General Debate 4 December 2012

December 4th, 2012 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

71 Responses to “General Debate 4 December 2012”

  1. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yes, a royal baby!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    mikey,

    +1

    And that child will one day be our King or Queen.

    God save the Queen!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    A very interesting post at The Standard that looks at possible ministerial roles in a Labour/Green Government.

    It presumes “Shearer is leader, Cunliffe is in purgatory for the sin of not having a dirt operation on the scale of Mallard/Hipkins/Mold/Robertson, and Jones has no portfolios either.” No Tamihere!

    Only one (final) comment that is in lala land –

    They would have much better policy, of course and, apart from the top name, nearly all of them would better the current minister in sheer competence.

    Also interesting is this was posted by ‘James Henderson’, a Green Party pseudonym. This is another clear message to Labour from Norman that the Greens demand to be taken seriously about being a significant part of the next Government and not just looked on as convenient numbers to get Labour back into power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    Mike Williams reckons that John Tamihere “has matured a lot” and that he will be an asset. Having alienated 50% of the voting population in 48 hours however, Tamihere will be an asset for everyone EXCEPT the Labour Party…

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/quote-of-day-4-december-2012.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (8,434 comments) says:

    A future monarch…..congrats!

    Pete Williams on TV1 this am seemed to be making light of the morning sickness ,if as the news reports her condition is one of severe vomiting,then Williams should keep his arrogant,ignorant mouth shut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    kowtow – she has been admitted to a London hospital with acute morning sickness and is likely to stay for several days.

    According to the Beeb, she is suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum, which requires supplementary hydration and nutrients. It needs specialist treatment and often requires a stay in hospital. The main danger is dehydration, as it can be difficult to keep enough fluid down orally. And if it causes weight loss during pregnancy there is an increased risk that your baby may be born with a low birth weight.

    So yes, a reporter should shut the hell up if indeed he was poo-pooing it (I didn’t see the TV).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    Kim Dotcom, with a 72 page Grand Jury Indictment against him, is signed up as Father Christmas.
    Jez, could St Matthew’s-in-the-City do better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete George: The Green Party has been slowly but surely making more and more progress towards being a serious force in NZ politics. I think it is quite clear that there are now three types of party: the two major parties, who will always lead the Government; the minor parties, who pretty much are only useful to make up the numbers; and now a third type of party that sits comfortably in between the other two types. Not big enough to be counted as a major party in the traditional sense, but definitely more of a force than any of the minor parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    This pregnancy is going to drag. Its not like Dime reads tabloids etc but there will be no escaping this story. Joy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    IMO the Gweens current level of support is an illusion because around half of it is scavenged off Liarbore. These are people who can’t bring themselves to vote other than left and temporarily can’t bring themselves to vote for their traditional party because of the continued disarray.

    They don’t publish them AFAIK but I bet the Gweens membership figures haven’t doubled from what they were pre-2008 when it all started to go wrong for Liarbore.

    It’s just you have to have a clear reason for a party that more than doubles its support base, that doesn’t just happen because another 90,000 people (approx 5% of voters) suddenly wake up and realise the party that’s been around for decades is in fact the party they want to support, there has to be a reason for it. And if it’s not the above then what is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    graham – yes, I agree, and Greens are promoting and positioning themselves very smartly – far better than Labour’s muddling.

    But there’s a different scenario – one major party (National), several minor parties plus two parties in between. The way things are going Greens may compete with Labour for sub-major roles, and I think they are seriously targeting that.

    toad has just posted a coment:

    If Labour have twice the number of MPs as the Greens, we probably won’t get much stronger response than Labour’s 2008 ETS legislation, as the Greens simply won’t have the bargaining power. If the numbers are closer to equal, expect a much stronger response.

    Greens don’t want to play second fiddle to Labour and get diddled by them again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    @graham: The problem with these ‘fence sitting’ parties, is that they overplay their hands. How many times have you heard a party with (say) 5% of the vote, tell the electorate they have ‘bottom line’ policies that will not be negotiable? It is a total crock – but because one of the major parties will opt for the baubles of office over the need to retain integrity with the voter, these policies will suddenly be adopted.

    Why should any party with 5% vote, tell the major parties any policy is ‘non-negotiable’? It is bollocks.

    These third parties / fence sitter parties need to realise that if they only have 5% of the vote (or 10% of the vote) then 95% (or 90%) of the electorate has rejected the same policies!

    This is one of the worst facets of MMP. And yet, unless something major happens on the political front over the next 18 months, we face the scary prospect of the money printing luddites sitting to the right of the speaker come 2014. Because Labour will do a deal with the Devil in an effort to win the Treasury benches next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    It’s time Greens were asked to be upfront, and time for Russel Norman to prove he can do Finance.

    So far he has promoted carefully crafted slogans with little to no detail.

    And Labour supporters are also starting to ask for some substance – Standard comments on Norman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Elaycee – can you give examples of what you call ‘fence-sitter’ parties overplaying their hands this century?

    These third parties / fence sitter parties need to realise that if they only have 5% of the vote (or 10% of the vote) then 95% (or 90%) of the electorate has rejected the same policies!

    Do you think a party with 40% support should be able to implement it’s policies without restriction?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Labour are being very foolish in their response to Greenpeace NZ branch.
    If Norman does not get his way there will be no coalition, so Labour had better get it straight –
    Norman will get whatever he wants.
    The party have already shown that they are totally intransigent to anything but their opinions and they are always right.
    They have waited, since they conned NZ into MMP, 20 odd years ago, to be in this position of power.
    They will not back down – so Labour get your act together, if it is possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,739 comments) says:

    The Messiah’s frugality: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/120312-635425-fiscal-cliff-talks-stall-as-obama-white-house-erects-its-own-tree-grove.htm?ven=rss

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. marcw (247 comments) says:

    So Will and Kate have announced they are expecting a baby.

    Well, that’s all of the Womans Weekly reporting sorted for the next 9 months.

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

    So this is the way it is. Exactly where our PM comes from.

    The Foreign Exchange is a separate speculative economy which drains national economies and builds up hedge funds at the expense of those economies. The powers (Fed) adjust inflation so not to wake up the masses and receive thew blame for fiscal stagnation but cause the free market and business cycles to receive the blame. But monetary cycles are created by the Fed. This is why war is needed for the powers to escape blame and the bigger the war the better.

    This vid explains fiscal nuts and bolts crystal clear.

    http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/out-there-1/strategic-relocation.html

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

    Ex-Israeli Intelligence Officer: “Pearl Harbor” Style Attack Will Be Pretext For War On Iran

    http://www.freethenation.net/2012/01/ex-israeli-intelligence-officer-pearl-harbor-style-attack-will-be-pretext-for-war-on-iran/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    A very restrained Dad:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10851775

    In a state school, the parents of a little girl had no wish for her to undergo religious brainwashing at school, and her father later discovered that her punishment was being banished to the naughty corner.

    Even worse is that all the culpable parties, including public servants who are paid their salaries by the taxpayers, are refusing to comment.

    I have assumed for a long time that religious teaching was no longer a feature of our state schools, but I guess I didn’t keep up as my younger kids moved on.

    I’m a tolerant man, but I fear that if I were in that father’s place, I’d be in the cells by now!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @hinemanu

    I expect that a fleet of ageing MIGs in Iran’s colours are in a hanger in Israel right now, kept in tip top condition to carry out exactly such a mission.

    As the pressure mounts on Bibi and his cronies in crime over ongoing illegal colonisation and the slaughter of women and children, a diversionary war with Iran would be in keeping with Israel’s past of unprovoked aggression on people both within its wider borders and without.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @Pete

    The Greens can always pull a Winstone and play hardball with Labour in negotiations, then when Labour finally draws a line, flick over and get the Nats to agree to what Labour refused and voila! National/Greens coalition!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Luc – “I’m a tolerant man” HAHAHAHA yeah. youre the epitome of tolerance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Sofia (435) Says:
    December 4th, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Kim Dotcom, with a 72 page Grand Jury Indictment against him, is signed up as Father Christmas.
    Jez, could St Matthew’s-in-the-City do better?

    Is guilt proportional to the length of an indictment?

    Also I’m not sure what St Matthew’s in the city has to do with anything. I read he’s playing Santa Claus in a play for Basement Theatre. Seems a good choice publicity-wise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Party pills to be tested on animals before they are allowed to be sold.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10851425

    I’m not exactly an animal-rights activist, but I do not approve of testing drugs and cosmetics on animals. I can see the reasoning behind making exceptions for drugs that we genuinely need, but party pills? Really?

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

    Are these people wearing tin foil hats

    Derivatives: The $600 Trillion Time Bomb That’s Set to Explode

    Do you want to know the real reason banks aren’t lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?

    It’s because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn’t evening out. To the contrary, it’s growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States.

    In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.

    The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).

    http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/derivatives-the-600-trillion-time-bomb-thats-set-to-explode/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen (4,566) Says:
    December 4th, 2012 at 10:31 am

    I’m a tolerant man…

    You must be joking. Tolerant of what? Only what your mates say you are supposed to be “tolerant” of ie LGBT, anything maori, dark skinned foreigners, muslims, etc.

    What about:

    Israel – no
    Right wingers – no
    Old white men – no
    Christians – no
    One law for all – no
    ACT – no

    Pull the other one – I think there’s a bell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Pete George:

    Elaycee – can you give examples of what you call ‘fence-sitter’ parties overplaying their hands this century?

    This century? Firstly, what’s wrong with casting your mind back to Winston and the fact he held the country to ransom for weeks whilst he played one party off against the other? It was a disgrace and an embarrassment and should be remembered as a glaring example of what is totally wrong with MMP.

    More recently – what about the Maori Party and Whanau Ora? Do you not recall that that became a ‘bottom line’ for Tariana Turia as part of any coalition negotiations?

    And even your own Party, Pete. According to RNZ’s Jane Patterson (5.05pm, 30 Nov 2011):

    On his way into Beehive meeting with John Key, Peter Dunne says UF does have bottom lines for support deal with National

    These are just a few examples – no doubt we could both find more if so inclined to look.

    But the point is exactly what I said at the outset: Parties (I referred to them as fence sitters who swing between parties in order to become part of the Treasury benches) that have policies rejected by 90-95% of the electorate, should not have a bottom line when negotiating a coalition deal with a National or Labour party that has 40+% support.

    IMO, it’s a case of the tail wagging the dog… – especially when 90-95% of the electorate had already decided that they didn’t like the policy in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. kowtow (8,434 comments) says:

    Did any of you right wing ,white colonisers who are responsible for these “lopsided” crime statistics pick up this piece of journolistic bullshit?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10851550

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Are you referring to Winston in 1996? That wasn’t this century. MMP has sorted itself out fairly well since the first term of it.

    Parties may talk about bottom lines, and in theory they have them, but they don’t have bottom lines that will clash significantly with negotiations. In effect they are Clayton’s bottom lines.

    Any party going in to coalition talks already has a good idea how much they can reasonably ask for and what to expect from the other partner.

    The tail wagging the dog arguments are made by those barking because they want all the bones to themselves, even though they have earned less than half of them.

    Sure there’s a bit of manouevering and give and take but by and large government power runs fairly proportional to the proportion of seats. Boo hoo if your favourite party can’t do everything as it pleases.

    Most things are sorted out in advance with coalitions, but if instead a party ran as a minority government they would find it more difficult dealing with votes on a bill by bill basis, and that would involve more frequent horse trading with the possibility of more attempts at dog wagging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Manolo (13,739 comments) says:

    The faces of two animals who deserve the harshest penalty: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8033183/Journalist-murder-accused-caught-on-cameras

    Savages beyond description.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Elaycee,

    Just what exactly is wrong with a party having “bottom lines”? Why should a UF acquiesce to the larger party and sacrifice their fundamental core principles and policies just because that larger party was unable to get enough votes to govern without them?

    To do that really is a sell out for the baubles of power.

    If a party is going to demand far more than would be reasonable given their number of seats, the larger party can always opt to form a minority government without them. Utter annihilation at the ballot box will militate against that small party bringing the minority govt down on confidence & supply.

    The same fate is also an incentive for them not to be unreasonable in their “bottom lines”/concessions in the first place. And this is what we have seen after the past two elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Elaycee,

    This century? Firstly, what’s wrong with casting your mind back to Winston and the fact he held the country to ransom for weeks whilst he played one party off against the other? It was a disgrace and an embarrassment and should be remembered as a glaring example of what is totally wrong with MMP.

    I suspect people’s opposition is more to do with Winston having any influence at all rather than Winston serving as an example of what’s wrong with the system. His Party had a significant portion of the vote and I fail to see what is unfair about the minor party being able to bargain, and to play two parties off against each other, to their advantage. Neither major party had a majority so I fail to see why it should all be their way or else the tail is supposedly wagging the dog.

    Seems more disgraceful that under the previous system significant portions of the population would be denied representation because of the winner take all system.

    …but because one of the major parties will opt for the baubles of office over the need to retain integrity with the voter, these policies will suddenly be adopted

    Which is an issue I suggest you take up with the major parties. If the major parties consent to such arrangements then they only have themselves to blame. Obviously consenting to whatever policy it is is considered the lesser evil as opposed to compromising with another party. That’s their decision to make as representatives of their voters. If their voters disagree then they can change their vote.

    Seems to me that some just think that because they control 40% of the vote then they should be able to ride roughshod over everyone else rather than having to compromise to gain a true majority of public opinion.

    Some people don’t like compromise which is perhaps why they don’t like MMP. But compromise is what politics is about. We don’t get to vote on particular policies, which automatically shows the fallacy in your argument that just because a party with 10% of the vote has a bottom line does not automatically mean that 90% of the population rejects that policy because they didn’t vote for that party. They may, they may not. Voting is a bulk purchase. It may just be the case that only ten percent of the population will make the policy their bottom line while for others they might support it but do not consider a priority, and others may oppose it but not consider it important enough to be non-negotiable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    @Pete George:

    Parties may talk about bottom lines, and in theory they have them, but they don’t have bottom lines that will clash significantly with negotiations. In effect they are Clayton’s bottom lines.

    I don’t want to get bogged down on semantics, but if this is the case, then perhaps they should refer to them as points for negotiation and not ‘bottom lines’ because the term ‘bottom line’ immediately conjures up the notion that the point is not for negotiation. Just saying.

    But regardless, it seems illogical to me that any ‘minor’ party (with, say 5-10% of the vote) is able to ‘switch camps’ depending on the offer on the table from the major parties and to subsequently determine the next Parliament. Because it means that a party that was rejected by 90-95% of the electorate, is able to decide the outcome of a general election.

    Whilst some may call it MMP, I call it bloody ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. TimG_Oz (862 comments) says:

    You must be joking. Tolerant of what? Only what your mates say you are supposed to be “tolerant” of ie LGBT, anything maori, dark skinned foreigners, muslims, etc.

    To be fair Luc is extremely tolerant on:
    – beheadings
    – rockets
    – Islamic fundamentalism
    – Islamic fundamentalist indoctrination of children
    – Islamic fundamentalist indoctrination of children with or without parental consent
    – Motorcycles dragging the bodies of people who might not agree with above points
    etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Because it means that a party that was rejected by 90-95% of the electorate, is able to decide the outcome of a general election.

    No it doesn’t. It requires 50% plus one of MPs to decide the outcome, if you mean the formation of government.

    And parties aren’t ‘rejected’ in an election. 5% or 10% may vote for a party, but no one votes against a party, they simply vote for another preference. I don’t reject any party that gets MPs into parliament, the people that voted for them deserve to be represented.

    You may want one party to have all the say (and all the ‘rejected’ parties to have none even if 60% voted for them) but the majority of people don’t agree. Hence we have MMP, not your dictatorship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    Anyone else been getting these So-and-So has added you on SkillPages e mails the last couple of days?

    Thoughts??

    I presume SkillPages is trying to be the next big thing after LinkedIn. It appears to be much the same thing, only a couple of years too late.

    (And I HATE LinkedIn, btw… it’s just like Facebook for your day job self, so that in addition to all your boozy mates from high school and Uni, half of your bosses and most of your clients are on there too. So you have to bite your lip professionally and just look on in horror at the antics of all of your same old mates who dragged you over there from facebook… as they bullshit, preen and cavort shamelessly in vain efforts to impress their bosses and their clients. Vomit.)

    RRM just talked himself up big time on LinkedIn.

    Some guy who you worked with briefly 3 years ago just added you on LinkedIn.

    RRM added 3 new skills to his profile on LinkedIn: Polishing A Turd, Brown Nosing, and Talking Absolute Utter Smack.

    RRM just listened to I sucked a lot of c**k to get where I am by Regurgitator.

    RRM is now connected to Mary, Queen of Scots

    RRM is now connected to Sam Morgan

    RRM is now connected to Kurt Cobain

    Etc…

    / rant

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @RRM,

    And don’t forget about “X has just endorsed you for the following skills”

    With the implicit expectation that you will endorse them in return, of course.

    At least LinkedIn are making changes to try to remain relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Manolo (13,739 comments) says:

    An academic’s brain-fart. Read and laugh: http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2012/12/taxing-fattest

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    …not your dictatorship.

    OMG! Dictatorship??? Whaaat?

    If a minor party who has won 5-10% of the vote (doesn’t matter how you spin it but this means they’ve been rejected by 90-95% of the electorate) is able to ‘choose’ between one or other of the major parties and as a result decide who forms the next Government, then I say it’s daft and just another example of MMP at its worst.

    Unless you believe the electorate really wanted the minor party to evaluate the policies of the major parties and then decide ‘what’s best for the country’….. Surely not?

    Because, unless there is a shift in thinking between now and 2014, it’s possible that the likes of Mana / UF / Maori / Gweens and NZF will decide who governs (between National and Labour).

    What a shambles… it’ll be a case of all pigs rushing the trough and bugger the mess. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I repeat, there is no way of voting to reject a party.

    If no one wants a small party to be a part of the coalition formation then no one will vote for them. If enough do they are part of the mix that decides. Under MMP ‘the likes of’ all parties who have MPs have always decided who governs.

    You seem to be confused about the roles of National and Labour. Unless they get over half the MPs they have no special right to govern, and no right to govern without negotiating with and acconmodating other parties.

    If both National and Labour had bum elections and got 22% and 27% it would be possible for all the other parties to form a coalition and tell their arrogant supporters to get stuffed.

    Greens are having a go right now at telling Labour to stop making assumptions about who might hand them a victory with only a third of the total votes. Good on them, Labour’s arrogance needs a reality check.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Pete:

    …it would be possible for all the other parties to form a coalition and tell their arrogant supporters to get stuffed.

    Oh shit. A coalition of the desperate – poor NZ. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    re: One News tonight.

    Why do the media think they have some kind of right to know who these so-called American “spies” are in NZ?
    They’re all indignant about not being told, as if somehow anything they want to know should be provided to them.

    And oh-my-gosh, John Key knows but he won’t tell us! Shock! Horror!
    Why should he tell them? They are spies FFS, which precludes a certain amount of secrecy.

    Time the media stepped down off their high horse and were told to get used to disappointment, that they don’t have the right to any information they might like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Response from Crown Law Office regarding scumbag Jack Booker’s pathetic home D sentence for murdering a child..

    “Further to my recent email of acknowledgement in relation to your request that Crown Law appeal the sentence of Jack Alexander Booker we advise as follows.

    On 19 November 2012 the office of the Auckland Crown Solicitor referred the case to the Crown Law Office for consideration of an appeal against the sentence of home detention. After a very careful review of the case, it has been decided not to consent to an appeal.”

    Kind regards
    Jan Fulstow

    Jan Fulstow
    Assistant to Solicitor-General/
    Media Adviser
    Crown Law

    As previously mentioned many times…the justice system in New Zealand is a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Scam calls seem to be having another burst, I received one a week or so, I just told them to piss off and hung up.

    This time I tried another approach. You know as soon as you answer it is one of ‘them’.

    After the delay and click I could tell when someone has picked up at the other end.
    Me: Hello, this Microsoft, please make sure your computer is on so I can check it.
    Silence.
    Them: Hello?
    Me: Hello, this is Microsoft, please make sure your computer is ready for me to log in and check it.
    Silence.
    Them: Is that Mr George?
    Me: This is Microsoft. I want to check your computer.
    Click.

    At least I had a laugh imagining their reaction. They probably have a laugh and share stories about the weirdest responses at smoko, but I bet they get a lot of abuse.

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

    From the world’s leading club of dictators and despots:

    Hypocrisy at the UN: Dictatorships reject country specific resolutions then adopt 21 country specific resolutions on Israel

    In an astonishing display of hypocrisy even by U.N. standards, numerous country delegates gave impassioned speeches last week objecting to the adoption of resolutions criticizing the murderous regimes of Iran, North Korea and Syria, saying they rejected the practice of singling out specific countries; and then proceeded, only moments later, to vote for a resolution — which most of them also co-sponsored — singling out democratic Israel.

    There will be a total of 21 one-sided resolutions targeting the Jewish state in this session of the U.N. General Assembly, and only 4 on the rest of the world combined.

    Why do we need the UN? 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    We need the UN as a flawed, but necessary, step towards a proper world government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    MM
    You know that will upset them
    Agenda 21
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    David Cunliffe (31%, 195 Votes)
    David Shearer (24%, 153 Votes)
    Rajen Prasad (24%, 153 Votes)
    Grant Robertson (11%, 73 Votes)
    Andrew Little (8%, 51 Votes)
    David Parker (2%, 12 Votes)

    The present leader just made 2nd equal in the poll :lol: :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    WTF is NZ Cricket thinking trying to strip Ross Taylor of the Black Caps captaincy?

    I am reading with interest the comments on Stuff and the Herald websites, the public is overwhelmingly (read: 99.99999%) behind Taylor.

    Do they want to destroy the Black Caps’ fanbase until there is no one left?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Steve (North Shore) (4,559 comments) says:

    Switched on, yeah right.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10851936&ref=rss
    Sent home? so they can do what??? tui

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Do they want to destroy the Black Caps’ fanbase until there is no one left?

    Justin Vaughn already did a pretty good job of that-a man from the John Mitchell charisma school , now with Mike”who the fuck are You” as the coach it will carry on until there will three or four of us sad bastards at Eden Park watching the poms.

    Personally I would have thought as a coach the first job would be to build a succesful team and then worry about getting your mate the gig as skipper.

    Then again Jacob Oram might have recovered from his latest organ transplant or double amputation in time to lead us to cricketing glory

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SGA (1,017 comments) says:

    @Pete George

    Every now and then I try to mess with their heads too. Accusing them of sending me unsolicited child pornography got an abrupt cut off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Where’s johnboy when you need him?

    Today in Australia a Muslim was caught having sex with a sheep.

    The Muslim said it was islamb and he could do what he wanted with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    A Minister decided that a visual demonstration would add emphasis to his Sunday sermon.

    Four worms were placed into four separate jars.

    The first worm was put into a container of alcohol.

    The second worm was put into a container of cigarette smoke.

    The third worm was put into a container of chocolate syrup.

    The fourth worm was put into a container of good, clean soil.

    At the conclusion of the sermon, the Minister reported the following results:

    The first worm in alcohol … Dead.

    The second worm in cigarette smoke … Dead.

    The third worm in chocolate syrup … Dead.

    The fourth worm in good, clean soil … Alive.

    So the Minister asked the congregation, “What did you learn from this demonstration?”

    Maxine was sitting in the back and quickly raised her hand and said,

    “As long as you drink, smoke, and eat chocolate, you won’t have worms!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Late Night Phone Call To The Vet

    A dog lover, whose dog was a female and in heat, agreed to look after her neighbours’ male dog while the neighbours were on vacation.

    She had a large house and believed that she could keep the two dogs apart.

    However, as she was drifting off to sleep she heard awful howling and moaning sounds.

    She rushed downstairs and found the dogs locked together in obvious pain and unable to disengage, as so frequently happens when dogs mate.

    Unable to separate them, and perplexed as to what to do next, although it was late, she called the vet, who answered in a very grumpy voice.

    After she explained the problem to him, the vet said,

    “Hang up the phone and place it down alongside the dogs.”

    “I will then call you back and the noise of the ringing will make the male lose his erection and he will be able to withdraw.”

    “Do you think that will work?” she asked.

    “It just worked for me,” he replied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Griff, is one very smart dude.

    See, 7.34 @ 7.41

    Sharp as a tack.
    Griff can regurgicate stuff.

    Well done Griff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    mikenmild (5,833) Says:
    December 4th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
    We need the UN as a flawed, but necessary, step towards a proper world government.

    Would you support the idea of a “proper world government” knowing it would be right wing?

    Here is what you really meant to say:

    “We need the UN as a flawed, but necessary, step towards a proper world government that enforces MY beliefs on everybody, using what ever force is needed”

    You really are a disgusting vile sack of shit mm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Kea @ 10.30

    Well said.
    Particularly the last line of your comment.
    Spot on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    By the way Kea,
    poor old mikenmild would have no idea at all what you were on about.

    He will never get it.
    It’s beyond him.
    Poor sod.

    Silly sods like mikenmild need someone to tell them what they think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    Seen this Kiwibloggers?

    Just whose interests is National’s Tim Groser – NZ Minister of Trade serving in the TPPA negotiations?

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/12/04/gordon-campbell-on-tim-grosers-political-projectile-vomiting-about-the-tppa/

    Gordon Campbell on Tim Groser’s ‘political projectile vomiting’ about the TPPA

    December 4th, 2012

    Remember how the Key government has justified being so very, very secretive about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) because goodness me, you don’t negotiate these things in public?

    Well, guess who has just been negotiating the TPP in public?

    Trade Minister Tim Groser, that’s who.

    In an interview published yesterday in the influential Inside US Trade publication, Groser “signalled” to the Americans that he is “willing to be flexible on two key issues in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations: new disciplines for New Zealand’s pharmaceutical pricing agency and protections for geographical indications (or GIs).”

    (GIs are a system of quality assurance in dairy products.)

    Groser seemed pretty confident in his Inside US Trade interview that he can both please the Americans, and manage any outcry that might break out here at home:

    “I am confident we can find ways that advance U.S. interests [on these two issues] without causing projectile political vomiting in New Zealand, and many of the other countries of the TPP,” Groser said.

    Plainly, by being seen to be seeking to “advance US interests” and by casting himself as a deal broker within the TPP, Groser would also be doing no harm at all to his bid to become the next head of the World Trade Organisation.

    Let’s just hope and pray that Groser’s personal ambition and New Zealand’s best interests manage to intersect at some point.

    ………………………. ”

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    re·gur·gi·tate
    regurgicate Sic
    on the piss again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    Seen this Kiwibloggers?

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=454283861298917&set=a.152878004772839.33544.100001519217558&type=1&theater

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    big win in poor old Griffs mind.
    Pathetic.
    Why bother mate ?
    Typical example of a small man syndrome.

    Very small man. (Sic, as in puppy.)
    Maybe even a runt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    bereal
    you are the ultimate pointless poster
    You do know that the all blacks are not only hopeless but gay as well :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Manolo (13,739 comments) says:

    Another bad-taste joke: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-03/obama-said-to-consider-vogue-editor-wintour-for-u-k-embassy.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Manolo (13,739 comments) says:

    We need the UN as a flawed, but necessary, step towards a proper world government.

    That says it all.
    What an accomplished moron!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Saw thjis today.
    New site. Free auctions and better still a WANTED to buy.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/8036251/New-online-trade-site-free-and-fruity

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    World government haters like the bereal and Kea should check out some of the actual proposals for moving towards a world government. All worthy of debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    People should also check out Pol Pot and Mao’s “proposals”. They should also check out what the EU is doing now.

    Then read some history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Did Pol Pot and Mao advance proposals for world government? I thought they were too busy murdering their respective citizens. Did you mean to compare strengthening the European Union to the crimes of murderous dictators, or was that just serendipity?

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