General Debate 9 March 2014

March 9th, 2014 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

61 Responses to “General Debate 9 March 2014”

  1. Keeping Stock (10,261 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide knows only too well how one cock-up can damage a political reputation fatally. And whilst his piece about David Cunliffe is satirical, there’s way more than a grain of truth underlying it; it’s a brilliant column…

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/hide-on-cunliffe.html

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. mjw (386 comments) says:

    Lots of people are talking about fundraising dinners being standard practice. Those people should also know that standard practice is for corporate hosts to buy a table and invite guests. So the price of a table, rather than the price of a ticket, is the key thing. Under the Electoral Act, the organiser must disclose contributions above the threshold to the party secretary, and the party secretary must add up all contributions over all events for the year and declare anybody who exceeds the threshold from combined contributions/dinners.

    I hear of lots of these dinners at which the PM speaks. I’m surprised that Antoine’s are the only ones declared. But perhaps the others are fundraising for groups other than the National Party, in which case they would be compliant?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hj (6,799 comments) says:

    Poo bah alert

    Diverse Auckland: are we there yet?

    Way back in 1991 when I was returning to Auckland after five years in London, I fretted that I was leaving a teeming, polyglot city to return to a monoculture. Happily, it turned out not to be that way. The Maori cultural and political renaissance was manifest, and second and third generation immigrant kids had flowed into the central city. It was a better, more vital place.

    http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/diverse-auckland-are-we-there-yet/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    So, who is the “politician”, a “robust public person” with a wife “clearly unwell” (Judge) who has won name suppression regarding their acrimonious divorce?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (10,261 comments) says:

    @ iMP – it’s not an MP, but beyond that, we should all say nowt. The identity is widely known.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yoza (1,764 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (9,651 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 8:08 am

    And whilst his piece about David Cunliffe is satirical, there’s way more than a grain of truth underlying it; it’s a brilliant column…

    The Hide column would only work if it wasn’t so apparent Key was laundering $160,000 of donations through Antoine’s.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Scott Chris (6,017 comments) says:

    Interesting story about insider trading, how easy it is to practice and how hard it is to stop:

    In the course of the conversation he let drop that he was working on IBM’s US$1.2b takeover of Nasdaq-listed predictive analytics software firm SPSS, for a “significant premium over its market price”.

    After sitting on the information for three days, Martin bought 1500 SPSS shares and took 29 stop options on SPSS, an amount he thought would be so small no one would notice.

    His folly was to tell his flatmate, Thomas Conradt, a stockbroker at Euro Pacific Capital who told his colleague David Weishaus, who then told others at the firm.

    They bought up SPSS stock that would net them more than US$1 million in profits.

    I’m guessing that the next time these ‘traders’ get a hot tip they will cover their tracks more thoroughly.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11216493

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Peter (1,687 comments) says:

    Check out Labours new logo on their website.

    It says:

    “I’m in labour”

    Giving birth?

    You just couldn’t make this up…..

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. flipper (3,930 comments) says:

    Keeping….
    Two good observations in your part.

    Pray tell. Who the F is “paul little”. When that piece of garbage is compared to Hide’s I know the SH has lost the plot….along with the idiot Yoza.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Yoza (1,764 comments) says:

    Calm down, floppy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wat dabney (3,753 comments) says:

    The Hide column would only work if it wasn’t so apparent Key was laundering $160,000 of donations through Antoine’s.

    You don’t seem to grasp that it’s not about the use of trusts as such, it’s about the sleazy hypocrisy and sheer dishonesty of Cunliffe trying to attract votes by very publicly posturing and denouncing them whilst using them himself. He has shown himself to be a complete fake; a person of less-than-zero integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jackinabox (781 comments) says:

    Is it just a coincidence that two people with stolen European passports die together in a plane crash on their way to China?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Peter (1,687 comments) says:

    Update: they may have pulled it in the last few minutes.

    You can still see it in the Google cache if you search Google images for “I’m in labour 2014″

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,136 comments) says:

    Photojournalists are ghouls.

    The leading picture shows a distraught woman literally surrounded by these vultures.

    But then editors are just as bad,publishing and encouraging this shocking behaviour.

    Stolen passports? Probably just a coincidence.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10685413/Malaysia-Airlines-crash-terror-fears-over-stolen-passports-used-on-missing-plane-MH370.html

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yoza (1,764 comments) says:

    wat dabney (3,344 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 9:05 am

    You don’t seem to grasp that it’s not about the use of trusts as such,…

    “Explaining is losing.”
    The $20,000 Cunliffe trust fiasco was blunted by him declaring some of the donors and returning money to the other donors who wished to remain anonymous, this in turn was rendered chicken feed by the revelation Key was rolling in $160,000 worth of donations which appear to have been trickily laundered through Antoine’s restaurant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hj (6,799 comments) says:

    Russell Brown:
    “Way back in 1991 when I was returning to Auckland after five years in London, I fretted that I was leaving a teeming, polyglot city to return to a monoculture. Happily, it turned out not to be that way. The Maori cultural and political renaissance was manifest, and second and third generation immigrant kids had flowed into the central city. It was a better, more vital place.”

    *in 1991 second and third generation immigrants kids* had flowed into the city (where he drinks his lattes with the liberal elite). Like when did immigration policy change?? Is he preaching to the converted and doesn’t have to think about what he is saying (like Professor Spoonley when he says we will have to work hard to compete for skilled migrants by making sure we have jobs and houses for them)?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. flipper (3,930 comments) says:

    Calm down????

    Yoza…or whatever you are today… you really do try, unsuccessfully, to entertain us in such an idiotic way with views that are more than 100 years dated .
    Go back to your weed.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott Chris (6,017 comments) says:

    who has won name suppression regarding their acrimonious divorce?

    Why is it in the public interest to have to know who is having an acrimonious divorce?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Yoza (1,764 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (5,634 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Why is it in the public interest to have to know who is having an acrimonious divorce?

    Because we all know it was that bigamist Cunliffe!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. holysheet (324 comments) says:

    Check out Labours new logo on their website.

    It says:

    “I’m in labour”

    Giving birth?

    Question

    “Who fucked me”?

    Answer

    “Cuntliffe”

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    So, you get a job, reason for most to be excited , you get applauded for doing so but the usual arsewipes and negatives are moaning about you being given a positive affirmation for your effort.

    some people should just fuck off.

    Work and Income office staff are breaking into applause or sounding hooters when beneficiaries find work.

    The celebrations have been labelled patronising and embarrassing but Work and Income claims clients enjoy them.

    Solo mother Candice Benson was stunned to see a round of applause erupt after a jobseeker at Work and Income’s Lower Hutt office found work on Thursday.

    “One of the clients got up to leave and people just erupted into applause,” Benson said. “He looked like he was trying to get out of there pretty swiftly,” she added.

    (would you want to employ this solo mother.??) Not I.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11216507

    Actually had this happen to a lady we employed just recently. RAISED HER SPIRITS, AND NOT A BIT INTIMIDATED BUT FELT QUIET PROUD OF HERSELF AFTER A LONG TIME WITHOUT WORK.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Keeping Stock (10,261 comments) says:

    @ Yoza – what Walt dabney said (9.05am); you can’t be taken seriously when you berate the then-opposition for anonymous donations and secret trusts, then do the same thing yourself five years later.

    As for meals, how much did Labour declare from the luncheon with Sir Ian McKellen last year where a lazy grand got you a seat at the top table?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Keeping Stock (10,261 comments) says:

    @ Yoza (9.19am) – explaining may indeed be losing. And given the amount of explaining he has had to do this week, what does that make David Cunliffe?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    Interesting read. Kinda clarifies some previous acrimony. (and leaves egg on the face of a few I’d suggest.) perhaps you might like to make amends and apologize to the person concerned.

    Matters neither way to me except that if this is the truth then the Nats have some shame to explain. :lol:

    Mike Williams notes:

    Peters was vehemently attacked in the lead-up to the 2008 general election for allegedly accepting a $100,000 contribution from the same Sir Owen two years earlier, then denying it.

    Despite a leaked email in which Sir Owen said he’d made a donation to NZ First, when Peters was asked if NZ First had received the money from Sir Owen he held up a sign that read “No”.

    He was widely pilloried. NZ First fell short of the 5 per cent threshold by 20,000 votes in the forthcoming general election, disappeared from Parliament and gave John Key’s National Party the election.

    As I facilitated the donation in question, I can report – for the first time – that Peters was in fact telling the strict truth.

    Shortly after the 2005 general election, I travelled to Sydney on a personal matter and went to visit Sir Owen at his beautiful Double Bay property.

    We discussed the outcome of the general election, where Peters had lost Tauranga by 730 votes to “Bob the Builder” Clarkson.

    I was asked if I thought an electoral petition might change the results and answered that I did. I had already seen reports of what seemed to be heavy overspending by the National candidate.

    It was then resolved that a contribution would be made to defray the costs of the court action and a payment was made to the fees account of the lead lawyer, Brian Henry.

    The transaction did not involve Peters and no money ever went near him or the NZ First Party. However the privileges committee and media chose to believe the leaked email – and the rest is history.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11216530

    Oh and Key shafted Clarkson dumping a never done good lawyer on Tauranga.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. kowtow (8,136 comments) says:

    Iran continues to support international terrorism and anti semitism.I imagine this is what Obummer thinks is an improved relationship with the new “moderate” leadership in Tehran.

    http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Iranian-arms-vessel-captured-by-IDF-to-dock-in-Eilat-344702

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    Calls into question the ability and veracity of the Priviledges Committee.

    and of course the national Memeber of that Committee. one being from Nelson if I recall.

    The transaction did not involve Peters and no money ever went near him or the NZ First Party. However the privileges committee and media chose to believe the leaked email – and the rest is history.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11216530

    And now we have the Nats talking ethics?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Keeping Stock (10,261 comments) says:

    You believe Mike Williams, of H-Fee infamy Viking? Good luck to you mate :D

    Don’t forget that the Privileges Committee heard evidence from people who were involved, and as much as I dislike Russel Norman, his summary of the evidence in the Censure Motion debate was spot on:

    There were two principles around this, to my mind. One was the public’s right to know. The whole idea of pecuniary interest and what goes around it—and it is kind of paralleled with electoral law—is the public’s right to know who is giving money to politicians, and who is giving money to political parties. On the other side we had the basic right of Mr Peters to have a fair go. He had to have a fair go to present his side of the story to the committee. So basically we had to try to meet both of those principles—that the public had a right to know that the pecuniary interest register was being applied properly, and that we also had to give Mr Peters a fair go—and I believe we actually went through that.

    In terms of the evidence, I can tell members that in my mind it was difficult to try to put the witnesses’ words one against the other. We heard numerous stories. It was very difficult to know which was the right story when one was sitting there listening to them all. So I think one of the key issues for me was the events around 14 December. That was one of the key bits of evidence, because regardless of who rang whom before 14 December, something very important happened on that day. There were two phone calls and an email. The first phone call was from the billionaire to the politician—if we want to take people’s names out of it—and they talked about something. We do not know what they talked about; there are different stories. The politician rang the politician’s lawyer immediately after, and they talked about something. Then the lawyer sent an email back to the billionaire and said: “Further to your conversation with the politician, here are my bank account details.” This series of phone calls and the email were compelling evidence—they were strong evidence. The thing about them is that nobody denied this evidence. Nobody said “Actually, this didn’t happen.” Those three pieces of evidence and the way they are connected together are a central part of why, I think, the majority of the committee came to the conclusion it did. There is a lot else around this, but we know that those three pieces of evidence were extremely strong, and nobody denied those three pieces of evidence.

    The question we got to at the end was around what to do about it. Once we came to the point of view that there was some knowledge of the donation—and I believe that there was some knowledge, and that it was a gift—the question was what we do about it. There were those who were calling for Mr Peters to be suspended from Parliament, for all manner of things. I thought that that went too far. I thought that the report itself is sufficient penalty. It says, basically, that Mr Peters gave a false return. It says he is in contempt, he is censured, and he is required to give an accurate return. I think these are quite severe penalties, and I think that it is a step too far, and too much, to suggest there should be some kind of suspension of privilege, or anything beyond that. So the report, to my mind, was an appropriate response, and an appropriate penalty for what we found out.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/48HansD_20080923_00000825/privilege-%E2%80%94-consideration-of-report-of-privileges-committee

    And don’t ever forget that Labour voted AGAINST Peters being censured, because they needed NZ First’s vote to pass their ETS legislation before the election. So I wouldn’t put too much credence on Labour’s version of events.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    Walter:
    My wife and I heard that coffee is good for your sex life.

    Jeff Dunham:
    Oh, and is it?

    Walter:
    No. It kept me awake for the whole damn thing. I actually had to participate!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. adze (2,057 comments) says:

    Key interviewed uncharacteristically poorly on The Nation this morning, even Colin Craig had a better one. Gower kept the initiative and pressed his points well. Key will need to perform better this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    Some have asked what I’m going to be doing in retirement. Well, I applied for a building permit for a new house. It was going to be 100 ft tall and 400 ft wide, with 12 gun turrets at various heights, and windows all over the place and a loud outside entertainment sound system that was going to entertain the whole neighbourhood. It would have parking for 200 cars, and I was going to paint it green with pink trim.

    The City Council told me; “Forget it…IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN!”

    So, I sent in the application again, but this time I called it a ‘Mosque’.

    Work starts on Monday.

    I love this country. It’s the government that scares the crap out of me.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. flash2846 (252 comments) says:

    @ adze
    Correct; it was a poor performance over the $5000 donations. I think Key was ambushed. Also haw can that wanker Gower say the donations were secret when the quests weren’t in disguise, there would have been heaps of photo’s and even the media were at the event. Gower is now on my shit list!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    KS. I have no reason to disbelieve Williams. He has made it very public. If you have an issue with that then email him and question him.
    He’ s not a person I have particular empathy for and neither is Peters but I always doubted the questioning and the process given the protagonists and the fact that the Privileges committee was a hairs breadth short of a kangaroo court in this instance.

    Indeed the paragraph you have bolded operates on the unproven hearsay evidence of he said, she said style. No concrete evidence as would be required in a proper court.
    Peters will make a meal of this and so he should.

    Transparency and honesty is very short when it comes to the feral behavoir of much of the low life that infests Parliament. In all colours.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. adze (2,057 comments) says:

    @flash2486
    I’ve been critical of Gower and his antics in the past, but I wouldn’t put him on my shit list on the basis of that interview. I think on that occasion he was just doing his job – although I am not sure that Key telling Cunliffe to be consistent in his views is the same as agreeing with those views (and therefore hypocritical).
    I am annoyed however by the continuing practice by both Q+A and The Nation of putting partisan commentators on the discussion panel afterward. It pretty much ensures that panel discussion will always have a low signal to noise ratio.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. flash2846 (252 comments) says:

    @ adze
    We appear to be in agreement in the most part. The Nation last year had reasonable balance I thought. Unlike Q+A which had at best lefty interviewers and two of three lefty panellists. Also those comments that were text into Q+A were obviously contrived at some Labour activist breakfast meetings.

    National really do need better strategists and improvement in communicating good policy to the ignorant of us. (My opinion anyway)

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Bob (496 comments) says:

    http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8811450/north-korea-holds-parliament-election

    John Key will be drooling over this. If he gets back at the end of the year it will only be by a slim margin. Wouldn’t he love to have that sort of support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    A CHALLENGE TO CAMERON SLATER.

    Great to See Cameron reviewing the language and commentary standards on “Whaleoil” as a culture shift and repositioning move in his post “time to grow up”.

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/03/time-grow/

    (Has a potential sponsor intimated this; or is this a genuine “growing up” as he says?). Fully support him; aspects of Whale have always grated, and in the end, I dipped out because it was too feral for me.

    I’ve suggested he role model what he wants to achieve, by changing the title (Whaleoil Beef Hooked – “Well I’ll Be Fuc*ed”) to something else. Is ‘BEING FUC*ED’ a good title for “NZ’s #1 blogsite”? ‘Whaleoil’ would do, it’s what we all call it anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. stephieboy (2,634 comments) says:

    kowtow, now what would you do precisely from the convenience of your armchair about the apprehension of the Iranian Vessel that your “Obummer”or his predecessor GWB have failed to do.?
    You make gunboat , confrontational and brinkmanship diplomacy appear so easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. OneTrack (2,966 comments) says:

    bob – “John Key will be drooling over this”

    Wrong ideology. However, Cunliffe and Norman are probably thinking about how they can follow the vanguard in North Korea and achieve the same here.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. bc (1,363 comments) says:

    Re: Q + A & The Nation

    I watch both on a Sunday so I can flick back and forth between the two channels on what interests me.

    Q + A is on first so watched the interview with Hekia Parata.
    Hekia has an amazing way of talking for 15 minutes and actually saying nothing. She has improved though – she managed to get through the whole interview without her ‘1 in 5′ catchphrase. She has learnt some new ones!
    I noticed (and all the panel noticed it too) that she has softened her image A LOT. There was an extended period of time last year where Hekia was nowhere to be seen. Now we know why. There was a major image makeover going on.

    Cunliffe up next. I can’t stand him so flicked over to The Nation. An extended interview with John Key.
    Key was Mr Cool Calm and Collected, as per usual. He is a master at the tv interview. There were a few moments where you could tell he was getting annoyed and his replies were more terse – the Judith Collins stuff up and discussion over political donations in particular. But no interviewer yet has managed to trip Key up.

    Colin Craig followed Key. I was pleasantly surprised at how well Craig handled the interview. There was less of the deer in the headlights look – Craig become noticeably more confident as the interview went on. there was none of the conspiracy theorist stuff and he made some good points about alcohol and drug laws.

    Some good interviews this week.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Yoza (1,764 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (9,655 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 9:59 am

    @ Yoza – what Walt dabney said (9.05am); you can’t be taken seriously when you berate the then-opposition for anonymous donations and secret trusts, then do the same thing yourself five years later…

    But seriously, if you do berate the opposition for tricky fund raising endeavors of which they themselves denounced you for indulging in five years previous, then surely it is the height of hypocrisy to be caught doing worse a week later.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bc (1,363 comments) says:

    adze and flash – yes I agree with you both. Key let his Mr Nice Guy persona drop a little during that interview. He was getting noticeably annoyed in places.
    Not his best interview, but I still think he is one of the best politicians at controlling the interview.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Keeping Stock (10,261 comments) says:

    @ viking2 – have you forgotten Mike “KFC” Williams? I haven’t; I’ll never forget election night 2005 as the South Auckland booths poured in late in the evening to give Clark a third term, propped up by the venal Winston Peters. As Graeme Edgeler has said on Twitter today, if Williams had the evidence, why didn’t he take it to the Privileges Committee?

    Winston Peters got what he deserved in 2008; of that I have no doubt at all. Mike Williams is trying to rewrite history.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    OK, anyone want to argue that there isn’t one standard for the right and a different one for the left ? Anyone remember Dan Quayle who was relentlessly mocked because he misspelled Potato (as potatoe) on TV, never lived it down. Now we have one Barack Obama saying that we need more respect, that’s R S P E C T, respect. On national TV, in a speech ( so was probably misspelled on the teleprompter), and is this a cause for endless mocking on how stoopid Democrats are, or is glossed over by the entire MSM ? Anyone care to guess which reaction dominated ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    OK, anyone want to argue that there isn’t one standard for the right and a different one for the left ? Anyone remember Dan Quayle who was relentlessly mocked because he misspelled Potato (as potatoe) on TV, never lived it down. Now we have one Barack Obama saying that we need more respect, that’s R S P E C T, respect. On national TV, in a speech ( so was probably misspelled on the teleprompter), and is this a cause for endless mocking on how stoopid Democrats are, or is glossed over by the entire MSM ? Anyone care to guess which reaction dominated ?

    In fairness, one was a verbal slip in a speech and the other was literally correcting a child on a blackboard from the child’s correct answer to Quayle’s incorrect one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    Yes Ryan, that explains it perfectly, just a speech on National TV, much less important than a political appearance at a spelling bee. Probably explains why the 57 states, speaking Austrian, pronouncing corpsmen, and other such gaffes have never received much mainstream ridicule, they weren’t actually important corrections, just little understandable slips that in no way reflect the character and intelligence of the person making them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    Wiremu, had long heard the stories of an amazing family tradition.

    It seems that his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all been
    Able to walk on water on their 18th birthday. On that special day, they’d
    Each walked across the lake to the tavern on the far side for their first legal
    Drink.

    So when Wiremu’s, 18th birthday came ’round, he and his pal Rangi, took a
    Boat out to the middle of the lake, Wiremu, stepped out of the boat …and
    Nearly drowned! Rangi, just barely managed to pull him to safety.

    Furious and confused, Wiremu, went to see his grandmother..

    ‘Grandma,’ he asked, “It’s my 18th birthday, so why can’t I walk ‘cross
    The lake like my father, his father, and his father before him?”

    Granny looked deeply into Wiremu’s, troubled brown eyes and said,
    “Because your father, your grandfather and your great grandfather
    Were all born in July when the lake is frozen, and you were born in

    December, you f**k-wit “

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    KS. Nope not forgetting that at all and really that’s not the issue.
    Williams made a clear statement in the Herald today of what transpired. (you can read it at the link I posted.) As GE said he had the necessary evidence to clear Winston.
    On that basis Williams is guilty of with holding vital information that could well have changed the course of history. Williams was so intent on bagging the Nats and letting Helen back he decided to do nothing with the evidence.

    It still remains a kangaroo court for its performance.

    If what Williams said today is correct, and sensibly it would appear that way, then Winston was correct and was vilified by many. (including you).
    Indeed based on Williams writing today all Winston needs is that in an affidavit and many of you will be entwined in defamation hearings forever. (and don’t forget Winston is good at them)

    Personally I reckon it would be fun.

    Get prepared. :lol:

    Oh and if you ever believed Glen then you are more naive than I thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dime (9,792 comments) says:

    does anyone know when Yozas shift is over? and who is doing the next shift?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. kowtow (8,136 comments) says:

    More to the point Obummer was back to his Marxist roots going on again about race and gender.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    Yes Ryan, that explains it perfectly, just a speech on National TV, much less important than a political appearance at a spelling bee. Probably explains why the 57 states, speaking Austrian, pronouncing corpsmen, and other such gaffes have never received much mainstream ridicule, they weren’t actually important corrections, just little understandable slips that in no way reflect the character and intelligence of the person making them.

    I guess I treat it by imagining myself in their shoes. I’m professionally pedantic when it comes to spelling, but I do often misspeak. I can imagine saying “R S P E C T” (possibly influenced by watching Eddie Murphy’s Delirious one too many times), but can’t imagine seeing the word “potato” spelled correctly on a blackboard and leaping at the opportunity to screw it up.

    I do agree with you that media tends in general to delight more in the intellectual gaffes of Republicans than it does in those of Democrats. It’s just that, in this case, a slip of the tongue doesn’t compare to a willed effort to make a child dumber.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    WHY MEN ARE NEVER DEPRESSED:
    Men Are Just Happier People –What do you expect from such simple creatures?Your last name stays put.

    The garage is all yours.

    Wedding plans take care of themselves.

    Chocolate is just another snack…

    You can never be pregnant.

    You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.

    You can wear NO shirt to a water park.

    Car mechanics tell you the truth.

    The world is your urinal.

    >>>>>> You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.

    You don’t have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.

    Wrinkles add character.

    Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.

    People never stare at your chest when you’re talking to them.

    New shoes don’t cut, blister, or mangle your feet.

    One mood all the time.

    Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.

    You know stuff about tanks.

    A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.

    You can open all your own jars.

    If someone forgets to invite you,

    He or she can still be your friend.

    Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.

    Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.

    Everything on your face stays its original color.

    The same hairstyle lasts for years, even decades.

    You only have to shave your face and neck.

    You can play with toys all your life.

    One wallet and one pair of shoes — one color for all seasons.

    You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.

    You can ‘do’ your nails with a pocket knife..

    You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.

    You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives

    On December 24 in 25 minutes.

    ___________________________________

    Men Are Just Happier People

    NICKNAMES
    If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah. If Mike, Dave and John go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Bubba and Wildman.

    EATING OUT
    When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and John will each throw in $20, even though it’s only for $32.50. None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.

    When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators…YEP!!!

    MONEY

    A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.

    A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn’t need but it’s on sale.

    BATHROOMS

    A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel.

    The average number of items in the typical woman’s bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.

    ARGUMENTS

    A woman has the last word in any argument.
    Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

    FUTURE

    A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.

    A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

    MARRIAGE

    A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn’t.

    A man marries a woman expecting that she won’t change, but she does.

    DRESSING UP

    A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the trash, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.

    A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.

    NATURAL

    Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.

    OFFSPRING
    Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.

    A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.

    THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

    A married man should forget his mistakes. There’s no use in two people remembering the same thing!
    SO, send this to the women who have a sense of humor and who can handle it …..

    and to the men who will enjoy reading it!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    Some have asked what I’m going to be doing in retirement. Well, I applied for a building permit for a new house. It was going to be 100 ft tall and 400 ft wide, with 12 gun turrets at various heights, and windows all over the place and a loud outside entertainment sound system that was going to entertain the whole neighbourhood. It would have parking for 200 cars, and I was going to paint it green with pink trim.

    The City Council told me; “Forget it…IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN!”

    So, I sent in the application again, but this time I called it a ‘Mosque’.

    Work starts on Monday.

    I love this country. It’s the government that scares the crap out of me.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. DJP6-25 (1,353 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 4.50 pm. The shield of sanctimony is a very sensitive and selective instrument. It deploys in nano seconds for the ‘right’ people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. stephieboy (2,634 comments) says:

    dime (8,514 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    dime, you appear to find it difficult to manage a different point of view.?

    I suppose , like kowtow, it produces in you a kind of severe form of emotionally anxious and nervous constipation. ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RF (1,363 comments) says:

    Whenever I feel like having a laugh I look up the knuckle draggers rag called the standard. What a bunch of retards from the flat earth society.

    The down side is that these pricks live in this beautiful country and try to bring it to its knees by spewing out their foul crap. They are nothing but traitors and do not deserve to call themselves kiwis.

    I have noticed that more of their coven are now posting on this site. They enjoy freedom to express their opinions that is not available on their wimpish masters site but thats nothing new.

    Every morning when I wake up I smell rotten eggs and my thoughts immediately turn to the Labour movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Then again, the more visceral the folk at The Stranded are, the more we know we are on the right track…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. nasska (11,085 comments) says:

    A frog telephones the Psychic Hotline and is told,
    “You are going to meet a beautiful young girl who will want
    to know everything about you.”

    The frog says, “This is great! Will I meet her at a party,
    or what?”

    “No,” says the psychic. “Next term in her biology class.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11216487

    Agreed Richard, time for the NZRU to get rid of Hammett, he was a poor choice to begin with, appoint Umaga as head coach of the Canes with Chris Boyd as assistant and that will be a step in the right direction. Currently they are a joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Another theory on this tragedy: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/09/us-exclusive-probe-plane-idUSBREA280FF20140309

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Viking2 (11,339 comments) says:

    Internet Sales Tax Battle Moves To The States

    By: Zach Walton | Staff Writer

    Last year, Congress began the debate on whether or not it should implement a federal Internet sales tax. After passing the Senate, it has stalled in the House where Speaker John Boehner has publicly said he wouldn’t support it. Now the fight is moving to individual states and it gives us insight into the challenges facing Congress.

    The AP reports that Hawaii is the latest state attempting to pass an Internet sales tax bill. The bill is already halfway to the finish line as the House of Representatives have already passed it, but now it moves onto the Senate.

    Just like the national debate on a universal Internet sales tax, Hawaiian legislators are finding that it’s a series of pros and cons. On one hand, an Internet sales tax mandate would bring in money to fund state projects. On the other, it would be another tax on an already overtaxed population.

    Do you think a national sales tax bill is the way to go? Or should it be a state only affair? Let us know in the comments.
    http://www.webpronews.com/internet-sales-tax-battle-moves-to-the-states-2014-03

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    The thread’s a bit old, but Ryan, I couldn’t make this up “It’s just that, in this case, a slip of the tongue doesn’t compare to a willed effort to make a child dumber.” A willed effort, WTF, you do realize (and I think you cannot, from your tone) that Quayle was given a cue card by the teacher at the spelling event, and it had the word spelled as “potatoe”; so he was just going with what the organizers had as the correct answer. Maybe he shouldn’t have gone along with the wrong answer, but a willed effort; no wonder you sometimes have difficulty attributing anything but the meanest motives to anyone who doesn’t meet your “standards” for political correctness.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.