General Debate 3 August 2008
I must remember to keep doing these!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: General DebateGeneral Debate 3 August 2008
31 Responses to “General Debate 3 August 2008”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Following on from your comment on the Interent is the greatest invention ever.
heres the greatest invention for the internet .
The E-toilet
New E-Toilet To Revolutionize Online Shitting
Of course, rudimentary pee-commerce has been around almost as long as the Internet itself,” Scoscia said, “but our new e-toilet will bring the Internet into the next millennium with real-time point, click and shit capability.” Scoscia noted that “Number 2.0,” as Silicon Valley insiders have dubbed it, will be cross-platform compatible and fully 2K Flushes compliant. In addition, he said, it will feature significantly wider, more comfortable bandwidth to accommodate even the most massive user download.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29225
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Seems to be a thing about jackets lately.
Nice to see Helen wearing Winston’s jacket on Agenda this morning!
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
I was almost impressed watching Guyon Espiner interviewing Clark on Agenda this morning. Espiner actually put some fairly tough questions to her – not that he got any answers but interesting nonetheless
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Just to remind us that the NZ election is not the only game in town…..
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The following is from Muriel Newman’s forum. National MPs particularly Key should read the book. National’s policies are anti-family and particularly anti-father. The have given the police powers of the judiciary when it when it comes to domestic violence orders. If National wanted to increase the rate of liable parent payments they would be as prepared to listen to men as they are to women. They have shown that they are not by the reintroduction of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs which Don Brash rightfully abolished.
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=372
“American author Kathleen Parker has written a book entitled Save the Males that challenges the foundations of 21st-century feminism. Bravely she contends that, initially, through extreme feminism and its adoption by western society, women have demonised men and trivialised their contribution, especially to family life. Her passionate defence of the male sex and their worth in the world at large has had many women across the pond foaming at the mouth. They regard Parker as a traitor to her gender”.
“She dares to suggest that in trying to make the world fairer for women they have made it grossly unfair to men”.
Wake-up call aims to restore men to their rightful role
By Derek Lord, The Press and Journal
1 August 2008
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Articl … ?UserKey=0
The feminist movement has a new hate figure someone who has inspired more loathing among its members than Hugh Hefner, Peter Stringfellow and all the other male chauvinist pigs you can think of and, shock, horror, she’s a woman.
American author Kathleen Parker has written a book entitled Save the Males that challenges the foundations of 21st-century feminism. Bravely she contends that, initially, through extreme feminism and its adoption by western society, women have demonised men and trivialised their contribution, especially to family life.
Her passionate defence of the male sex and their worth in the world at large has had many women across the pond foaming at the mouth. They regard Parker as a traitor to her gender. She dares to suggest that in trying to make the world fairer for women they have made it grossly unfair to men.
She argues that by going out of our way to make single mothers feel good about themselves, by diminishing the role of fathers, by elevating women as the superior parents, we have gone a long way towards destroying one of the major building blocks of society the nuclear family.
She laments the destruction of traditional male values that she describes as being “masculinity tied to honour”, claiming that these values were regarded by feminists as a form of assault on the female gender. Thus there was a move towards Metrosexual Man, a softer, gentler creature who was encouraged to “get in touch with his feminine side”.
So Desperate Dan was out and David Beckham was in. Men shouldn’t be afraid to dye their hair, wear perfume and use a little moisturiser to keep their complexion looking lovely.
Parker also writes about the assault on the traditional male character in films and television. She calls this the Sitcom Man syndrome and asks us to try to think of a wholesome, reliable role model among the hundreds of screen dads we have seen over the past generation or two. Although she is obviously referring to the American output, she could just as easily be writing about TV shows and movies on this side of the water.
Look at the types of men portrayed in any British soap or sitcom. They’re either bumbling, feckless eejits like Coronation Street’s Steve, the pencil-chewing taxi driver, or serial womanisers like the ginger minger in EastEnders.
The state reinforces this low opinion of fathers on both sides of the Atlantic. Parker states: “The family courts effectively make fathers a slave to the state; his wages become state property; his time with his children is determined by a family court judge, and he faces jail if, for whatever reason, he fails to pay his child support on time.”
I know of one man, a hard-working dentist and devoted father and husband, who suddenly found himself homeless after 20 years of marriage when his wife declared that she was bored with him. The courts awarded her half the value of the family home and a large percentage of her husband’s salary.
How fair is that?
Parker contends that the low opinion of fathers springs from the explosion and normalisation of single motherhood.
“By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfilment, we’ve helped to fashion a world in which fathers are not just scarce, but in which men are superfluous,” she says.
Later, she states: “At the same time that men have been ridiculed in the public sphere, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along with other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which are incredibly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy.”
Far from joining in with the sisterhood’s blanket condemnation of the male of the species, the American author waxes lyrically about the innate qualities of many men. When she looks at her own father and fathers around her, she concludes that being a father is, in fact, the manliest thing a man can do. She says it encourages responsibility, sacrifice and the ability to put others before yourself all essential qualities to a functioning society and to a happy home.
“When we take away a man’s central purpose in life and marginalise him from society’s most important institution (the family), we strip him of his manhood.
“Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity. Yet some feminists and other progressives still insist that men are non-essential.”
Of course, in Scotland’s dependency culture, the state has taken the place of the father when it comes to providing for the single-parent family in many instances. Indeed, there are thousands of single-parent families who would be considerably worse off financially if the parents had married.
They would probably have much more difficulty finding a council house and, if and when they found one, they would not get nearly as much in the way of state handouts as the mother would have received as a single parent.
It would be a tragedy if this sort of financial consideration continued to dominate the attitude of so many young Scots women towards marriage and family life.
As for the country’s young men, unless things change drastically, the whole concept of fatherhood will go the way of the dodo and Parker’s notion of “masculinity tied to honour” will be as outmoded as the chivalry of King Arthur and his knights of the round table. These young men need the example of a father or grandfather to let them know what their role in life should be what they should aspire to but those examples are becoming increasingly thin on the ground.
Kathleen Parker’s courageous book is a wake-up call reminding us of the importance of men in family life. She says that we ignore that call at our peril and society as we know it will perish. She concludes: “In the coming years, we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities to family and country. We need boys who have acquired the virtues of honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be men and boys be boys.”
I couldn’t have put it better myself and I’m glad I didn’t try, or I’d have to go into hiding for the next 20 years for fear of being tracked down and disembowelled by the sisterhood’s enforcers.
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“..the Ministry of Women’s Affairs which Don Brash rightfully abolished..”
and that happened in your little alternate universe..?..did it chucky..?
..was that when brash was prime minister..?
how long did it last..?
..his prime-ministership..?
chucky..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
and as a male doing the sole-parent thing..
..can i just say what absolute drivel/crap you espouse..
..thus cementing your reputation as a silly old fool..
“..She argues that by going out of our way to make single mothers feel good about themselves, by diminishing the role of fathers, by elevating women as the superior parents, we have gone a long way towards destroying one of the major building blocks of society the nuclear family.”.
bollocks..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
For fuck sake!
Will somebody please either get Phul a job or tell WINZ he is abusing the system, either way there has got to be something that can be done about this low life destroying every single interesting thread this site has.
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Phil, as many on this blog have pointed out you are far from the best example of a parent.
The only reason I can see that you got custody was that the alternative was even worse.
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 pm
On the subject of parenting, and more specifically the impact of different family structures on child well-being, this is a research link I’ve posted before.
The Table 2 on page 5 is particularly telling. The baseline of 1.0 is a biological mum/dad/kids family. Note how the death of children in the case of neither biological parent is more than 100x the baseline.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
just for the public record..
..i won’t hear a word said against my sons’ mother..
..she gave birth to him/brought him into my life..after all..
..and is a good mother to/for him..
(b.t.w..what’s that really foul smell..?
oh..!..chuckys’ here..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Phil, if as you say your son’s mother is a good mother please explain how did you who are such a poor role model for any child get custody?
Unlike some on this list I do not mind my taxes going to pay the DPB to parents as an interim measure. However, I do object to paying the DPB to someone such as you who choose not to work and bludge off taxpayers.
Let us hope after the election you will be froced to pull your weight in society.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am
listen arse-wipe..
could you please crawl back into your cess-pit..
..and just leave my/(anyones’) family..
..out of this..?
..maybe a small mark of some sort of ‘civilisation’..?
..a concept alien to a slimeball like you..i know..
..but..y’know..!
..and..um..!..shouldn’t you be focussing on how your dreams of rightwing rule..
..are rapidly going down the toilet..?
..”feel the burn..!”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Its a fair question Phul, Chuck and the rest of us pay for your pathetic existence, we have a right to know.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I see the drug addict parasite is allowed to bring up his family but its off limits to everyone else. Just like its Dear Leader.
Ever consider that you’re getting the real low karma readings might not because of political polarity but just because people don’t like you phool.
We get pissy like that when people living off our money tell us how to live I guess. That and you’re an asshole.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
heh-heh..!
..and how’s yr monday morning going there..?..muzza..?
..how about that english..?..eh..?
..and that borrow to fund tax cuts’ message..eh..?
..it would seem the mug-punters aren’t quite as ‘mug’.as you/key assumed..
..eh..?
..natty-poll-slump..coming up..
..eh..?
..and questiontime should be ‘fun’ for the next little while..
eh..?
(that’s if you enjoy blood-sports..and i know you prefer human prey muzza..
..but this should do for/as a substitute..
..watch clark/cullen flaying a hapless key..)
(maybe you should have a listen to ‘blue monday’..by new order..
..give some rythmn to your despondancy(growing unease..)
eh muzza..?
(“three more years..!..three more years..!”..)
heh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
You fuckwit do you even bother to find out what your wanking on about? I’ve been doing nothing but kicking the crap out of Key for some time now. Sycophantic following is for drug fucked lefties without the mental capacity to think for themselves or get a job.
You really wouldn’t like my idea of bloodsports. They actually have blood.
By the way my mother managed to raise two kids, put her self through teachers collage and work as well. Try getting off your ass, you’re not disandvantaged, you’re fucking idle.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
and..do you think all this is/explains the source of your ‘anger’/love of ‘real bloodsports’..?.
…muzza..?
..raging against absent parents..?
(we could have a ‘breakthrough’ here..folks..!.
..muzzas’ opening-up..
..showing us all his ‘pain’..)
aww..!!..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
“(b.t.w..what’s that really foul smell..?”
Whoar, could it be your baking is burning? Be careful.
Question for DPF: The Kiwiblog home page appears to load more slowly these days. Is it my imagination or is the server overloaded?
August 4th, 2008 at 11:02 am
DAvid
COuld we one day have a General Debate thread from which PhilU is banned. This, and so many others seem(s) to have degraded into a diatribe on him – when there are interesting topics to play out.
No point starting a discussion I suppose so . . . . .
August 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“..Whoar, could it be your baking is burning? Be careful..”
what does that mean..?
are you repeating allegations that i am involved in the manufacture of ‘p’..?
what does ‘baking’ mean..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2008 at 11:09 am
HELP NEEDED
If you happen to be a bass guitar and/or double bass player.
And you live within a reasonable distance of Lower Hutt
And you like kids
And you can spare some time between ow and the end of September (including the week ending September 28th)
THEN
WE NEED YOUR HELP
Some 90 Scouts and Guides are going to present a Gang Show on stage at the Little Theatre in September and our amateur orchestra is short of an electric and double bass to complete the party.
The music isn’t difficult, it’s mainly fun up beat stuff. It’s a big ask for someone – I know, but helping us getting the sound right will really pay off in terms of feeling great – the kids, both those on-stage and those behind the scenes, are proving that today’s youth are not all bad, in fact some of them are downright talented!
David has my email, and a note here is bound to get to me poste haste – so please, if you’ve got the talent share it
August 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
PHILU (hopefully) with MR Farrars permision , YOU PHILU have 90 demerits
I John F aka jsf 2008 John DUMBY WORKER PRINTER epmu ETC ETC have 70 demerits soon to shot in the back of the neck nearly doomed for months soon (CROCK OF SHIT)my thoughts only
we should run a book IE bets before we disappear with demeritis, common demerites is BOY SCOUTS punishment i think
we should try to raise money for the SPCA , vote for my demise (i love animals) or PHILU i think he has pets ,you are brainy posters till KEY SACKS YOU public servants and YOU HAVE TO REALLY WORK , wellcome to the REAL WORLD
so lets figure how we give to the SPCA and help animals, (IT NOT THEIR FAULT)just arse hole owners JOHN , its your court
August 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
SORRY folks , i know im on the way out ,so lets try to help animals with my demise,, , i dont know…
August 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
oh look..!
proof the rich are not only greedy/selfish..
..but are also ignorant..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/meet-the-rich/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
bad post ,i retract
August 7th, 2008 at 4:16 am
The Labour party is the main anti-family party in New Zealand.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Example number one, WFF. Designed to keep families caught in a poverty trap. It’s like the Soviet Union’s equalization of salaries. You know exactly what you are going to earn for the next 18 years regardless of what level of effort you put in at your place of employment.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Example number two, anti-smacking bill. Designed to keep parents ever fearful of the State. It was not a popular law and Labour has taken a hit in the polls because of it.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Example number three, tax tax tax tax tax. The more tax Labour takes from hard working New Zealanders the less Families have to spend on the real necessities of life. Labour wastes the money it collects through tax on poorly thought out schemes with poor outcomes. How are Families suppose to buy a block of cheese?
August 7th, 2008 at 4:53 am
There are plenty of other examples of how Labour is anti-Family. Anyone else care to give some examples?