpretation of free speech offered by some, such as the free speech coalition, and suggesting that there are times when it might be ok to suppress free speech.

    BeShakey, it sounds like your idea of free speech is that your message gets to be heard, but everyone else has to shut up. Thats hardly free speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    James Sleep is merely honoring an old tradition that every totalitarian movement has its freelancing youthful thugs that have fallen lock stock and barrell for its ugly ideology and will go around committing crime and violence on its behalf. Why stop at DPF’s billboards, James Sleep? Why don’t you and your mates go and burn down some Exclusive Brethren Synagogues, and smash in the glass frontage of that evil “super rich” EB businessman’s Lawnmower and Chainsaw shop and loot its contents?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    And Tane, seriously? Scary hair?

    Those were the words of a National Party staffer in the Hollow Men, not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Bevan – how the hell do you conclude that? It’s a pity you can’t debate the issues rather than attribute views to my I don’t hold. I’ve said that I think that if you use the overly generous definition of free speech then it is OK to suppress free speech sometimes. The example I gave was one where the message I wanted to give was suppressed so your message (or the message on the billboard which you seem to agree with) is heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    James, mate – you need to reflect on the meaning of “free speech”.

    Difficult for you left wingers, I know….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    BS

    Since I’m not a Libertarian I would not subscribe to such a ‘generous’ definition of free speech. But it’s a strawman argument. The classic example of permitted suppression of free speech is preventing someone from yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

    Aside from that, your example is nonsense in both your first and second arguments, I’ve already made my point for the first argument. My response to your second is simply a reinforcement of my first point – that stopping you defacing my billboard would not be counted as suppression of your free speech since the message you wanted to give could (and indeed should only) be given in ways other than suppressing mine.

    The reason your argument has never flown is that it is circular – if you got away with it I could argue the same as you – that my free speech (actually my paid-for speech) was suppressed by your message. Having my billboard up will not stop you from putting your counter message up, and if the argument is the post-modernist one -that you have no money, you could stand underneath my billboard with a large sign saying “the above billboard is shit!” – or some such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Glenn (69 comments) says:

    I’m sick of hearing that there are “reasonable limits on free speech” and therefore the EFB is somehow acceptable. If there are limits on free speech, then it is not free. The right to free speech exists to exchange and test ideas so that truth may be discovered. This is recognized by liberal thinkers as a Good Thing and, as such, there should be no constraints upon it. But any act that takes the form of speech that does measurable damage to life (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater), reputation (e.g. defamation), or property (e.g. defacing a billboard) is outside the bounds of free speech – it doesn’t seek to exchange or test ideas. Conversely, the EFB does not exist to protect life, reputation, or property – it simply seeks to limit the exchange and testing of ideas during a politically sensitive time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    JS – What is wrong with you ? The urge to deface and deny another a different opinion is scary and immature – it is a childish reaction in other words. Go outside and play with your toys and stop wasting grownups time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter and Glenn,

    Thank you adding well-reasoned responses to this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    “…for…”

    :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. dave (988 comments) says:

    If i was to donate $70.00 as I am a “poor prick” I`d consider my self rich If I gave $70 to anyone at this time of the year. $70 pays for most of our families christmas presents this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Dave,

    Did we need to know that. Very depressing thought for Christmas buddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Susan (1 comment) says:

    Excellent stuff! Pleased to help out :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    The “poor prick” comment is apposite. Note that in the US, the “poor” Left don’t go blubbing that the “rich” Right can “steal” elections, and advocate the shutting down of freedom of speech (you’d never get away with that is the US anyway), they form MoveOn.Org and raise BILLIONS in small donations.

    It’s not as if NZ LACKS the “chardonnay socialist” types who COULD donate bucks to their cause. I suspect that there is no hypocrisy like the attachment of a chardonnay socialist to his own money, so that only “right wingers” like those infamous EB businessmen will actually put their money where their mouth is. It is noticeable how the “chardonnay socialist” types right up to George Soros, are all about spending TAXPAYERS money rather than their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Tom – given that the person posting immediately after you is arguing for the position I am criticising I can’t see how you can call it a ‘strawman’, silly maybe, but not a strawman.

    In terms of your substantive points – if you allow suppression of speech as long as there is some other way to express the view, a lot of speech will be suppressed. For instance, a dictator could set up a website allowing any views to be posted and then ban any other expressions of a point of view.

    Re: your claim my argument is circular, I think you’ve missed the point I was trying to make. It wasn’t that stopping someone defacing the billboard was wrong, rather that the conclusion follows from a silly premise. If there is a circularity it is simply that the argument leads to a war between people using the argument to express their view over the top of someone elses. Thats fine, just shows more clearly that the initial premise was silly. So any circularity that exists simply reinforces my argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Bevan – how the hell do you conclude that? It’s a pity you can’t debate the issues rather than attribute views to my I don’t hold.

    BeShakey, you are on record defending James’ desire to deface the billboards on the grounds the its his right o do so as expressing free speech. Im saying it is not because all James is trying to do is stop someone lese exercising their right to free speech just because he doesnt like the message, James wants to undertake censorship, not free speech. Your defense of his intentions is where I draw my comment from.

    I’ve said that I think that if you use the overly generous definition of free speech then it is OK to suppress free speech sometimes.

    No it is not, but it is OK to stop someone who is trying to censor free speech, as in stopping James defacing the billboards.

    The example I gave was one where the message I wanted to give was suppressed so your message (or the message on the billboard which you seem to agree with) is heard.

    You have given an example of censorship, not free speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Julian (177 comments) says:

    James Sleep and Tane – so naive it’s not funny any more.

    Why don’t you address the points made by Glenn and Tom Hunter?

    Because you’re too busy raving about graffiti and points made in a book based on hear-say. Touche.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    heh beshakey and little Jimmy S Why dont you get your own billboards instead of defacing someone elses Well Ill tell yah Like all Socialists you want everyone else to pay your way and theirs. What yours is yours and whats mine is yours Typical Commie arseholes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Bevan – maybe its my fault. I’m struggling to find a way to make this simple enough that you might understand. I’ll try.

    I am on record saying that if you hold the kind of overly generous definition of freedom of speech held by some of Farrar’s FSC chums then you should be defending James. Personally I think that would be silly, but only because the definition of freedom of speech is silly. To be very clear – I don’t think James should be allowed to deface the billbaord. The question is the consistency of those who promote a certain version of free speech, but question his right to do something that complies with that version, but which they don’t like.

    Let me try this very simply: James defacing the billboard is an example of him using his freedom of speech. Of course there will be times when someone using their freedom of speech stops someone else, thats a problem for the whole freedom of speech issue.

    I’d be interested in how you differentiate between freedom of speech and censorship. Censorship is ok, as is freedom of speech? So if I ‘censor’ the billboards that is fine?

    I’ve tried to make this fairly simple for you, but no doubt I’ll have to try again after your next post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “It’s not as if NZ LACKS the “chardonnay socialist” types who COULD donate bucks to their cause.”

    The major problem with donating to this cause is there’s nothing feel good or self significant about it. You can’t boast to the Jonses about donating against the EFB. Means absolutely nothing.

    Besides, the donations won’t get swallowed up in meaningless beaureaucracy and wasted on management. Why do you think the millions that get donated to the homeless by the wealthy each year hasn’t inproved the plight of the homeless in the US. These sware’s and benefit balls for the social elite in the US have been running for decades.

    Has’nt resulted in one inch of good for anyone. Might’ve prolonged the lives of a few thousand stranded animals at best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    And while Im at it no Socialist has yet justified why an encumbent government of whatever colour can spend any amount of tax payer money it likes on advertising etc whilst limiting the rights of others to do the same .

    If that aint 2 faced hypocracy then what is.

    Come on lefties defend the indefensible

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Thanks gd, thats probably the most intelligent sentence youve managed to put together in a long time.

    Not everyone you disagree with is a communist, but no doubt disagreeing with you is grounds to call someone an arsehole.

    Why don’t you try reading the simple posts I put up for Bevan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    gd – try reading the posts from yesterdays discussion on the billboards. There was a fairly long discussion where I discussed the issues with the governments advertising budget. Pascal, Kimble and I even managed to reach some agreement on the issue. Go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Simeon (142 comments) says:

    Hoolian,

    Thats a good one :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Simeon (142 comments) says:

    James Sleep,

    Yes we have heard many times that you want to deface these billboards. But we have not heard why.

    Would you like to explain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    The Left just have no concept of private property do they?

    Free speech means you can say what you want with your own person and your own property.

    You use my property to say what you want at my discretion, not yours. You do not have a right to use my property for your free speech. Use your own.

    This is why the Left also can’t comprehend why paying to express your views is legitimate – they are too busy utilising the property of others for that purpose (taxes etc.). They have the bloodymindedness to think that good ideas and fresh messages are just naturally propagated by governments and journalists. It never occurs to them that the interests of these parties might not be objective, but private individuals with money? Well of course they’re corrupt!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    Only beef is that when I go to Paypal I find it is US$70 not our home currency where the battle is.

    WHATEVER all power to you and yours for giving me the opportunity to make my protest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    HINIMANU it is the feeling of content that you have done something that makes it worthwhile .. which I suspect all you materialistic sods wouldn’t understand in a month of sundays with all your stupid snipe ing.

    Have fun :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “James Sleep, Would you like to explain”

    Ask POC,, No explanation forth coming yet.

    One of those mysteries like the Warren commision that this little boy hopes he’s on a par with…. bizzarre but a total yawn.

    thanks jcuknz for the recognition. And yes, I will have a good Christmas :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    Ask POC,, No explanation forth coming yet.

    Explanations forthcoming from James Sleep? I’m not holding my breath. He’s a seagull blogger – takes a poo-dump on this thread (in fact just about every Kiwiblog thread he contributes to), then scampers off.

    I’m still waiting for James Sleep to respond to my questions about the Electoral Finance Act. Questions that can’t be answered with cheap slogans and simplistic arguments.

    But at least we know James’ idea of a rational debate is defacing billboards that others have paid for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    BlairM – it isn’t actually a left problem its a (extreme) right one. The libertarian view of freedom of speech, which is the one offered by many here, suggests there should be no restrictions on what someone can say or how. Stopping someone defacing a billboard undermines that. Libertarians solve the problem you referred to by saying private property is more important than free speech. Thats fine, but it just reinforces my point that if you use the libertarian view of free speech, then there are times (like when someone is trying to deface the billboard) when it is ok to stop them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    BeShakey:

    The libertarian view of freedom of speech, which is the one offered by many here, suggests there should be no restrictions on what someone can say or how. Stopping someone defacing a billboard undermines that.

    Firstly, there are restrictions. It’s called defamation law. Secondly, there’s a practical alternative to defacing a billboard: a person can stand under it with their own picket fence protest.

    Your argument is peculiar. Say you argue there should be no restrictions on what colour you can paint the fence in front of your house. Stopping me from repainting your yellow fence, changing it to pink, undermines that. You might say this is a silly example. But it also involves private property rights. The private property rights in the caae of the billboards are ownership of the billboard and ownership of the land on which they’re placed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. catwoman (123 comments) says:

    Well Tane I guess the Helen Clark billboards would have to be airbrushed otherwise you would need a resource consent. A REAL photo of H1 would scare the locals…………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    DPF
    I put in USD$100 – keep the billboards coming. A very brave and necessary stance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Peak Oil – I think some people have found the argument peculiar because it is assuming something for the sake of argument and then showing that the assumption leads to a stupid result. The intention is to show that the assumption is stupid, but some people seem to think I actually believe the argument.

    The argument is also about the way things should be (thats what libertarians and the DFC (or whatever the acronym is)) are concerned about. The fact that there are laws against it isn’t really relevant. Just like the fact the the EFB will be law is irrelevant to the argument about whether it should be law.

    The key point I am trying to make is that if you have an extremely generous definition of freedom of speech (for instance the one that libertarians hold which , on its own, implies that defacing the billboard is ok) then I think there are times when it is OK to restrict someones freedom of speech (for instance if someone actually tried to deface the billboard).

    In some ways the point is academic, but I think it is important because I think that some of the people that are up in arms about the EFB restricting freedom of speech, don’t actually realise that the definition of freedom of speech being used isn’t one they would actually agree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Just a note to say thanks to the FSC it was good to see Davids smiling face on the tele, I see my money was spent well. I note they then cut to the old cow, Dear Leader, of course she was not amused. You really have to wonder what world this woman lives in, she happily tramples on our rights of free speech and then expects us to take it lying down. And there are clowns that post on kiwiblog who thinks she is a great world leader-go figure.
    Had to go into the city today, had many comming up and asking where I got my “kill the bill” t shirt. This town is held by Liarbore but the mood is ugly towards Liarbore, these fools are on there way out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Very impressive post by Kiwi in Oz martin english at 4:03pm.

    And how typical of the left to decide that the best way to reply to the Free Speech Coalition’s lawful expression of free speech is to deface it.

    Why not pursue a legal option for a change, guys? Put up your own billboards. Do that one some loony suggested comparing John Key to Hitler.

    Know why that would go down like a lead Zeppelin? Because it doesn’t contain that necessary element of all successful advertising: a grain of truth.

    Money buys ads, sure. But most ads flop.

    Those that work – those with the power to win elections – do so because they contain a grain of truth that voters can relate to.

    So come on: let’s have a campaign with a grain of truth about why we need the Electoral Finance Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    A note to POC, sorry about the other day must learn to read slower and think faster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    BS

    “given that the person posting immediately after you is arguing for the position I am criticising I can’t see how you can call it a ’strawman’, silly maybe, but not a strawman

    As far as I can see Glenn was providing a more precise definition of free speech than I had, in particular using one of my examples: a definition that I have seen libertarians express often, but that does not conform to the reducto ad absurdum form you provided!

    if you allow suppression of speech as long as there is some other way to express the view, a lot of speech will be suppressed. For instance, a dictator could set up a website allowing any views to be posted and then ban any other expressions of a point of view

    ??????? The second sentence (example) seems to rather contradict the argument of the first sentence that talks about …..as long as there is some other way to express the view……

    As far as the first sentence is concerned I suppose you could make the argument that one form of speech (biilboards) is more powerful than another (you yelling over the top of me). In fact that is what lies at the heart of this whole EFB/EB fiasco and why the ‘solutions’ so appeal to the representatives of the modern left.

    Re: your claim my argument is circular, I think you’ve missed the point I was trying to make.
    ?

    It wasn’t that stopping someone defacing the billboard was wrong, rather that the conclusion follows from a silly premise.
    Reducto ad absurdum arguments usually are – hence the term.

    If there is a circularity it is simply that the argument leads to a war between people using the argument to express their view over the top of someone elses.
    Ahhhh – Yes. I believe that is what I said!

    Thats fine, just shows more clearly that the initial premise was silly. So any circularity that exists simply reinforces my argument.
    That the initial premise was silly?

    Ooooookkkaaaay. It’s just that I don’t see the EFB as some meaningless, academic wank that affects only a theoretical version of free speech represented by some all-or-nothing version defined by you for the sake of an argument.

    Well, as it is the last day of school and I’m surrounded by six screaming kids demanding a movie, and having imbibed several beers plus a glass of champers and buckets of strawberries, I shall leave you and those who understand the finer details of Libertarianism better than I to thrash out this issue.

    In short – what the hell am I doing arguing with you on a point that you don’t believe?

    Oh – and I hope you have a great, traditionally vegetative Christmas – and all the rest of you mad posters too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “And there are clowns that post on kiwiblog who thinks she is a great world leader-go figure.”

    If Labour win the next election, I for myself will have no other option but to conclude Helen does indeed fit the above description.

    She would be a national and international wonder.

    She would have my full and unreserved respect and this country would have my full and unreserved contempt.

    There should be nothing less than national public mourning in the streets if labour win November. Sack cloth, ashes and tears. Full public humiliation. Then the revolution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    good effort david, donating in a minute or two. keep up the good fight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Interesting comments.

    Hypothetically – If I were to go out and deface one of DPF’s/National Party’s billboards, I personally would be exercising free speech.

    I would deface these as I am offended by what is being implied by the messages they are channeling.

    How dear the National Party/David Farrar/Cameron Slater compare our leaders to the leaders of the most corrupt nations of the world.

    You are undermining the amount of hell normal citizens of those countries go through.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    Side Show Bob:

    A note to POC, sorry about the other day must learn to read slower and think faster.

    Oh, don’t worry, I’ve recovered from my buckshot wounds. :)

    Genuine misunderstandings are commonplace on the internet and, as such, forgivable. What’s unforgivable though, and I’m sure you’ll agree SSB, is the promulgation (by the likes of Phillip John/Roger Nome) of unsubstantiated allegations, lies and smeers. These types – across the political spectrum – need to be flushed out and shown up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “You are undermining the amount of hell normal citizens of those countries go through.”

    Labours trying to bring that hell here.

    you are making yourself a target in the revoulution regardless of your age.

    But since we’re talking NZ it probably won’t happen till you’re 26.

    by that time you’ll be a labour MP and a prime snipers target.

    if the Labour elite haven’t done away with you like the fascists and commies did to their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    James Sleep:

    Hypothetically – If I were to go out and deface one of DPF’s/National Party’s billboards, I personally would be exercising free speech.

    Let’s take this Mercedes of yours for a test-drive: by parity of reasoning, if I (hypothetically of course) were to spray grafitti all over your parents’ house, I personally would be exercising free speech? Nope, I’d be committing a criminal act. So let’s put that one back in the caryard, James.

    How dear the National Party/David Farrar/Cameron Slater compare our leaders to the leaders of the most corrupt nations of the world.

    It’s dare as in I double dare you, not dear as in Dear Auntie Helen. Anyway, I presume the point of the billboards is to inform, enlighten and entertain – in the spirit contemplated by the Electoral Finance Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    James, what is this “right not to be offended” that you claim in defacing billboards? How far does it extend? If I find you offensive, do I get to throw you out of a Hercules over the Pacific Ocean? Surely I am exercising my own right to free speech by shutting you up? Or is it just your property that I have a right to deface, not your person?

    Please clarify without making a complete arse of yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    BlairM,

    Not at all.
    Please people do not get me wrong, I will not go out and deface them, I believe that if they want to put their opinions out in the limelight then they can expect somebody to come along and channel their opinions back.

    A lot of people would argue that defacing the billboards is doing that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. toby1845 (194 comments) says:

    How’s this: a billboard with a picture of Owen Glenn, with the caption:

    “No, I’m not a rich prick. I’m a rich c–t”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    toby1845 – Whatever makes you happy sport

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Beshakey,

    Surely defacing someone else’s billboard is more akin to censorship than free speech.

    The common sense way to respond to a billboard is to erect your own one on a busy corner or start a viral email campaign, or make a satirical 30 sec movie and put it on u-tube.

    These billboards speak for themselves: lacking in creativity and originality. They give Bainimarama more fame than he deserves, and are likely to be mostly ignored.

    Interesting that the anti-smacking bill didn’t result in the end of civilization as we know it as reported on TV news tonight.

    The anti-EFB brigade make an equally interesting yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    James Sleep:

    You still haven’t addressed my point about private property rights – and it was a serious one: what’s the difference between your parents’ home and a billboard? They both sit on a plot of land. I believe defacing either is a criminal offence. And, interestingly, one may technically commit an act of trespass to enter upon private land in order to deface a billboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “It’s dare as in I double dare you, not dear as in Dear Auntie Helen.”

    Talk about painting a picture for the illiterate.

    POC, its paining me to see such an intelligent person going to so much trouble to convince and defend to the unconvincable and who are so unapolagetically so.

    Plse stop POC. you are hurting my eyes.

    your posting is far superior than this geek and you shouldn’t be equating him with your level. I now understand D4J’s loathing of him.

    And merry christmas to yourself and your family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Defacing billboards is not a free speech issue, it is a private property issue. Just like standing in your front yard (on your property) at 1am in the morning and shouting slogans isn’t a free speech issue, it is about the fact that I am trespassing and disturbing the peace.

    People should have the right to free speech, so long as they do not infringe other people’s rights in doing so. This is entirely consistent to my mind. If I have something to say, I say it in a way that doesn’t illegally expropriate someone else’s property, I don’t defame or slander anyone, I don’t disturb the peace or interrupt someone else’s lawful business, then there is no reason for the government to restrict it.

    The EFB restricts speech that was not infringing on anybody’s rights. It restricts speech because the government believes that there should be restrictions on the ability of people to express their opinion at certain times in the electoral cycle, even though that expression of opinions was not curtailing anybody else’s rights.

    They justify that on the basis that otherwise the sheeple might become convinced of something that isn’t true, because the sheeple are too stupid to read/listen to/look at whatever message, and discern whether it is true or not. To me, that tells you everything you need to know about the outlook of this government – we know what is good for you, and we need to stop you making decisions for yourself. Here’s hoping for at least two terms before John Key starts to fall foul of the same thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    Aw shucks – thanks for your seasonal greetings! I’m sure (or at least hope) D4J will have equally nice things to say to you when his ban expires on, I think, Saturday. You might call it a Kiwiblog collective group hug.

    Unlike Master James, I prefer not to be chain-shackled to the Labour good, National bad (or National good, Labour bad) thought process. He really should try it some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    Paul:

    Your first and second paragraphs make perfect sense.

    Your third is problematic:

    The EFB restricts speech that was not infringing on anybody’s rights. It restricts speech because the government believes that there should be restrictions on the ability of people to express their opinion at certain times in the electoral cycle, even though that expression of opinions was not curtailing anybody else’s rights.

    The Electoral Finance Act (it’s now law) regulates expression of opinion for one-third of the electoral cycle. Such an extended restricted period is repugnant, and I’ve yet to see a compelling defence of it. If one supports the other philosophical justifications for the EFA, a more sensible compromise would surely have been a lesser restricted period, say, three or six months.

    I agree with your final paragraph, by the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Bernard Darnton (3 comments) says:

    Here’s what the wannabe billboard vandals are missing: The distinction between speech content and non-speech action.

    When you’re prosecuted for vandalising a billboard you’re not having your opinion suppressed, you’re having your penchant for destroying other people’s property suppressed. The action is illegal regardless of the opinion expressed.

    The law banning vandalism doesn’t affect your right to express yourself. If your opinion is that Helen Clark is popular and competent you’re perfectly at liberty to spray paint that on the side of your own house or car.

    Compare that with how the EFA works. It’s legal to put up a hundred billboards saying “Please buy corn flakes” but it’s not legal to put up a hundred billboards saying “Don’t vote for leftie flakes”.

    Exactly the same action but the second case is illegal solely because of the opinion expressed. That is an attack on free speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    POC. I see the paragraph as being accurate. I agree with you that there is no justification for the length of time.

    I can agree with a “greater good” argument that says that expenditure and campaigning should be limited close to the election. I would prefer a system that says that a date is set and then:
    – parliament rises,
    – the whole govt goes into caretaker mode (also meaning that govt departments stop advertising other than that absolutely essential, and probably should stop issuing red ads that say “you’re better off with labour”)
    – campaign limits kick in, including broadcasting restrictions
    – any parliamentary expenditure stops – incumbent MPs cannot continue to communicate on the public dime
    – third party campaigns have some sort of limit as well – but that this limit should have some correlation to political party limits, not to some theoretical view of how much money other third parties might have

    I can also agree that some sorts of third party campaigns should require the same sort of authorisations as party campaigns require, and that any campaigns that get too close to a particular party need to be counted as part of that party’s expenditure.

    The rules for what “too close” looks like may need reviewing – both the EB and some union campaigns weren’t caught last time around. It is almost impossible, however, to work out who a negative campaign benefits, so unless we just want to force all third parties to run negative campaigns, we should not get too enthusiastic here. Evidence from other countries suggests that tightening these rules has unforseen impacts that might be worse than the original problem. I’d rather allow someone to advocate a position so long as it is open and has an authorisation on it (so I know who they are), than to force some underhanded and complex system of associated groups with similar messages, and that cannot be tracked to who is actually behind it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Bernard: good description of the problem.

    I’m surprised by the lack of understanding shown by some of this distinction. Perhaps that lack of understanding is why they support the EFB – they don’t really realise why it is bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Good stuff. I’m making a donation.

    Say, thinking about civil disobedience next year… we have some folks with money but who don’t wish to exercise civil disobedience … and others with no money but a willingness to participate in forms of civil disobedience. there much be an opportunity for each group to help each other out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    “gd Says:

    December 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
    And while Im at it no Socialist has yet justified why an encumbent government of whatever colour can spend any amount of tax payer money it likes on advertising etc whilst limiting the rights of others to do the same .

    If that aint 2 faced hypocracy then what is.”

    Ah but isn’t it so much easier to accuse opponants of theEFB of being in the pay of big business and shadowy manipulators than to face the big money the government will spend next year after they cut a secret deal with their allies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,326 comments) says:

    Here’s a thought, seeing as tax cuts are (apparently) on next year’s budget agenda (which just happens to be in an election year). Kiwiblog Labourites argue passionately against tax cuts. Their argument: they only amount to a paltry sum (say $20 per week) for Average Jo and Josephine. So Kiwiblog Labourites should have no problem with people spending up to $1000 (a year’s equivalent of tax cuts, on average income) of their own money for a cause they passionately believe in. That covers options 1-5 in DPF’s post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “I’m sure (or at least hope) D4J will have equally nice things to say to you when his ban expires ”

    can’t see it in my lifetime .

    Just gonna have to try ma best to restrain myself when his full frontal start again.

    you’re going to have to support me POC. after this long r@r his slings and arrows will be merciless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. James W (271 comments) says:

    One question for you James Sleep…

    Is Owen Glenn a “rich prick”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    Just got an email re third party registration:

    “The form for application will be on our website http://www.elections.org.nz by 9.30pm this evening.

    Helena

    Helena Catt
    Electoral Commission – Te Kaitiaki Take Kowhiri”

    Can’t wait. Third party registration for Dummies here we come…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. john (478 comments) says:

    So its arsehole labour deviant pricks defacing our building.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    “One question for you James Sleep…

    Is Owen Glenn a “rich prick”?”

    He is wealthy, yes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    But I don’t and will not use the term – ‘Rick Prick’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    john – you forgot to put bottom-feeding troughing mouthbreather leeches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    Rick Prick? That could be your porn star name, James – or your name in prison after you deface those billboards after you get caught and your lefty so-called mates hang you out to dry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    krazykiwi Says:

    December 20th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
    “Good stuff. I’m making a donation.

    Say, thinking about civil disobedience next year… we have some folks with money but who don’t wish to exercise civil disobedience … and others with no money but a willingness to participate in forms of civil disobedience. there much be an opportunity for each group to help each other out.”

    What if someone was to produce 10,000 bumper stickers saying “The Socialist Labour Government Supresses Free Speech.” with a picture of Herr Klark on them. We could buy the stickers for cost + a bit for a slush fund and stick them on our cars.

    How would they police that. 10,000 people in court for expressing free speech?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    webrat – good idea. perhaps the FSC folks could visit Screen Concepts and order a few. I’d break the habit of a lifetime and afix an anti-Labour sticker to my car (which is red – boo!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    I’m not the bumper sticker type but I would certainly stick one of tese on my car.

    In fact I could stick on the sides of a heap of sheep and drive the mob up and don the road!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    I’m not the bumper sticker type but I would certainly stick one of tese on my car.

    In fact I could stick them on the sides of a heap of sheep and drive the mob up and down the road!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. pdm (844 comments) says:

    Bugerlugs says `Third Party Registration forms will be available ……….

    Does anyone know what it costs to register as a Third Party?

    If it is not too steep could we not `clog up’ the Electoral Off ice with mass registrations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    Tane said: “Read the Hollow Men….” Say no more… that boy is obsessed with that book.
    At least James Sleep is being honest when he says he will openly vandalise attempts by free thinking citizens to express their freedom of speech, Tane on the other hand… well he will keep dipping into his “Hollow Men. He probably has it laminated. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    off topic: big quake just now. friends in Mahia lost the contents of their cupboards onto the floor and their TV took a drive from a shelf. our pole house in wgtn wobbled like jelly for a while too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. pdm (844 comments) says:

    Just adding from KK – not violent in Hastings but was one of the longest I can recall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Hollow Men. He probably has it laminated

    a waste of perfectly good lamination material. but there you go.

    clintheine – great cartoon on freedom of expression :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. toby1845 (194 comments) says:

    “Tane on the other hand… well he will keep dipping into his “Hollow Men. He probably has it laminated.”

    No, I suspect not. The pages are stuck together, and smell like janola……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. francis (712 comments) says:

    Naom Chomsky, as quoted by John Key, said it best. And, hey, defacing billboards is not “free speech” – it is denying a message. If you were upset by people yelling that the Greens shouldn’t have a voice at the anti-efb march, you should apply that same principle to the idea of these billboards. If you have an objection, raise your OWN billboards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Ed Snack (1,873 comments) says:

    I like the idea of new “pledge card”. Perhaps it could have:

    “I, Helen Clark pledge to:

    1. Steal as much of the public funds as I bloody well want
    2. Call you cancerous and corrosive for being effective
    3. Sign whatever paintings I damn well please
    4. Go to any rugby games when and how I like
    5. Get my minions to slag you off in parliament, and then defend them for doing so if you try to object

    These are my solemn pledges as the new PMFL (PM for life)

    I am sure collectively we could come up with a rather more effective list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    pdm –
    doesn’t appear to cost anything – just go to http://www.elections.org.nz/uploads/third_party_listing_form_20_dec_07.pdf and register away!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    Ed –
    Don’t worry about pledge cards…it’s the next step the Overlord will take to issue us all with taxpayer funded identity cards, microchipped of course.

    She must have read Orwell differently to the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. kiwiinlondon (31 comments) says:

    defacing billboards, or any propery for that matter is not free speech, it is criminal damage and therefore illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    James Sleep said: Hypothetically – If I were to go out and deface one of DPF’s/National Party’s billboards, I personally would be exercising free speech.

    As has been pointed out that is not free speech it is criminal damage (or if you are really lucky intentional damage under the Summary Offences Act).

    Anyway I suggest you read Locke and inparticular his treatise on the social contract (between the governed and the governing). It may also help you undertand the difference between free speech and destruction of private property.

    Cheers
    GPT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    70 dollars for a billboard for a month?

    Or

    A $10 donation
    can buy a bush knife for a young person in the Solomon Islands to use to build fences and chicken coops to start up a small-scale project to help them grow more food.
    A $20 donation
    can pay for five household gardens to be set up in Cambodia. The vegetable gardens can help families to have a more diverse diet and decrease the chances of malnutrition.
    A $30 donation
    can buy a personal washing kit for a family in Sudan, including body soaps, clothes soaps, a jerry can, sleeping mats and wash basins.
    A $50 donation
    can pay for Mozambican women living with HIV to undertake specialised sewing skills training, enabling them to develop skills to negotiate for further contracts.
    A $100 donation
    can be used to start a vegetable garden to provide nutritious food for families in need in South Africa. The vegetable gardens ensure that families who do not have the financial means to buy groceries are able to feed their families with nutritious food.

    But of course billboards to get national elected are more important.

    Merry Christmas to you all and a happy new year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Colonel Masters (409 comments) says:

    I also would break the habit of a lifetime and affix an anti-Labour bumper sticker to my car. Only problem is, those leftie thugs would kick in a side panel or key it!

    And I don’t mean John Key it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Colonel Masters (409 comments) says:

    So I contributed $100 for an Auckland billboard for a day :-)
    This means I’ve now donated more than Roger Kerr. Does this mean I can expect to be outed on MSM news?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Jim (398 comments) says:

    natural party of govt raised a good point. It is in a similar vein to what struck me when I read the thread title. I’d think about giving the money to someone that needs it (even though I’d put myself in the economic ‘right’ box – so I’m a greedy prick/bastard/wahtever)

    But, with a little bit more thinking, it is really unfair to compare what things cost in NZ with the Sudan. Just imagine how many starving kids could be fed with Helen Clark’s annual airfare cost. How about the new govt BMWs? The cost of the “Pledge Card”. Hip-hop tours, Tuku’s underpants, shonky public servants golden handshakes, etc, ad-infinitum.

    Put it all in perspective.

    Merry Christmas to you all and a happy new year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Matt (227 comments) says:

    It must also be remembered that at least part of the cause of global poverty is political corruption and a lack of real democracy. By defending democracy you are helping to prevent future poverty in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I thought Winston Peters had already cornered the market in using the poverty and suffering of others for political capital this year.

    But then Helen suggested the FSC should have spend their money on a ‘Christmas Charity.

    Now NPOG, with striking originality of thought, has a list of his own.

    Is it some kind of leftist fall-back position, when all else has failed, to pull the guilt card?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    speaking of charridy – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10483583&pnum=2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    NOGP
    Thats good
    Tell everyone how to spend their money

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    NPOG – I’m keen to stop a megalomaniac PM from wrecking the country I love. If that means less for international humanitarian concerns then it’s an unfortunate consequence.

    Tell you what though, I commit to match every dollar I spend bringing down this corrupt government with a matching dollar for the needy that Labour has abandoned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    I love how it’s suddenly become:

    (a) Wrong to spend money you earned on issues that affect you, your country and your future

    (b) Impossible to donate to charity and still be a spending advocate against the Labour and Green Parties attempts to feather the electoral nest in their favour

    NPOG, do you donate any of your privately earned money to a charity? If no, why not? If yes, what tells you that myself, Lee, Bwakile, Matt or anybody else doesn’t do the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Simeon (142 comments) says:

    Its crazy that the Government can spend as much of our money to promote their policies but we as taxpayers are restricted when it comes to spending our own hard earned money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. jess (1 comment) says:

    I’ve just donated to the billboards. I sincerley hope that you can keep them going right up till election day! I love them. The left will hate them. Good job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Lee C I take it youy are agreeing with my point re any government being able to outspend by a massive margin anyone lese.

    You see I believe this is the one point thats not being hammered home.

    If advertising doent sway voters as some have said them why the need to limit or restrict an indiviual or group spending their own money.

    If however advertsising does sway voters then why shouyldnt the emcumbent governemnt have any advantage over anyone else.

    Where the equity fairness and justice in that.

    You cant as the Socialists are trying have it both ways. It doesnt add up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Gee, NPoG, last night I went and spent $18.99 on a DVD and considerably more grocery shopping so I could make entirely trivial and unimportant desserts for myself and the seventeen other people I’ll be sharing lunch with on Christmas Day. Thanks for the reminder to go flagellate myself because I don’t spend my money – or hold political views – that you deep appropriate.

    I already have one mother, NPoG, and if I need another I’ll give you a call. Please hold your breath while waiting for that to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reg (539 comments) says:

    NPoG Just imagine what that $800,000 the kleptocracy stole off us for the Pledge card could have bought if spent on charity!

    It could buy 80,000 bush knives for a young people in the Solomon Islands to use to build fences and chicken coops to start up small-scale projects to help them grow more food.

    It could pay for 200,000 household gardens to be set up in Cambodia. The vegetable gardens can help families to have a more diverse diet and decrease the chances of malnutrition.

    It could buy over 26,000 personal washing kits for families in Sudan, including body soaps, clothes soaps, jerry cans, sleeping mats and wash basins.

    It could pay for 16,000 Mozambican women living with HIV to undertake specialised sewing skills training, enabling them to develop skills to negotiate for further contracts.

    It could be used to start 8,000 vegetable gardens to provide nutritious food for families in need in South Africa. The vegetable gardens ensure that families who do not have the financial means to buy groceries are able to feed their families with nutritious food.

    But of course “pledge cards” to get Labour elected are more important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    I wouldnt worry about young master Sleep defacing Billboards.
    He’s too short.

    Reg-imagine how far the money our Ministries are going to spend promoting Labour next year would go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote