Another for the ban list
I blogged in October on 85 things the Greens want to ban.
This one off task now looks to be an ongoing challenge as they have found more stuff to ban. So I will try and keep updating the list as we go. Today we have
86. Ban cat and dog fur imports
Yes Sue Kedgley wants Customs to DNA test (I am not making this up) any fur at the border. Also going through the last new months we also have:
87. Ban plastic bags
88. Plasma TVs
I could also include banning smoking outdoors in the Auckland CBD as proposed by Green Party member Cr Cathy Casey, but I’m ot sure if it is official Green policy? Same for the admiration of the ban on bottled water by a Green Party member – I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and not include them, even though I am sure it is just a matter of time 
March 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
You lost me at “Greens”. After that who gives a crap. May as well ask a lampost what it thinks of electricity generation issues for all it matters.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
There is a certain ‘whale’ they dont want to save!! They would contribute to the harpoon
March 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Applying the same logic, should not wool be banned because of cruelty to sheep leaving them outside on the high country sheep runs in mid winter. Or is this just wooley thinking on my part?
March 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Peter,
Generally fur comes from killed animals, rather than shorn like wool. To apply the same logic would to suggest enforcing vegetarianism, however. And I doubt that the Greens would make that policy.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Damn, there goes my fledgling pet fur business… Anyone looking for slightly more than a hundred dalmations?
March 17th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Lets face it. The Greens really want to ban only three things. Choice, Responsibility and Modern Life.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:33 am
so..dpf..
..you think it is ok for cat/dog fur to be sold/worn..?
(tho’..as a vegan..i do see/note the validity of peter w s’ reference to speciesism..)
..and ‘green vegetarian policy’..?
..that’ll have the green mp’s chuckling..eh..?
..as they stand around the barbie..
..chewing on the fatted cow..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Does Judith Collins still want to ban a 400KV high tension powerline coming through her electorate.
Or has reformed her nimby ways, and now supports the ‘crash’ development of this project
March 17th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Brian Smaller (882) Vote: 1 0 Says:
“The Greens really want to ban only three things. Choice, Responsibility and Modern Life.”……….to be sure ,to be sure !
March 17th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Brian is 100% correct.
I quote reason.com: “The history of the last 200 years points out how technological innovation is the main influence that has been responsible for our enormous material progress in that time and foresees further huge advances if the political system does not stifle it — a very real possibility given the influence of the anti-progress Greens and the power of vested interests that would tend to lose out by people being given more choices.”
The Green Party and its Luddites accolytes, after socialising the economy, would make New Zealand a giant national park and would send us back to the cart and horse.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am
@ philu “..you think it is ok for cat/dog fur to be sold/worn..?” Indeed I think it should be actively encouraged. Cats and dogs are pests in this country and should be eradicated. If there is an offshore market for dog and cat products, fur,meat etc this would offset the cost of the eradication program.
BTW WTF is it with the three dots ?
March 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“..The Greens really want to ban only three things. Choice, Responsibility and Modern Life..”
um..!..no..
the greens want sustainable options…they want more ‘choice’..
..the greens want those responsible for crapping on the planet to be ‘responsible’..
..how is that not ‘responsibility’..
..and ‘modern life’..?
..you are the luddite..
..the one clinging to the past..
..not yet recognising your time has both come..
..and gone..
..(good luck with that..!..eh.?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
spondre..btw..wtf is it with the over-the-top/draconian censorship policies you operate on the blogs you are chief-commissar of..?
..can’t the right ‘bear’ criticism/free-speech..?
..i mean..we all know you/your ideologies stand tattered/near-naked..
..(so i guess using the censorship rag in a futile attempt to cover your over-exposed private parts sorta makes sense..eh..?..)
..is that censorship a last ditch defence..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
“..“The history of the last 200 years points out how technological innovation is the main influence that has been responsible for our enormous material progress in that time and foresees further huge advances if the political system does not stifle it..”
are you talking about energy-efficient lightbulbs there..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Have the Greens considered banning Phil U and http://www.whoar.co.nz ? That is one ban I COULD support
March 17th, 2009 at 11:19 am
The greens really are cretins …. it is the wealth generated by the technology that they decry and seek to control in the name of “sustainability” that allows us to clean up the planet.
Don’t believe me? Just go to a third world city like Jakarta or Nairobi and see for yourself how environmentally friendly, clean and “sustainable” they are.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“The Greens really want to ban only three things. Choice, Responsibility and Modern Life”
This is seriously overcomplicating the reality. They only want to ban ONE thing – freedom!
March 17th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Banning seems a little crude, but governments can and do restrict and outright ban all sorts of imports for perfectly legitimate reason including biosecurity. Surely a National-led government will maintain adequate border control to protect our agricultural export business?
Incidentally, unless National’s going to pull out of Kyoto, dealing with emissions from residential/commercial dwellings ought to be a primary objective. In Australia, they account for 23 per cent of emissions. In NSW, all new and new developments of residential and commercial dwellings must comply with new standards, BASIX, which governs design, construction, waste, water, energy use and the embodied energy of materials. Further developments will eventually address key appliances, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning are top of the list but don’t be surprised if plasma TV aren’t far off as they’re incredibly resource intensive compared with LCDs.
It might be funny to poke borax at the Greens, but what will National do precisely?
March 17th, 2009 at 11:37 am
While the ‘ban this, ban that’ stupidity of the watermelons bugs me, it’s the way that their fraudulent environmental positioning gathers votes in favour of neo-communism that really, really makes me see red.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:37 am
If DPF thinks dogs and cats being drowned, stabbed, and skinned alive is a laughing matter then I suggest he seeks professional psychiatric help. There is plenty of footage on the internet of what these animals go through. Watch a couple of those videos, David, and then see if you are still so flippant about this issue.
[That is 20 demerits for the professional psych help. If you can not civilly debate an issue, then don't debate it at all. I support any animals deaths being in a humane way, but that is different to banning the import of furs]
March 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
radar – i’m not sure that opposing a ban on something is the same as supporting it.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Ban number 89:
Green wheely refuse bins from Waiheke Island.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
i’ll betcha ten to one farrar was one of those poor unfortunate children who were denied the love they could share with a domestic animal..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: 20 demerits and by the way untrue. I adore cats and often play with friends dogs]
March 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am
or he just had cats..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Ban phool for using up the world’s supply of full stops
March 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Philip Ure said:
“i’ll betcha ten to one farrar was one of those poor unfortunate children who were denied the love they could share with a domestic animal..”
What went wrong there Phil? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you write a sentence that runs for more than one line before!
March 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
DPF – the ‘Greens ban list’ you regularly cite – is it a list the Greens compiled or is it your own? If it is your own, you are simply spreading untruth. You remind me of the Exclusive Brethren, with your BEWARE scaremongering around the Green Party. Are you a member of the sect?
[DPF: Also 20 demerits. This is a high scoring thread]
March 17th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
um..!..put it away..
..could you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
yeah..the .. split .. should have been after ‘children’.
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
As long as the choice is between sitting in the dark around a cow or a human dung fueled fire, then Philu is probably correct.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The Greens only want to ban one thing: the human race
March 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Do the Exclusive Brethren bend your ear Mr Farrar? It seems, looking at your ongoing anti-green postings, that they do! (p.s. They are the ones in the plain, tie-less shirts with faces that looked highly scrubbed!)
March 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Bryan – that would reduce the list to one making a nonsense of the 85 of Farrar’s imaginary compilation
March 17th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
#86 – The DNA test would be quite time-consuming wouldn’t it? I doubt it is an easy 30-second process.
#87 – does this mean all plastic bags everywhere, or just the widely-used shopping bags? Getting rid of those might spur a whole industry in making re-usable shopping bags…?
#88 – outrageous. All power to He With The Most Toys. There’s nothing wrong with those that can afford it squandering a limited resource and driving the price up for everyone else. Let them eat cake. Damn those socialists and their “common good” ideology!
Greenfly -
It is touching that DPF has such faith in his fellow man that he can’t see any good in banning things that have deleterious effects on the country’s economy/environment/health etc, because surely people’s common sense and/or The Market will stop anything bad from happening. It is a faith I struggle to share when I consider the levels of selfishness and hillbilly-ignorance that are around. But that’s my inner “socialist” (sic) talking I suppose…
One can only presume that society’s current and widely accepted “Banned List” e.g. killing people or taking their things, is somehow “JUST DIFFERENT, OKAY?”
[DPF: Yes you are a socialist. The slippery slope of banning things you think are bad is authoritarianism. I think socialism is bad for the economy but do not advocate bannign socialist text books]
March 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
greenfly – suck it up little aphid. Your beloved Greens have set a new low in political hypocrisy and [attempted] manipulation of every aspect of our lives. Communism is dead and you guys are trying to breathe life into its corpse under the guise of environmentalism. Long may your slide in the polls reflect NZ coming to its senses.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
A search of the Greens’ website for the word “ban” is quite revealing. I do feel dirty for having gone there though.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Ratbiter – you are correct. Farrar’s just tossing a morsel into the pot for his minions to nibble on. It woud be interesting to compile a list of banned activities that we all accept (walking freely over private property etc.) and attribute those to the present government. That might land the Nats with a ‘ban list’ that runs into the several thousands, making the so-called Green list look trifling.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Pretty naïve of you greenfly to suggest the EB have some mortgage on exposing the Greens for what they are.
Think about it Greenfly – The fact you have now brought the EB into the equation and are smearing them………
March 17th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
getstaffed
March 17th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Yes, ban the plasma Tv’s, those things are way to inefficient. NZ shouldn’t be the dumping ground for the rubbish that the Japanese don’t want.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
greenfly – has anyone yet proven conclusively that the claims made in the EB’s infamous 2005 brochure were incorrect? For one who supports a party which purports to place principles over politics, you are very quick to resort to low-rent smears.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Patrick Starr – smearing them? Describing their satorial habits a smear? They wear the same kind of gear David Farrar wears. What’s so awful about that? BTW the EB brought themselves into the ‘equation’ as I recall.
I’m enjoying the way the commenters and host on this site are busily demonising the word ‘ban’. Clever, I suppose, but insincere.
Ban gangs! Ban tax! Ban Communists! Ban beneficiaries! Ban environmentalists! Ban biofuels! Ban, ban, ban! I can see why you right wingers are so sensitive about the use of the word ban. It’s because it’s YOUR word!
[DPF: A pitiful try. No one has banned biofuels. No one has banned tax No one has banned gangs. I know it hurts to be reminded how authoritarian your party is]
March 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Oh you are there David – I thought you were hiding! Is your list really the Green’s or have you made it? You promote it as a Green Party list. Are you being dishonest?
[DPF: It is very clear that it is my list. And 20 more demerits for calling me dishonest.]
March 17th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
DPF: The slippery slope of banning things you think are bad is authoritarianism.
It interests me that the proposed bans that excite right-wing attention seem to be the bans on trivial trinkets of luxury consumer culture, e.g. plastic shopping bags, or one kind of big tv.
What fight are we fighting here?
Again, in nature, animals frequently fight and kill each other for reasons nothing to do with predation or survival e.g. territory disputes or mating rituals. It’s therefore not obvious to me that criminalizing murder is “natural” as a lot of arguments would have it. It seems to me to be something that society has chosen to, uh-oh, BAN! Are we all, therefore, socialist authoritarians?
[DPF: If you can not tell the difference between banning murder and banning plastic bags, well that is your problem]
March 17th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“Ban gangs! Ban tax! Ban Communists! Ban beneficiaries! Ban environmentalists! Ban biofuels! Ban, ban, ban! ”
Lamentable outburst. Once again, you go for emotional statements without data to back them up.
In the contest of ideas the phoney Greens are on the losing side because they detest debate, prefering instead the outright exclusion.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
[DPF: If you can not tell the difference between banning murder and banning plastic bags, well that is your problem]
One is an action that we both believe is wrong and should be banned. The only argument you seem to have against the other is “banning stuff’s bad” which seems to be fairly fraught given that we accept other bans.
[DPF: One kills people and is the ultimate removal of choice from them. Really do you have any idea how pitiful this is - you trying to equate murder with plastic bags? Why don't you equate rape with being able to choose to use the pill?]
[DPF: Further population growth is bad for the planet. If you support banning plastic bags why don't you support the state being able to limit the number of babies one can have?]
March 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Interesting to see how, once the truth about them is highlighted, the Greens and their allies from Labour come out with the smear campaign. Reminds me of how they operated when the Brethren dared to highlight the flaws in their policies. What a nasty, vindictive bunch of assholes those Greens are.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
How hard is it to see that the Greens want to lift efficiency standards and help increase technology innovation.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Last time I checked, our borders are not open to anything anyone wants to bring in. There are many banned items, and I think it’s humorous that DPF tries to paint the Greens as wanting to ban everything when so many things are already banned. Is National socialist for wanting to keep the already banned things banned?
[That is 20 demerits for the professional psych help. If you can not civilly debate an issue, then don't debate it at all. I support any animals deaths being in a humane way, but that is different to banning the import of furs]
If you support animals’ deaths being humane, then surely you support a ban on cat and dog fur. What do you propose is done to stop the fur from animals that are tortured to death from being imported into New Zealand? Making fun of the Greens for trying to fix the problem is pretty immature.
[DPF: I am not aware that 100% of these furs come from animals that are tortured to death. A proportion may be tortured, but is that proof all cats and dogs that are killed are tortured to death? And if there is a problem with inhumane treatment in certain countries, a treaty is probably a more effective way to try and change the behaviour - making it an offence in those countries]
March 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
[DPF: One kills people and is the ultimate removal of choice from them. Really do you have any idea how pitiful this is - you trying to equate murder with plastic bags? Why don't you equate rape with being able to choose to use the pill?]
[DPF: Further population growth is bad for the planet. If you support banning plastic bags why don't you support the state being able to limit the number of babies one can have?]
NOW we’re getting somewhere!
If there is some threshold of ill effect from [thing], beyond which it becomes acceptable to most people that [thing] be banned, then let’s argue about where that threshold should lie, and what the present [thing]’s ill effects actually are, and whether the threshold is crossed.
It seems somehow futile to frame the argument about some specific ban solely in terms of whether bans in general are “socialist” and whether the Greens are therefore “socialist” by association. Though of course most of your readers love it when you put up stuff like that!
March 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
That’s a bit rich, when the Green are themselves a dumping ground for communists that the Aussies don’t want
March 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
This is really something! DPF is firing off demerits left, right and centre like he ’s working toward BANNING some people and all on a thread about banning! Re veal ing!
[DPF: My property my rules. People can set their own blogs up]
March 17th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I really hope you aren’t talking about this thread, because it is hardly representative of either party.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
village idiot – this is his DPF’s home, his private property. you are i are a guest at his absolute discretion. just like he would be in your home, or in mine. if you want to research banning, just pop over to that echo chamber The Standard.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
(psstt!!..his blackberry imploded..
..pass it on..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Are you being dishonest?
[DPF: It is very clear that it is my list. And 20 more demerits for calling me dishonest.]
David Farrar! Demerits ‘for calling me dishonest’ – come on man, we can all read. I asked you a question, I didn’t call you anything! I’ll ask again “are you being dishonest”. 20 more demerits for the question, is it? If so, I smell the malodour of DICTATORSHIP on the wind.
getstaffed – ‘this is his DPF’s home, his private property’ – it’s a very public place though, isn’t it. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If it was his ‘home’, his ‘private property’ he’d be able to say anything he wanted to here, wouldn’t he, but he can’t, can he, because it is a public venue. The Standard may well ban, I care not. Farrar seemed to value freedom of speech more highly, seemed to, until now. I can only guess that he is pissed about stuffing his blackberry, or that he’s uncomfortable with being aligned with the Exclusive Brethren, or that he is, in fact, working toward banning this tiny, innofensive insect.
[DPF: Toad has managed to post here for years without even coming close to getting demerits. I regard him as close to a model poster. If you don't want demerits, then change the way you post]
March 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
greenfly said “I can only guess that he is pissed about stuffing his blackberry, or that he’s uncomfortable with being aligned with the Exclusive Brethren, or that he is, in fact, working toward banning this tiny, innofensive insect.”
If, and it’s a BIG if, the latter were the case, I do suspect that there would be many Kiwiblog readers who would applaud him for the tolerance he has shown to date, given that the “tiny, innofensive insect” you refer to (your spelling, uncorrected!) is nothing but a troll. Were you to have behaved in such a way at my own good blog, I would have lost patience far, far sooner.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Inventory2 – how unkind! I applaud DPF for his tolerance also. I’ve goaded him and others a bit, however, I entirely reject your claim that I’m nothing but a troll. Trying to stick that title to me is a feeble attempt to diminish my comments and I’m not moved. Compared to the slagging off of the Greens that is commonplace here, the vitriolic language and the name-calling, my comments are very gentleman-like. If DPF is going to be the Champion of Free Speech, he needs to be tolerant. His demerits were wrongly assigned in the instance I cite. No big deal, but I’d have thought he’d be straight on that at least. Personally, I think it’s the blackberry!
[DPF: DIfferent standards apply to speech involving the blog owner and others]
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Aaaaah… we’re back to attempted smears. Not as effective as it could have been I guess. If you’d suggested he was aligned with the Greens then that would have been the lowest of blows.
And greenfly, when you are able to drag yourself away from the conversational turd you’re currently feasting on, how about a nice point-by-point refutation of the EB’s pamphlet. Just when you’re ready. Thanks.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
greenfly – what effect do greenflies have on blackberries, pray do tell?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
You might find the threashold is lower for professional trolls.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
GF – maybe DPF has been lenient on you – I just checked the demerits page and it’s only showing 20 for today.
Maybe it’s not fully updated, or possibly he’s revoked your second lot.
BTW it would be good to define “inflammatory” a bit better – I mean there are a lot of what I class “abusive” posts which go un-demerited. And a lot of posts which I would argue inflame situations – also go un-demerited.
Maybe this post is Off topic … then I am due demerits :-O
March 17th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
greenfly, go and play at the standard. im sure they will welcome you. they need a third opinion at the echo chamber to debate with the serious and needy unionista.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
If they banned death and taxes, I might consider voting for them.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“..[DPF: Toad has managed to post here for years without even coming close to getting demerits. I regard him as close to a model poster..”
heh.!..yes dpf..
many consider that toad toadies/butt-kisses over here..
..and you just q.e.d..
..eh..?
‘a model poster’..
(i promise you..that will haunt him/her..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Toad is a closet right wing activist, he just hasnt come out yet.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“And if there is a problem with inhumane treatment in certain countries, a treaty is probably a more effective way to try and change the behaviour – making it an offence in those countries]”
Might be hard to do that seeing as we now have a FTA with China. There isn’t a single animal welfare law in that country, and the cats and dogs on farms there are regularly killed in brutal ways. Banning the importation and sale of cat and dog fur is an excellent first step.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Radar, could you get in touch with me? Mail me at wataki@gmail.com.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I’m only here to watch the demerits rolling in. Sweeeeeet.
DPF must have heard that demerits are going to be banned or something.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
OPPS i was going to post as a dog owner ,opps im owned by three , but school teacher Mr Fararr is handing out demerites against animal lovers (PS THERE ARE A LOT OF SICK JERKS POSTING HERE, but then they are DPF blog base, moving on again , no post worth posting here , bye JA
March 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
DPF after reading one post and your response??????? demerites i would say, chose a better wine at lunch time, its gone to your head, plus deep breathing removes workers stress
, i had to return, you are out of control,wanted to watch, DEMERITES for me from the bully
March 17th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The Greens shoot from the hip to ban anything…
Case in point from a few years ago >> http://www.dhmo.org/ (Dihydrogen Monoxide Research which NZ Greens got sucked into big time, the bunch of tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, whale-shaggers)
March 17th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
SOrry joeaverage, but what is so sacred about cats and dogs? THey are livestock in some countries. India has 270 million cows but doesn’t eat them. We do. So what? Why are so many of you being so culturally insensitive. Torturing animals to death IS cultural in China. It makes the meat taste better according to my Chinese workmate.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Roflcopter – yeah, silly Greenies! No National Party MP would fall for that ‘trap for dummies’. Would they?
March 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Please DPF, can greenfly pick two friends to take to Exile Island?
March 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
LOL. Case in point you reckon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
March 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
No Llew! She didn’t, did she!!! What a tree-wearing, sandal-shagging, whale-hugger!
March 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
She must be if Roflcopter thinks so. – but didn’t someone in the Greens also get caught? That’s not in wikipedia.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Brian Smaller – on a more serious note (less idiotic) Have you seen the video of the chinese dog being skinned alive and left to suffer? All meat, blood and exposed eyeballs, shocked to its core. Just asking, in light of your light-hearted comments. Nothing wrong with a bit of tenderising, eh Brian?
March 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Brian Smaller if you want to be a slit ,BE A SLIT, , be a white honkey chink or maori,or islander,but asians mr b smaller THEY LAUGH AT YOU, white pig, barbarian and i call you a pc fuckwit, I dont give a fuck, you are white and asians ARE the master race in their overpopulated brains, ps how many chinese marry white honkeys FUCK ALL , they are racists BELIEVE ME from a friends experiance and white males are lasy FAT fuckwits in the average asians eyes unless they want to get into godsown by marrage , ps smaller your worker mate THINKS YOU ARE A SMEELLY FUCKWIT, but hes your mate, watch him,enjoy your pathetic evening,
March 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
greenfly, as I asked earlier how about a nice point-by-point refutation of the EB’s pamphlet. Just when you’re ready. . It’s taking a while. You must be reasearching your facts very carefully. That’s good.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
PS Mr Smaller HARSH WORDS but you sounded as if you were going native(asian) JA
March 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
and
Jeez Joe – that is some heavy invective against Asians. As it happens I think their barbaric animal husbandry practices are horrible. But peope, especially lefties, cannot prattle on about cultural relativism and how all cultures are equal, and then rant about the cultural practices they don’t like.
I think the Chinese are barbaric and cruel when it comes to animals. My Chinese workmate cannot understand why we are upset that a bear is kept in a tiny cage and milked of bile. To him and to, I dare say, most Chinese, it is an accepted practice. Different strokes Joe. Indians don’t like cows being killed. Muslims and Jews wont eat pork. Chinese like torturing animals to death or near death depending what excretion they want to extract from it. We like chowing down on a BBQ steak.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
davi
March 17th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
BS i dont give a shit about about your new asian friends, you live with these primatives DONT BORE ME WITH THEIR FUCKWIT PRACTICES , Im proud to protect animals IF ITS YOUR CHOISE TO LIVE WITH DEATH what can i say I SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING MY ANIMALS ARE NOT GOING TO BE PUT IN A WOK ,or SKINNED ALIVE thats the differance between you and me, white asian ps im not a lefty, and im not a white asian, ps BS chow down on mung beans or better something NOT MADE IN CHINA but something produce in NEW ZEALAND, asian is polluted crap, made by primative animal killers
March 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Please DPF, can greenfly pick two friends to take to Exile Island?
Petal – are you keen?
getstaffed said: I asked earlier how about a nice point-by-point refutation of the EB’s pamphlet.
Jeeze get! Talk about raking over the coals! The refutation you churlishly demand was done on the Frogblog loooong ago, in fact, around the time of the Brethren ‘bovver’. You need to get your finger onto the pulse a bit more!
March 17th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Joe Average:
You mean, say, a juicy leg of Kiwi lamb? Or bacon? Maybe rump steak? Are you criticising Kiwi farmers whose livelihood is based on meat produce?
March 17th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
greenfly – excellent. Link please (or you’re full of shit). As for raking over the coals, I only ever ask for this refutation when your and/or your bitter co-Greenies start bitching about the EBs. Which is so often the coals don’t have a chance to cool off.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
PS Nomestradamus a thought, to lay of the pressure on our hard working queen street farmers, the Dorkland SPCA is overun in dogs and cats and with the FTA with COMMUNIST china, a bit of brainstorming by animal killers, ship these creatures of to that land of the oppressed and POLLUTED,COMMIE CHINA so they can come back for the stir fried dorkland woks in queen street and the parnell fur trade shoppes,but not to Wgtn, the centre of animal lovers, and CULTURE
March 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
joeaverage – I have read some unintelligible rants before but yours take the cake. Tonight I cooked a Chinese meal. We snared this fucking cat that has been shitting on my lawn and then I cut it’s paws off. They were fried with garlic and some soy sauce. After I tore the fur off the still living cat, I cut these small slithers off it’s falnk to marinate in a ginger and lemon mixture. I have to tell you, you wouldn’t know how hard it was to cut that cat. Good thing I duct taped it’s mouth or it might have bit me.
Dinner was delicious. I used the left overs to make a stock.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
getsatffed – let me get this straight – I should reseach a link for you, in response to a claim you have made. You didn’t mention payment, but I’m assuming you aren’t demanding that I give my time for free. The refutation surely exists. Whether you can find it or not is of no interest to me at all. Again I ask, where were you when all of this (historical) business was unfolding? Kindergarten?
March 17th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Greenfly:
“Ratbiter – you are correct. Farrar’s just tossing a morsel into the pot for his minions to nibble on.”
Go troll somewhere else you fucking wanker.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Greenfly, sadly asking frogblog to critique the EB’s pamphlet is like asking Michael Mann to criticize the “hockey Stick”, and about as honest. Frog’s “analysis” (has to have the “” as it doesn’t actually contain any) simply confirms the essential accuracy of almost everything in the pamphlet. Did you ever read the pamphlet or simply assume as it was critical of the greens that it must be wrong, somehow, somewhere ? Oh, getstaffed in KINDERGARTEN ! How witty and mature, tell me, is it year 9 or year 10 you are in ?
March 17th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
greenfly – let’s recap shall we…
At 12:05 you said “You remind me of the Exclusive Brethren, with your BEWARE scaremongering around the Green Party. Are you a member of the sect?”, egro the introduction of the EB’s into this thread.
I have asked several times for your evidence of said scaremongering , specifically a refutation of the points raised in the EB pamphlet. A perfectly reasonable question given the claim of scaremongering .
You allued to the existance of a comprehensive rebuttal.. but then delcine to provide a link.
You, sir are full of shit. A worthless troll with the intellectual capability of an blade of grass.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Do you think that grass would go well with fricasse’d cat?
March 17th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
getstaffed and Ed Snack – first up, my sincere apologies to getstaffed for the dipstick comment re kindergarten. (your own year 9 or 10 jibe seems to match it nicely though) It’s the weakest line I’ve ever tried and I don’t know how I made such a juvenile slip up. I still maintain getstaffed should do his own research on his pet project. As to having read the pamphlet – certainly did, in fact I managed to secure a brace of them in mint condition that I hope to use one day (perhaps I’ll be able to Trademe them a decade from now). If you don’t accept that Frog provided a fair rebuttal, then there’s little point in my scrabbling after the link, is there. It seems a forgotten issue, but there is still material there for borax-poking from both sides, it seems. I’ve made a t-shirt, incidentally, using the image and message from the cover of the EB pamphlet and wear it around. If you see it, I’m in it. Do say hello.
WebWrat – what?
March 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
sorry getstaffed, I missed your latest post. I believe the EB message and delivery was scaremongering. You don’t. Sweet.
You allued to the existance of a comprehensive rebuttal Did I? Where was that?
DPF’s posts (there are many) on the Greens do remind me of the EB’s scaremongering. Look (as Bill English would say) he even cites the admiration of the ban on bottled water by a Green Party member as a possible addition to his hysterical and ficticious ‘Green ban list’ – very Exclusive Brethren in my view. Pleased to say that your ‘blade of grass’ comment is almost as low-grade as my clanger.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I believe the reaction to the EB message and delivery was scaremongering of the worst possible kind greenfly. Using political power and the vast vast vast resources of govt to attack a relatively less powerful group unable to defend itself using the same ground the attacker was using.
Disgraceful.
Surprised Hulun didn’t try to ban them.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“If you see it, I’m in it. Do say hello.”
I’ll sound my horn loudly ………. do be vigilant
March 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
The link please. Google can’t find it for me so I’m assuming you have it bookmarked.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Greenfly:
Will you be standing next to James Sleep?
March 17th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
If you’re like MT_Tinman it will be overhead pull-horn, and none of the 18 wheels will complain at the slight inconvenience.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Ban smoking publicly in Akld CBD?
Public smoking is banned in Opotiki
Those socialists are cunning beggars.
Fabian socialism works like that. Start small and work up .
Soon all of akld will have a smoking ban.
it won’t happen overnight, but it will happen.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
no – it’s more the German V8 with 4 x 20” wheels, but enough of the implement – I was, after all only meaning a toot to say hello
March 17th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
“Will you be standing next to James Sleep?”
Hmm, I guess we’ll all know what James Sleep will look like soon.
Legendary.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:13 am
The Greens do like a good banning.
Lucky for New Zealand then that the electorate banned the Greens from having anything to do with Government for a long time.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Powerless, thy name is “Green”.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:44 am
OECD – didn’t the people of New Zealand ban the National Party and the Act Party from having anything to do with Government for 9 years in the recent past? That’s a long time. Why would the wise and fair NZ public do that to such worthy parties as Act and National? Makes you think, doesn’t it.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Greenfly says:
“Why would the wise and fair NZ public do that to such worthy parties as Act and National? Makes you think, doesn’t it.”
Obviously they were affected by the green party’s carbon emissions, fortunately they don’t seem to be doped anymore.
By the way how long have the greens been banned from government? Since the inception of their party?
March 18th, 2009 at 7:59 am
paradigm – would you say the National and Act Parties had any effect at all, during their 9 year stint in Opposition or would you say they were toothless?
March 18th, 2009 at 8:14 am
greenfly – found that link yet, or researched the rebuttal? You may (or may not) recall that I raised this at 12.49pm yesterday, around the same time as my erudite buddy getstaffed. We wait with baited breath!
March 18th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Inventory2 (and getstaffed) you are being nags. I do recall that you raised the issue and suggest that you do you own research. Baited breath indeed!
March 18th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Act and National had substantial effect on the government in spite of being in opposition, and being diametrically opposed to their left wing policies. The greens, however, were not in opposition: they were on the same side of the political spectrum as labour. The greens were merely irrelevant. Their “successes” at either enacting their core policy or holding the government to account in the public spotlight can be counted on the hands of a lepper.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Paradigm – well said! Act and National had substantial effect on the government in spite of being in opposition
And so will the Greens.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:49 am
getstaffed:
It does not matter if the EB was right or wrong; they were expressing their opinion. The Labour Party and the Green Party decided to take that and, rather than refute the points, smear the messenger.
Rather similar to what Greenfly is doing here by trying to smear DPF and attracting a whole lot of demerits. If there was an election coming up, it’s highly likely Greenfly would lose too.
People don’t like dirt merchants.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:53 am
greenfly, I take it from your 8:46 post that you agree the greens were for the most part irrelevant under the 9 years of labour government inspite of being on the same side of the political spectrum.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Well said Pascal – it was greenfly who introduced the subject of the EB into the debate – when pushed to put up or shut up he/she (I actually reckon greenfly’s a she) obfuscates, makes excuses, and tries to turn the argument back upon those such as getstaffed, myself and others who are asking perfectly reasonable questions – but I guess that “reasonable green(fly)” is the ultimate oxymoron!
March 18th, 2009 at 9:40 am
paradigm – as commenters here are wont to do, you ‘take’ whatever you choose from what I do or do not say. Doesn’t matter to me.
Inventory2 – I expressed my opinion about the EBs. Why am I obliged to supply factual back-up for my opinion?
March 18th, 2009 at 10:13 am
“People don’t like dirt merchants.”
Spot on. The Labour Party is the main dirt merchant around. On the other hand, the backward-looking Green Party deals in fear of progress and catastrophic events (e.g., the former “global warming”, now tactically changed to “climate change”).
Bot parasitic organisations thrive on doom and gloom.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:54 am
IV2 et al, it’s just not worth it.
Greenfly won’t front with any evidence that the EBs pamphlet was non-factual … because he/she can’t.
The truth is the Greens become apoplectic about this document because it dared exposed them for what they really are – ethically bankrupt neo-communists determined to enslave us under authoritarian state rule. It demonstrated that their environmentalism was, and remains, a Trojan Horse designed to disguise their true objectives.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:13 am
get – true, I won’t go to the trouble for your sakes. At no stage did I say the EB’s pamphlets weren’t factual – you’ve assumed a great deal in my absence. Nor have I said they were correct. I said the EBs were scaremongering, and they were. Care to debate the claim I made or would you prefer to continue down the path of talking with yourselves? Your summation of the Green’s response is wildly incorrect and before you leap to your keyboard, no, I don’t care to provide links to each and every comment I make. Get a grip.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“I said the EBs were scaremongering, and they were”
So, once again you find fault with the actions of others when the Greens do exactly the same thing when it comes to climate change.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Sure. So lemme get this straight. You say they were telling the truth, but this was scaremongering? Riiiight.
I’d suggest that the truth wouldn’t be so scary for you Greens if you were more hands-on and familiar with the concept of truth. It’s called having integrity.
Oh, and feel free to drop in that link in anytime. Remember, Google can’t find it and you did remind me that ”The refutation you churlishly demand was done on the Frogblog loooong ago, in fact, around the time of the Brethren ‘bovver’. You need to get your finger onto the pulse a bit more!”. Only asking politely… and giving you the opportunity to demonstrate some integrity on this matter.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
greenfly:
You’re not. Not providing anything vaguely factual, a link or even a shred of debate on it does make it seem as if you are pulling that opinion straight out of the Green playbook. I.e. a deliberate falsification to attack your “opponent”.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I’m with Joe Average.
Some of the comments here are disgusting. Brian Smaller- your last post was foul and made me want to puke. No doubt you will make a comment like “good job/harden up/fuck off then”. As much as you apply twisted logic to the subject you can’t make this into a cultural/left vs right debate. Its not a cultural right to torture and maim. And being of indian heritage I dislike you comparing Chinese practices to the Indian culture’s views on cows. And also, a lot of Chinese DON’T like this stuff. Although, a lot of Chinese don’t care, and for that I think they, as a nation, are savages
I used to like reading this blog, I come from a Labour family and Davids writing made a lot of sense to me- and helped my 2008 conversion to the centre right.
But I’ve finally realised something about the people who post comments on here. (Took me a while.) Some of you folks are so obsessed with The Right as opposed to the left/green and anywhere left of centre that you behave like a bunch of indoctrinated SIMPLETON one-noters.
Why does everything have to be about the f***king left? How about thinking about animal rights as ANIMAL RIGHTS AND NOT A GREEN PARTY ISSUE??
Oh wait you can’t.
Yeah yeah its not about the skinning of animals. After all, the DOCTRINE you lot follow dictates that FREE TRADE IS GOOD COS IT IS WHAT IS “RIGHT”.. its about not compromising our rights to buy whatever the hell we want, why the hell should we ‘waste money’ trying to control imports from China into NZ.
Its not RIGHT to defend free trade with China regardless of the fact that they disregard human and animal rights. No human or animal should be tortured to death. And if we don’t like it we should not allow it into NZ- cut off any potential demand.
You might say “yeah but i believe in humane death for animals but golly I wont allow my rights to do whatever the hell I like to be compromised!’ In which case you are an idiot.
NEWSFLASH to Kiwiblogs regular DREGS- you ruin this blog for everyone else. Obviously David doesn’t care so yay for all of you. I wont be reading again- and yeah I know you couldn’t care less! I’ve seen other intelligent folks write posts similar to the one I’m writing now in frustration and then ‘leave’ Kiwiblog- and I’ve seen the spite and vitriol they get on their way out the door. I’ll gladly add my name to the list and not waste my time reading your bollocks comments any longer.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Don’t know if you noticed, Melanie but a lot of regulars here didn’t defend the FTA with China, for various reasons.
That’s what makes this the most popular blog in NZ.
Granted, people here tend to stay away from one dimensional perspectives based on sentiment alone and I for one applaud that, because discussing the real world is a lot more interesting to me than discussing warm fuzzies that everyone has, but which at the end of the day add nothing to the collective understanding, precisely because everyone except for sociopaths has these feelings, so why bother basing an argument on them let alone even mentioning them?
If a joke like Brian was making above bothers you then I don’t know why. You don’t think he was actually doing it, do you? You don’t think you’re a kinder more humane person than Brian because you got offended by a joke he made, do you? If you do truly believe either of those things then I suggest you might want to look at the way you view the world and ask yourself whether you’re actually taking an appropriate stance because unless and until you can look at everyone and everything with compassion and forgiveness and without judgement then you’ll never spiritually advance.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
greenfly says on March 18th, 2009 at 7:44 am:
Because they like to be poor. It’s been dreams come true time for the last nine years.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
GOD some one with brains on DPF blogg agress with me A FREE THINKER but CAREFUL MELAMIE you will get demerites,Mr Farrar DOSNT ENCOURAGE FREE THOUGHT its his blogg always remember that BLUDGERS
March 19th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Sorry Melenie the clock beat me, BUT YOUR THOUGHTS CHEERED me have a weekend like mine,dog sport