General Debate 17 April 2014

April 17th, 2014 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

273 Responses to “General Debate 17 April 2014”

  1. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    I stated here weeks ago, the obese criminal German had threatened our democratically elected PM, it has now been clarified. He is not only interfering in our political and legal systems, he is involving radical losers of suspect intellectual abilities, to solidify his attempt at gaining citizenship, so as to negate his extradition order. This beast must go, and no need to wait for the slug to seek more legal stays of proceedings.
    See the gutless left are once again selling white poppies on Kapiti Coast. I understand the main perpetrator is a close confidant of “Tojo” Cunliffe . . . Birds of a Feather . . . so to speak. He will be discussing plans to disestablish our RSA movement with the Rainbow Reverend no doubt!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    Thought all you old farts might get a laugh out of the following YouTube video. It’s about a small group of young kids (although there’s a 12 and 13 year old as well), having their first encounter with …….

    …. a Sony Walkman.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    tom hunter (3,987 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:04 am

    Thought all you old farts might get a laugh out of this YouTube video.

    It’s about a small group of young kids (although there’s a 12 and 13 year old as well), having their first encounter with …….

    …. a Sony Walkman.

    Walkmans are the work of Stan Satan.

    Obama’s drone wars and the normalisation of extrajudicial murder

    As a candidate, Obama also promised to restore proper legislative and judicial oversight to counterterrorism operations. Rather than treat counterterrorism policy as an area of exception, operating without the normal safeguards that protect the rights of the accused, Obama promised that his approach “will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”

    It does seem a little opportunistic, but for John Key to come out in the media in support of extrajudicial killing should disturb anyone who believes in the rule of law or likes promoting the illusion that they believe in the rule of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    The Karam defamation case should be a warning to bloggers and other forum hosts, and anyone who uses social media who thinks they can make unprovable and potentially defamatory comments with impunity.

    From Karam awarded $535,000 over defamation:

    In her ruling, released yesterday, the judge identified about 50 defamatory statements published on Facebook and on a private website by Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss — members of the Justice for Robin Bain group — to which there was no defence.

    Mr Karam said the men had made “an all-out assault on me [in] an attempt to show that I’m shonky”.

    He and Fairfax NZ had earlier agreed to settle defamation claims, on a confidential basis, arising from articles on stuff.co.nz that drew attention to the websites that contained the defamatory comments by Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss.

    People commenting anonymously may think they are immune from defamation but that could be put to the test legally.

    And bloggers who allow open slather comments should note that Fairfax NZ has been also held responsible in this case and have settled privately. I frequently see potentially defamatory comments made on a number of blogs.

    Most people being attacked online don’t take defamation action and the attackers probably think they are safe from being held to account.

    Parker and Purkiss probably thought they were untouchable and could make unsubstantiated claims with impunity. They may have thought they could exploit the power of free speech.

    They may have believed their own hype and thought that believing something was sufficient justification for attacking someone’s integrity. This seems have continued “in choosing to use the defence of truth at the trial”.

    Perhaps those who think they are safe attacking and defaming online should have a good look at this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Quite an interesting read.
    What are the chances that climate change is a natural pattern?

    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-are-chances-climate-change-natural

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. EAD (1,069 comments) says:

    A study by Princetown and NorthWestern Universities has concluded that the US is in effect an Oligarchy:

    “Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

    What still amazes me is when I try and point out the red team and blue team are two arses of the same cheek, people will defend their team until they’re purple in the face. The cognitive dissonance suffered by Republican supporters when their team runs up colossal debts or by Democrat supporters when their team bomb the hell out of foreigners defies belief. So many unthinking people will excuse any sort of behaviour as long as their team is doing it.

    It’s so sad. America: a new country, a shining city upon a hill – a new set of rules (constitution) – devolving into the same old shit – kings and serfs.

    Same as it ever was,

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    I thought the following was a very sad commentary on the whole Bundy situation – Why you should be sympathetic toward Cliven Bundy.

    Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?

    I’ll bet it is, but the wrap-up is the sad part in what it says about the modern USA:

    So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    Thought all you old farts might get a laugh out of the following YouTube video.

    The kids’ reactions are about as natural as Pringles.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Am tired of the so called Labour Opposition and the Media war against Collins.
    Get over yourselves.
    As for Peters – he must be possibly the most corrupt Parliamentarian of recent times with his public and Parliamentary support of his Partner Jan Trotman and the Pharmaceutical company of which I believe she was Managing Director.
    This is the manufacturer of medication which they were trying to push through Pharmac.
    Whale has the full unexpurgated story – no wonder Peters did not like being pulled up on this in Parliament by Collins – she had a copy of the full details in her hand. Peters is just very stale piss and wind, but he loves the media headlines.
    Peters of course used Parliamentary Privilege to make his puerile allegations.
    Behind it all is Labour/Media trying to bring Collins out of contention as a possible National Leader.
    Herald has gone feral on it – but fortunately not many people read the paper any more, or care, other than the lefties with nothing better to do.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. James Stephenson (2,171 comments) says:

    As for Peters – he must be possibly the most corrupt Parliamentarian of recent times

    Yeah, the MP who delivered tax breaks for the racing industry in return for donations, talking about corruption and conflicts of interest. Anyone have an irony meter that *hasn’t* melted down?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    The kids’ reactions are about as natural as Pringles.

    They’re American kids. Based on my having lived in the USA for years I can assure you that kids like that are the majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    Perhaps those who think they are safe attacking and defaming online should have a good look at this case.

    I wonder if calling Wusell a galloping mental is defamation or whether the fair comment defense is available.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Pete George (21,792 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:08 am

    When our fathers and grandfathers fought in WWI & WWII they were fighting for the right to freedom of speech, and they were fighting against people that spoke with hatred to denigrate others.

    Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to make up lies to denigrate another innocent individual. Parker and Purkiss frequently claimed what they were doing was under the guise of freedom of speech, it was in fact ‘hate speech’. Speech constructed especially to suit their cause – as Parker admitted in Court, there was no truth to what he said when he admitted he had no evidence to prove ‘truth’.

    The internet has produced the means by which people think they can say whatever they like about another, and that there is no consequences for their actions. This decision shows there are consequences – probably in the tune of $1 million by time costs are added. Of course Parker and Purkiss don’t have that sort of cash, and so will escape by being made bankrupt, it is to be seen whether they have learned their lesson or not. I suspect not, going from Parker’s latest ramblings.

    As I said on the other GD, if people won’t or can’t constrain themselves, then the courts need to do it for them, as they are there to protect the innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    Donut time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Thanks, EAD, that Princetown & NorthWestern University study was a great find.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Reid (15,499 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:35 am

    I am not sure about the fair comment side of your question. I guess that comes down to opinion.

    But IMO if you can’t find facts to win your case and prove your point – then name calling is never going to do it for you, and certainly doesn’t demonstrate any high intelligence — but it can be great fun :-) .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    Paulus

    Agreed, yet once AGAIN red radio had it all breathlessly , sensationally, revealed on their 0600 bulletin this morning. It is all becoming very tedious and tendacious, and DOES make me wonder exactly who is directing what can only be a very deliberate and increasingly hysterical and nasty campaign against this specific minister of the ‘Crown? McCarten perhaps? or Little?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. James Stephenson (2,171 comments) says:

    it was in fact ‘hate speech’.

    Surely the most bogus concept to have been created in the last decade.

    It’s really just a pity that the relatives of a deceased person have no ability to take defamation action, that’d pay the bills and some.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    OECD

    Thanks for the video clip . Get the kids on your side by doing (‘cool’) donuts in your APC, and generally having ‘harmless’ fun, and you get the country…

    Very clever and very subtle.

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

    @ Tom Hunter 8.20am

    Thanks for sharing that – a very true and powerful piece. I think that sort of attitude is becoming increasingly prevalent in the governing class in the West as we become more city based and have forgotten in our “busy” about what life is about. I have been to farmers markets and seen with my own eyes, middle class wankers say out loud that they’re not going to buy those potatoes because their is dirt on them! People buy milk, meat and all sorts of food from the supermarket and think it just magically appeared there washed, packaged with no dirt, sweat, toils and oil used to get it on the shelf.

    Through welfare, non jobs in government, health & safety culture, employment laws, automated farming and the decline of manufacturing, so many people don’t know what a real job or a real life is, one where you have to take a risk using your own wits and hands and succeed or fail on your own merits.

    As a result of the above, their lives scream for meaning as they have in reality stopped living their own lives. They perform for the public like trained bears, posting every last act on Facebook as if that were proof of their existence, jabbering away with their thumbs like deranged mental patients rather than swinging a hammer or holding the hand of the person next to them.

    Although sometimes this blog gets alot of nonsense on it (it ain’t no zerohedge) I enjoy it as most people still show a real interest in the world in which we live. In the outside world or in the so called mainstream media, there is zero interest in currency debasement, political thought/history, corp-cronyism, government waste, increasing fascism and especially our illusion-of-choice politics – see my post at 8.14am.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    Replacing R’s with W’s does not make a case either. IT tends to make a person look like, well, a galloping mental.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    PG, Trade Me have also settled. TM was the nest of this and ignored advice that they were indeed a publisher in the first instance and responsible for third party posts in the second. Parker now claims that he only had a small membership, that’s irrelevant and in this case his ‘followers’ posted the defamatory material on this blog and else where. KS is running a good model for a blog to ensure it remains legal – others claim not to have the ‘resources’ to monitor their own boards well, that won’t stand up now, nor should it have in the past. The Herald report skims the surface of the Judgement, but you are right about things being ‘proveable’ and the test is not that “I read it somewhere, or in a paper,” it’s a satisfactory conclusion reached on facts, not repeated mantras or false assertions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. deadrightkev (464 comments) says:

    Pete George (21,792 comments) says:

    April 17th, 2014 at 8:08 am

    “The Karam defamation case should be a warning to bloggers and other forum hosts, and anyone who uses social media who thinks they can make unprovable and potentially defamatory comments with impunity.”

    I agree with you for once.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    The Karama defamation decision:
    https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/58/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/d2156730-d467-4a54-b8fe-b5d95dce9e3e/d2156730-d467-4a54-b8fe-b5d95dce9e3e.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ James Stephenson (1,882 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:41 am

    You defend dishonesty do you, provided its used for something you agree with?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    ‘James Stephenson (1,882 comments) says:

    April 17th, 2014 at 8:41 am
    it was in fact ‘hate speech’.

    Surely the most bogus concept to have been created in the last decade.

    It’s really just a pity that the relatives of a deceased person have no ability to take defamation action, that’d pay the bills and some.’

    Read the Judgement this was dealt with, Karam is not responsible for witnesses that gave evidence about incest, nor did he invent it as you and others may have claimed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. James Stephenson (2,171 comments) says:

    I cut emotionally-involed people some slack, when it comes to how they react in defence of someone, who has no ability to defend themselves anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Albert_Ross (290 comments) says:

    Replacing R’s with W’s does not make a case either. IT tends to make a person look like, well, a galloping mental.

    +1 to that. I would strongly oppose any attempt to ban the affectation of referring to “Gweens”, “Wussell” etc. But having a /right/ to do something doesn’t mean that you /have/ to do it and I really wish people wouldn’t. Suffering from speech difficulties isn’t a legitimate target for rudeness and mockery.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ James Stephenson (1,883 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:58 am

    Providing that ‘emotionality’ is on the side you agree with right? When it is on the opposing side, of course, its a no-no – right?

    Are you familiar with the word ‘hypocrite’?

    Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss made up deliberate lies, and supported them from others with the attempt to cause great harm to a person that believed and campaigned against an injustice. An injustice, I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that was supported by a Court decision.

    The prolonged period involved, can not account for a simple ‘emotional state’. If an ‘emotional state’ is so prolonged, (more than 12 months) then one needs to consider ‘mental illness’ is more likely to be the cause.

    Their actions were extreme and unacceptable, under any circumstances, as has been decided by the Courts. Mr Karam was not a primary party in this case, nor did he have the power and do what the defendants claimed he had. If the relatives can’t see that in their prolonged emotional state, then I’m not surprised they also failed to notice the ‘emotional state’ of their deceased loved one. Which probably accounts for why they ignored him whilst alive.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. iMP (2,383 comments) says:

    Pete George, you are completely right, we must be careful of our facts when discussing people online.

    Hone Harawira is a racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. James Stephenson (2,171 comments) says:

    Judith? Fuck off.

    TIA etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. doggone7 (801 comments) says:

    Reid: “I wonder if calling Wusell a galloping mental is defamation or whether the fair comment defense is available.”

    Russel Norman would be likely to scoff and ignore. How would Colin Craig react to the same call?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    Glad I missed the rest of yesterdays GD. More boring Truther nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Manolo (13,735 comments) says:

    The farce goes on: http://money.msn.co.nz/businessnews/national/8831431/businesses-warned-over-easter-surcharges

    Why doesn’t Labour Lite abolish it?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. jcuk (684 comments) says:

    Doing ‘donuts’ is on the same level as students lighting fires in the streets and damaging the road to the detriment of subsequent users. I quite frequently drive through the ‘student quarter’ of Dunedin :(

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. johnwellingtonwells (137 comments) says:

    The Horrid have done it again, via their “trained” journalist, Adam Bennett
    “Meanwhile, Mr Key confirmed Oravida had received several thousand dollars in taxpayer-funded compensation after the botulism scare.” What Bennett convieniently missed out was mention of the other Chinese companies who also received similar compensation. Of course to mention this would have not suited Bennett’s storyline

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    Phew, this weather bomb was virtually unreported — far worse than the overhyped isa from couple of weeks back.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    The Minister of Justice Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON
    I refer our previous correspondence. I have subsequently had referred to me the response from Justice Binnie to your discussions with him about the glasses evidence which I raised in my letter to you dated 10 September. I am most grateful for the circumspect way in which you raised that matter with the Judge.
    But the Judge’s self-defensive reply is most disturbing, almost as if it is designed to blind you to the relevance of that evidence. My email to you was dated 10 September, your discussion with the Judge was on 13 September and his reply was dated 25 September. He chooses to go on the attack raising issues of my own character and credibility and thus obfuscating the intense relevance of the very matter you raised with him. The detail he has provided raises the question as to who gave him all of the Law Society material. How is it relevant? I have been judged and found wanting but those issues do not alter the incontrovertible facts of the matters I have raised.
    However much of a scoundrel Justice Binnie wants to paint me, the salient facts are these:
    Trenchant and continual criticism of me by the Bain team surely waived privilege from the early stages. There is common law authority to that effect.
    Mr Bain informed both myself and my co-Counsel, Miss Jonelle Williams, that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening before the 6.30 am murders the next morning.
    In response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses tne night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did.
    The Crown Solicitor therefore knew this fact at trial.
    Justice Thorp gives my evidence to the PCA the clear stamp of credibility because the Crown Prosecutor confirmed to him what I had told him at trial.
    The importance of this admission of wearing the glasses the night before is, quite simply, a damning admission because the police found the bent frame and one lens in David’s bedroom and the other lens in his murdered brother’s bedroom.
    Justice Binnie then appears to mislead you by quoting and relying upon a passage from the Court of Appeal decision at paragraphs 21 and 22 of his recent Report to you.
    21. This inconsistency gives rise to issues of both of substance and credibility. As to the substance of the claim, the Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 December 2003 subsequent to the Thorp Report concluded that
    “The glasses and lens issue has not featured significantly in our analysis of the strength of the case against David. It does not in any way tend to exculpate David.” (para 244)
    22. For reasons that follow, I agree with that conclusion. Assuming as I do that what Mr Guest told Sir Thomas Thorp is true, it does not “feature significantly” in resolving the substance of the case.
    8. BUT THIS QUOTE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL was dealing with a different issue relating to the glasses because that Court DID NOT KNOW of the evidence of what David Bain had told myself and my co-Counsel and what we had told the Crown Solicitor at trial.
    Consequently, it can be stated on reasonable grounds that Justice Binnie has himself succumbed to a tunnel visioned approach to the assessment of all relevant evidence relating the prime question he was asked to answer.
    I do not request or expect any response from you. I conclude by congratulating you on a most professional approach to your role as Minister of Justice in this whole sorry affair.
    Yours Faithfully
    Michael Guest
    Justice Binnie has succumbed to tunnel vision. We all knew that.
    No way David Bain will receive any compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. EAD (1,069 comments) says:

    @ yoza 8.40am

    We might come from other ends of the spectrum but like you I’m surprised they needed to do a “study” to find this out.

    My own little “study” lead me to this same conclusion a long time ago!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. minus (192 comments) says:

    Great minds of our times –

    15 of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, so the USA attacked Iraq

    Labour, wanting to beat National lead by John Key next Election spend an incredible effort in attacking Judith Collins who may or may not be a future National Leader, after the Election.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. johnwellingtonwells (137 comments) says:

    Regarding the Collins case, perhaps Robertson should remember the poem

    Yesterday, upon the stair,
    I met a man who wasn’t there.
    He wasn’t there again today,
    I wish, I wish he’d go away…

    When I came home last night at three,
    The man was waiting there for me
    But when I looked around the hall,
    I couldn’t see him there at all!
    Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
    Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door…

    Last night I saw upon the stair,
    A little man who wasn’t there,
    He wasn’t there again today
    Oh, how I wish he’d go away…

    Of course Robertson said that Alf wasn’t in the pub

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Glad I missed the rest of yesterdays GD. More boring Truther nonsense.

    Glad you were someplace else, ShawnLH.

    Vanunu worked in Israel’s Negev nuclear facility from 1977 to 1985. Disgusted by Zionist racism and brutality, Vanunu was fired for participating in a demonstration calling for a Palestinian state – but not before he had covertly photographed the nuclear weapons production equipment at Dimona.
    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/11/25/336532/israeli-nukes-threatening-region-world/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. questions (206 comments) says:

    From Tom Hunter, on Cliven Bundy:
    “They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors”

    This is exactly the point… they run their heard on land that belongs to the Federal Government which A: they aren’t allowed to and B: don’t pay anything for.

    They are living off a subsidy of free use of land and receiving the protection of the government to hamstring competitors by not allowing others the use of land that belongs to the Federal Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Will the ‘correspondent’ of the Minister read para 125 of Courtenay’s Judgement and see that ‘their’ comment was declared defamatory by the High Court Judge. This person was the ‘lucky’ one not included in the Fairfax proceedings, but now who knows – I can only hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    igm (847 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:00 am

    I stated here weeks ago, the obese criminal German had threatened our democratically elected PM, it has now been clarified. He is not only interfering in our political and legal systems, he is involving radical losers of suspect intellectual abilities, to solidify his attempt at gaining citizenship, so as to negate his extradition order. This beast must go, and no need to wait for the slug to seek more legal stays of proceedings.
    -===========================

    yeah well.
    Kim Dotcom responded to Mr Mitchell’s claims on Twitter: “The only threat I ever made to those who abuse their power and think they are above the law: “The truth will come out”.”

    Another non entity Nat MP, failed policeman and all making allegations under privilege.

    Just in front of this judgement.

    Kim Dotcom gets NZ assets back

    Cars, cash and property seized from Kim Dotcom by police in the 2012 raid at his Coatesville mansion could be returned to him within the next 14 days.

    When police raided the Dotcom Mansion in January 2012 they seized $6 million of luxury cars – including 15 Mercedes-Benz, a pink 1959 Cadillac and a Rolls-Royce Phantom – and $10 million from financial institutions.

    They also took a number of personal items belonging to Dotcom and his wife Mona.

    The property was seized under a foreign restraining order made by the United States District Court two days before the raid.

    However today an order was made in the High Court at Auckland declining a police request to effectively extend the order so Dotcom’s assets could be retained.

    Minutes ago Dotcom tweeted about the ruling.

    “Breaking News: High Court ruling just now. Mona and I are getting our New Zealand assets back, unless the Crown appeals,” he said.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11239397

    That’s going to cause a few of you closet Gestapo to have a brain surge today. KS will go into overdrive thinking he knows more about the law and right from wrong than he does.

    Confiscating private property without trial by the Authorities is a disgrace to NZ.

    As for the MP who talks about threats.
    He should stop and think about the threat imposed upon a family that have committed no crime at all inside of NZ and the nasty repugnant actions of the ninja squad.

    Next it could be you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dirty harry (481 comments) says:

    This piece of non-indigenous shit must be terminated asap…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9951158/Murder-victim-Amy-Farrall-took-in-her-killer

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “15 of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, so the USA attacked Iraq”

    Er…..NO. What a daft statement. The US attacked Afghanistan, which was the home base for al-Qaeda. Iraq was an afterthought, but a good one. The world is better off without Saddam.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    It’s good that Israel may have nukes. All the better to deter Jew hating Islamic fascist states like Iran.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    Yoza (1,336 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:06 am

    Extra Judical Killings.? Whats extra “judicial” about the actions of Al Qaeda and their confederates. ? The stark facts is that they chose to declare war on the US and the West in a manner not dissimilar to Chechen Terrorists on Russia or any other like organizations. To Al Qaeda every US or Western citizen ( military or not ) is a potential target and fair game.
    The US under the circumstances ,has every right to take appropriate measures and those who choose to join up must understand the likely consequences of their actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    Why doesn’t Labour Lite abolish it?

    Because it’s regarded as a nothing issue. There are not enough votes in it and the persecution of business owners opening on that day is not widespread enough or rough enough to cause an outrage. I expect many of these owners simply shrug their shoulders and pay the fine, figuring that their profits will outweigh the cost. I suspect the authorities know this also, which makes the whole thing a charade but not an outrage.

    On the limited government front I enjoyed this piece by Richard Fernandez at PJMedia. It starts off with the case of Leland Yee, a California Democrat who had been running for the position of California Secretary of State and was a huge gun control advocate – until it was found that he’s been involved with gun-running!!! Talk about Baptists and Bootleggers! He was even dealing with RPGs. The case has been running for several weeks but it’s only been in the last few days that the US MSM have given it much attention – what a surprise.

    However, Fernandez uses this example to address the whole problem of limited vs. unlimited government, and finishes on a subdued note that is of a piece with the comments I posted about the Bundy situation:

    Democrats of all persuasions are agreed that more government is better; that the individual is the enemy; that the collective is the wave of the future. This lockstep guarantees the permanent majority. If so then such a party — whether you call it Democrat or Republican — has traded off that guaranteed majority for the expense of an unlimited number of Leland Yees.

    Perhaps the choice is not between Democrat and Republican in the long run — but between individual liberty or subordination to rank hypocrisy. If history is any guide many, perhaps even the majority, will choose welfare over freedom. Give me bread and call me stupid, but only give me bread. Lord Bevin boasted upon creating the welfare state “I stuffed their mouths with gold.” People today are not so demanding. They’ll be happy with chump change.

    “I stuffed their mouths with gold”. I’d never heard that before but it’s a classic and I also believe the same thing about our current situation, whether in the US or here: “They’ll be happy with chump change”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. wiseowl (887 comments) says:

    Congratulations to the seven Taranaki Councillors who stood up for democracy over attempts to have unelected race based seats added to yet another council.

    The National Government should be nipping this racist business in the bud and making sure the Local Government Legislation does not allow for unelected councillors/postions on any council in this supposed democratic country.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Tom, that video was great. I also just watched the rotary phone one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Extra Judical Killings.? Whats extra “judicial” about the actions of Al Qaeda and their confederates. ?”

    Exactly. Some Lefties only discover a sense of concern for the law when it’s the US defending itself. Otherwise when it’s some third world marxist or Islamic terrorists they are silent.

    I have no problems with drone strikes against terrorist targets.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re Peter George, 8.52 and earlier, on defamation actions against bloggers…

    The legal system and the Establishment generally (as in the Press Council) are trying to bring the internet under their control.

    Don’t read too much into the Karam action as a signpost to the future.

    Responses could include, first, internet blogs becoming transitory and international, making it difficult for them to be pinned down for collection of penalties, and, second, a growing pressure for lighter defamation regimes as the increasingly internet-savvy and friendly population bring our politicians to heel, and through them the legal vultures.

    IMHO, the Karam damages are exceedingly high. The legal vultures will take a huge picking out of them, but by their amount they are a threat to our democratic rights of free speech and opinion. The good news is that because of technology and the advance and spread of this technology no little country’s legal system is going to be able to yoke the internet as it has yoked the printed media, and to a lesser extent now yoked radio and TV.

    That’s the bright news, for if the Karam penalties were be the standard, all NZ-based blogs would likely become as bland as Pete George’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. minus (192 comments) says:

    More forward thinking by Cunliffe –
    The situation you may find yourself in next year with a logging truck on your left and reduced-registration camper-vans ahead of you and behind.
    When the motorway police do this, it is called a “moving block” – a tactic used to slow or take out suspected criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Exactly. Some Lefties only discover a sense of concern for the law when it’s the US defending itself. Otherwise when it’s some third world marxist or Islamic terrorists they are silent.

    So you’re saying that “Lefties” aren’t treating these crimes consistently…

    I have no problems with drone strikes against terrorist targets.

    …or you’re saying that they’re not crimes at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    UT , what Zionist racism and brutality. ?
    This despite the fact you do hate Jews and e. g likely the utter garbage that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work on 9/11.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    ‘James Stephenson (1,884 comments) says:

    April 17th, 2014 at 8:58 am
    I cut emotionally-involed people some slack, when it comes to how they react in defence of someone, who has no ability to defend themselves anymore.’

    A 15 million dollar defence spent by the Crown that he didn’t kill his family, try to work it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    UT , what Zionist racism and brutality. ?
    This despite the fact you do hate Jews and e. g likely the utter garbage that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work on 9/11.

    Stephieboy,

    UglyTruth is paid by Israeli spin doctors to actively associate reasonable criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with crazy racist conspiracy theories.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The US attacked Afghanistan, which was the home base for al-Qaeda.

    Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    This despite the fact you do hate Jews

    Are you channeling ShawnLH, stephieboy?

    Liars of a feather flock together.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    “So you’re saying that “Lefties” aren’t treating these crimes consistently…”

    I said “some” Lefties, not all. I think it is more that the legal issue is not the real concern for some Lefties. Opposing the US under any circumstances is. The legal issue is just a cover for that.

    It’s a bit like the “peace” groups protesting the US military action in Afghanistan, who were nowhere to be seen when it was the Soviet Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    “The National Government should be nipping this racist business in the bud ”

    Horse bolted . . .

    Seeds were planted many years ago and this is a natural consequence.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dirty harry (481 comments) says:

    Govt revenue collectors out in force over easter..no wonder respect for police is dwindling..

    http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8831433/speed-limit-lowered-for-extended-holiday

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    I said “some” Lefties, not all. I think it is more that the legal issue is not the real concern for some Lefties. Opposing the US under any circumstances is.

    It’s a bit like the “peace” groups protesting the US military action in Afghanistan, who were nowhere to be seen when it was the Soviet Union.

    Addressing alleged motivations in lieu of addressing arguments is a form of ad hominem fallacy. But also, there’s a fairly significant difference between the murderous actions of a government that claims to be democratic and upholding the rule of law, and the murderous actions of a thug dictator or explicitly terrorist organisation.

    Most of these criticisms of US crimes are more a complaint about hypocrisy than about the crimes themselves. If Obama were to just come out and say, “Hey, I’m a murderous thug, not the elected leader of a democracy that respects the rule of law,” a lot of complaints would die down, I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    They are living off a subsidy of free use of land and receiving the protection of the government to hamstring competitors by not allowing others the use of land that belongs to the Federal Government.

    As soon as I pasted it I knew some nasty little worshiper of the State would pounce on that one. I assume you did not read the article otherwise you would have noted the following:

    To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

    It’s rather like the State here setting up the bullshit ETS, exempting agriculture from it, and thus allowing the Greens to scream about how farmers are being “subsidised”. In any other context it would be called Bait-and-Switch. When government is involved it’s called rules and regulations – and The Law.

    The State changed the rules on them. And as far as “competitors” are concerned the primary competitor is the State – which unlike the Bundy’s can change the rules as it sees fit:

    Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one.

    The final kicker is that the State (in this case the Federal State) can then dole out the goodies of the land the ranchers formerly grazed for 150 years, to preferred businesses like the Chinese solar plant (which is miles away and has since collapsed itself – but they’ll be others) – along with all the slices of action that people like Harry Reid’s son (and Reid himself) looked to get out of it.

    You might note that the Governor of Nevada (R) and the other Federal Senator (R) are on the Bundy’s side to the extent that they can be – which is why the Feds have withdrawn for the moment. Reid and company need to keep the focus on the Koch Brothers, racism and the War on Women.

    But what do you care? The Bundy’s will be crushed by the State like all the rest have been and you’ll rejoice. They’re political and ideological opponents so probably deserve it in your eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Addressing alleged motivations in lieu of addressing arguments is a form of ad hominem fallacy.”

    Nah, it’s just observation of the hypocrisy of parts of the Left when it comes to the US.

    “But also, there’s a fairly significant difference between the murderous actions of a government that claims to be democratic and upholding the rule of law, and the murderous actions of a thug dictator or explicitly terrorist organisation.”

    The Soviet Union claimed to be democratic.

    “Most of these criticisms of US crimes are more a complaint about hypocrisy than about the crimes themselves.”

    No, the hypocrisy complaint is another cover for the fact that some on the Left support terrorism, so long as it is aimed at Western targets, especially the US and Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. flipper (4,050 comments) says:

    Jack5 says….
    “…IMHO, the Karam damages are exceedingly high. The legal vultures will take a huge picking out of them, but by their amount they are a threat to our democratic rights of free speech and opinion. The good news is that because of technology and the advance and spread of this technology no little country’s legal system is going to be able to yoke the internet as it has yoked the printed media, and to a lesser extent now yoked radio and TV….”
    ***
    It would help Jack, if you first read the Courtney J judgement. Paras 251 on will enlighten you and others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    The Soviet Union claimed to be democratic.

    Yes, but they claimed it in Russian.

    “Most of these criticisms of US crimes are more a complaint about hypocrisy than about the crimes themselves.”

    No, the hypocrisy complaint is another cover for the fact that some on the Left support terrorism.

    Well, I can only speak for myself, not telepathically read the hidden motivations of others on the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    UT, Quote mining the Truther way,

    Back ground and the salient facts in respect of Robin Cook alleged comments,

    The most high-level source used to support the “al Qaeda doesn’t exist” claims comes from former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. Or at least that’s what you might be told.
    Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20060130101131/http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1291
    Robin Cook wasn’t known for denying Al Qaeda is a terrorist group as far as we can recall, and searching at Hansard (a record of everything that goes on in Parliament) produced no matches even remotely matching the above claim. The best match we found was this, from a Guardian article:

    “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden’s organisation would turn its attention to the west. The danger now is that the west’s current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html

    No suggestion whatsoever that “al Qaeda is not a terrorist group”, quite the opposite. In the absence of any supporting evidence, it looks like the original quote has been twisted to suit one side of the story: so much for finding 9/11 truth.

    Another example of a deliberate and calculated attempt by 9/11 Truth to quote mine and distort what an official or those like Larry Silverstein actually had said .

    Al Qaeda does not exist. ?,

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Al_Qaeda_does_not_exist

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “not telepathically read the hidden motivations of others on the left.”

    I used to be on the Left. In the early 90’s I was literally a card carrying member of Jim Anderton’s New Labour Party. I was involved in two fringe groups involved in “peace and justice” issues. I know from experience exactly how many on that side of things think. In fact seeing and hearing it first hand is what first started me on my shift to the Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Victor Purkiss and Kent Parker got their come uppance and quite rightly.Their propaganda lacked integrity and was dishonest.Let that be a lesson to the other bullshitters out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    They’re American kids. Based on my having lived in the USA for years I can assure you that kids like that are the majority.

    Just appeared to me, like y’knew, that the kids were second guessing the expectations of the adult observers as opposed to reacting naturally.

    Prefer these American kids:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    I used to be on the Left. In the early 90′s I was literally a card carrying member of Jim Anderton’s New Labour Party. I was involved in two fringe groups involved in “peace and justice” issues. I know from experience exactly how many on that side of things think. In fact seeing and hearing it first hand is what first started me on my shift to the Right.

    So we just have to get you to spend some time with Kyle Chapman to bring you back to the Left?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    Replacing R’s with W’s does not make a case either.

    It’s a propaganda meme Shawn, just like Hulun’s ‘failed policies of the ’90’s’ was.

    But I wouldn’t expect you to pick up on that. Most subtleties seem to quite escape you. I mean just look at your comments today, for yet more examples of your failed thinking: e.g.

    I have no problems with drone strikes against terrorist targets.

    Nor does anyone else. The issue is that for example, wedding parties don’t constitute a tewwowist target, do they. The curious thing that appears to quite escape the useful idiots of the West who strongly support the war on terror is that if Christian nations deliberately set out to inflame a volatile people such as exist in the mentality of the populations right across the Middle East, then what you’d do is precisely what the West has gone and done. Through their actions both to date and ongoing to this very day, they’ve effectively whipped up a sense of outrage and injustice where none at all existed before. Before, the Muslims hated Israel and to a certain extent the US but that was mild compared to what they now feel about the entire Western world.

    And useful idiots note this because being writ large in flaming letters a million feet high it’s hard not to notice it, but the morons put it down to the ‘they hate our fweedom’ meme, instead of the real cause, which is that its a strategy designed to generate a global conflict between Muslims and Christians, just like Albert Pike predicted around 150 years ago.

    And no doubt the galloping mentals led by senior mentals like Shawn with juniors like stephie yapping at his heels will google furiously and triumphantly table a website “authoritatively” proclaiming he never wrote that letter to Mazzini, failing completely to address the main point, which is that the reality unfolding before our very eyes looks exactly like what that letter predicted, draw your own conclusions.

    But with useful idiocy, reality and logic leave the room in disgust, as their braying and tangential departures from the relevant points of the issue completely overwhelm any and all attempts at common sense and rational debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (2,993 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 10:05 am

    Liars of a feather .?

    Thus you adore Zionists / Jews.?

    Do you accept that the 4,000 Jews who failed to turn up for work on 9./11 was a lie and that Larry Silverstein was quote mined about his ” pull it “remark to the FDNY on 9/11.?

    Reid, you could usefully focus more about your fantasy sci fi Energy Directed particle beam weapon and the evidence thereof.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “So we just have to get you to spend some time with Kyle Chapman to bring you back to the Left?

    Having seen some of his groups whacky policies, such as nationalising all industry, I’m pretty sure he’s already on the Left. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Having seen some of his groups whacky policies, such as nationalising all industry, I’m pretty sure he’s already on the Left.

    No true Scotsman would be racist!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. James Stephenson (2,171 comments) says:

    A 15 million dollar defence spent by the Crown that he didn’t kill his family, try to work it out.

    I’ve tried, but a reasonable explanation for that result eludes me…all I can do is quote Einstein: “Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Useful Idiots,”

    Like Westerners supporting Russia, Iran, Palestinian terrorists………… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    Prefer these American kids:

    Me too. But the past is also a foreign country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    I think the limitations of the Left-Right spectrum show up when dealing with Neo-Nazis, they just don’t fit either designation.

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

    Andrew Klavan’s explanation for today: Multiculturalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    I think the limitations of the Left-Right spectrum show up when dealing with Neo-Nazis, they just don’t fit either designation.

    I’m sure we can find you a violent fringe right-wing group to hang out with.

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

    Of course there is another aspect to the stupidity of the left wing and the media – same thing regarding Judith Collins and who is behind it to try and get her booted out of Cabinet.

    Question – Which Minister has ultimate and final sign off to the extradition of DotCrim – Collins.

    So who may be behind this organised action against her – who went to his rented house on more than one occasion – Yea – Winston Peters, who is one of the leading lights in this action – even under Parliamentary Privilege.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    Leader of the opposition, David Cunliffe, grumbled about Mr Key getting too much “face time”, even though he did get 20 minutes one-on-one with William.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27045465

    Way to go David Cunliffe
    Now an internationally known as big cry baby

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    Given the pieces I’ve been posting over the last few days getting stuck into what seems to be our potentially unlimited government the following might be considered ironic but ….

    @Ryan

    This debate kicked of with the following comment from Yoza:

    … to come out in the media in support of extrajudicial killing should disturb anyone who believes in the rule of law or likes promoting the illusion that they believe in the rule of law.

    Given that you’re an anarchist who does not accept the State at all, is there any point in debating what is and is not an “extrajudicial killing” by the State?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. kowtow (8,428 comments) says:

    “Next it could be you”

    Yep ,right now they’re planning a massive legislative assault on private property rights ,with the plain packaging law.

    What or who will be next?

    Make no mistake ,there will be more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    Fletch, Andrew Klavan.? Interesting .Wiki mas an entry about his views,

    In a December 2011 article, Klavan referred to himself as a “libertarian”.[In an August 2012 article, he stated that he has heterodox opinions on several issues, particularly his support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.[ He endorsed Mitt Romney for president in 2012.”

    His support for same sex marriages will likely peeve and dismay you.?

    Yes.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. OneTrack (3,087 comments) says:

    Shawn – “I think the limitations of the Left-Right spectrum show up when dealing with Neo-Nazis, they just don’t fit either designation.”

    No the limitations of the left-right spectrum don’t show up when dealing with neo-nazis. Nazis => National Socialists => Big state is in control and controls everything. That is a left ideology.

    It doesn’t matter how many times the left try to bullshit and say Nazism is right-wing, it still wont make it true.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (6,648 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 10:11 am

    If Obama were to just come out and say, “Hey, I’m a murderous thug, not the elected leader of a democracy that respects the rule of law…

    … and to be honest I’m also Kenyan… and a Muslim… and the embodiment of the devil trying to bring about the end of civilization… starting with Kim Dotcom! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Given that you’re an anarchist who does not accept the State at all, is there any point in debating what is and is not an “extrajudicial killing” by the State?

    I don’t have to be Christian to criticise someone who claims to be a Christian while at the same time being a serial murderer. It’s the partly the hypocrisy of the thing.

    Also, being an anarchist doesn’t prevent me from having an appreciation for those democratic mechanisms that limit the power of the State. In this case, in theory, the law should prevent the US government from perpetrating assassinations without trial. Though, perhaps the inability of democratic mechanisms to rein in the actions of the US government is an indictment of statist liberal democracy in general.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Harriet (4,967 comments) says:

    “………The latitude given to motorists exceeding the speed limit will shrink to 4km/h for an extended period over the Easter and Anzac holiday weekends……….”

    LOL……………..if you go over the speed limit – by walking speed – the NZ Police are going to fine you!

    The army can march faster than that! :cool:

    ‘Road safety’ is getting to the point of being silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Albert_Ross (290 comments) says:

    Replacing R’s with W’s does not make a case either.

    It’s a propaganda meme

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    tom hunter (3,993 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 10:45 am

    Given that you’re an anarchist who does not accept the State at all, is there any point in debating what is and is not an “extrajudicial killing” by the State?

    “Notes on Anarchism” in For Reasons of State

    “anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures anything”—including, he noted those whose acts are such that “a mortal enemy of anarchism could not have done better.”

    Anarchists should be opposed to both forms of terrorism. The arbitrary killings carried out by Al Qaeda are no different to those perpetuated by the US military. It should also be kept in mind that one is a consequence of the other, the Al Qaeda terrorists are reacting to US terror.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    Shoebox apartments ‘good’ for Auckland

    An appetite for shoebox apartments is returning as the Auckland housing shortage bites, a property expert says.

    The demand comes as the Government pushes for smaller apartments in a bid to make Auckland housing more affordable.

    Martin Dunn, managing director of real estate agency City Sales, said allowing 20 square metre studio units would let cash-strapped buyers get apartments in Auckland for $140,000.

    “For young kids trying to get a start in the property market they could buy them with 20 per cent deposit,” Dunn said.

    “It would be a very good thing for the city.”

    Finance Minister Bill English said this week that Auckland Council planning rules were fuelling rising Auckland property prices.

    Planning restrictions should be relaxed to allow smaller apartments, which could be in the price range of hard-pressed Aucklanders, English said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9949804/Shoebox-apartments-good-for-Auckland

    This is all UN Agenda 21 propaganda. Live in a shoe box and feel good about it.

    The Reserve Bank put people in shoe boxes with their marginalisation policy.

    This cancer will slowly creep through the country. Sure Chch already has been affected by this terroist fascism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “If Obama were to just come out and say, “Hey, I’m a murderous thug”

    Except he’s not Ryan. Defending the people he’s elected to defend against al-Qaeda does not make him a murderous thug.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Albert_Ross (290 comments) says:

    Sorry! Technology ineptitude. I was going to comment that that doesn’t make it OK to mock people who suffer from speech difficulties. The fact that you /have a right/ to do something does not mean that it /is right/ to do it, and in this case it isn’t right, it’s rude.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. flipper (4,050 comments) says:

    The paucity of good political posts is noticeably due to DPF’s absence.

    So Flipper is seeking to restore some balance by “stealing” from Whale and Stephen Franks this morning….. it is good stuff!
    ***
    Stephen Franks on the outrageous claims of corruption by the opposition and media
    by Cameron Slater on April 17, 2014 at 10:30am

    Stephen Franks provides a thoughtful response to the outrageous claims of opposition MPs under parliamentary privilege of corruption by Judith Collins.
    I note that they dare not repeat those claims outside of the protection of parliamentary privilege.

    Political journalists continue to give credibility to the Oravida beat-up. I’ve not heard anyone I know, outside the ‘beltway’ set, who share their faux indignation. Perhaps aspects yet to be revealed will vindicate the accusers. But on what has been disclosed so far, those alleging corruption disgrace themselves.
    We come from an era, widely regarded as our most incorruptible, when all manner of goods were marked with the Royal crest, and the words “By appointment to HM the Queen”. Approval as suppliers to the Crown was overtly advertised, for the benefit of the supplier. I recall no concern that it was a corrupt practice.
    Nor is there any objective argument that Ms Collins advocacy for any dairy interests in China or elsewhere, has been inimical to the interests of New Zealand. The allegations of corruption are the single element most likely to reduce the barriers to corruption. When it is acceptable to equate such innocuous behaviour with corruption, we lose the capacity to distinguish, and ‘everybody does it’ becomes a more likely excuse for genuine corruption at other levels
    If there was some indication of covert payments then it might run. But most of us know that there is implicit personal endorsement, even if it is unwanted, in most engagements of powerful people.

    It is a pathetic and misguided beat-up for which if they prevail there will be long term consequences. For instance Winston Peters and Shane Jones will have to cease their long dinners with Chinese businessmen at well known and popular Chinese food establishments. Because now mere dinners with people, a coffee or snack in a cafe are now all “corruption” according tot he muppets of the opposition. All without a shred of evidence. Grant Robertson’s and David Cunliffe’s claims are the worst and I bet they won’t repeat them outside the house.

    As a humble opposition back-bencher I knew that when I was asked to open a building, or celebrate the commencement of a business, I was not asked for my rippling physique, or my rhetoric. I was asked because it was endorsement. It added weight to an occasion.
    When I was asked to take up a complaint about bureacracy, of course I was putting my weight behind the complainant. That did not mean that I necessarily thought they should prevail. Nor did it mean they got a privilege. I was expected to do it even for companies and causes with which I had little sympathy. I went to their dinners and spoke at their AGMs, because they were entitled to expect me to be interested, and to help them if I could without impropriety.
    In my mind, impropriety was simple. If I stipulated for, or accepted, a private benefit (more than a ceremonial bottle of wine, say) or failed to disclose any substantial pecuniary return, I was misusing my office. But otherwise I should, and would advance the interests of any constituent or sector, with which I had sympathy, or a policy interest.
    Most MPs do this. Though, now with these attacks MPs might have to become cloistered monks.
    We do not want our leaders to be ignorant eunuchs, fed only the information they get pre-digested from officials. We want them to be well connected. We want them to testing all they hear with people they know they can trust, from experience. And as I was warned when I entered Parliament by one of its most experienced Ministers, “Stick to the friends you had before you came here, because from now on you will not know who are your friends, and who are not, till you leave. You will not be sure which are the greasers, and those who are genuine”.
    So be staunch Judith Collins. And remind us all of the utter uselessness of an opposition (and political journalism that sustains it) in banging on about a Minister who is enthusiastic about a company her husband directs, but ignores huge issues, such as the risk expert report that suggests New Zealand is spending up to $10 bn on earthquake strengthening that is likely to save few lives if any.
    Or the easy manner in which a single German migrant is able to subvert our democracy and purchase and bribe politicians with gay abandon.

    As I say… Good stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    “National Socialists => Big state is in control and controls everything. That is a left ideology.”

    It’s Nat/Lab coalition one world ideology spawned from the UN

    Esp when you know J Key is a socialist Keysnian economist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “It should also be kept in mind that one is a consequence of the other, the Al Qaeda terrorists are reacting to US terror.”

    Bullshit Yowza.

    One of the motivating issues repeatedly claimed by bin Laden was the re-conquest of Spain in the 1400’s, which it may surprise you to learn was not carried out by the US. Or Israel.

    The fundamental flaw in left wing thinking regarding al-Qaeda is the assumption that it can be subsumed into the Leftist analysis of politics. It can’t. Al-Qaeda is operating from a world view that pre-dates the existence of the US and al-Qaeda’s terrorism cannot be understood in modernist left wing categories.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    Did I just hear david cunliffe saying a litre of milk in a NZ dairy shouldn’t be twice the price of a litre in an australian supermarket?

    For a starters, you can’t compare a dairy with a mega-supermarket.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. mandk (992 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull: “No true Scotsman would be racist!”

    Have you ever lived in Scotland? I did for 12 years and, although Scots are generally delightful in most respects, they are certainly racist – especially towards the English and black people.

    Mind you, they did recruit a gay, black Englishman to play for Hearts :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,815 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 10:58 am

    [Ryan]“If Obama were to just come out and say, “Hey, I’m a murderous thug”

    Except he’s not Ryan. Defending the people he’s elected to defend against al-Qaeda does not make him a murderous thug.

    Surely this is stretching the definition of ‘defending’ beyond its breaking point. The convoy attacked by the drone was in Yemen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    We come from an era, widely regarded as our most incorruptible, when all manner of goods were marked with the Royal crest, and the words “By appointment to HM the Queen”. Approval as suppliers to the Crown was overtly advertised, for the benefit of the supplier. I recall no concern that it was a corrupt practice.

    Back in those days people were not aware of the evil of the House of Windsor. There’s really no other term for genocide committed in the name or religious education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Surely this is stretching the definition of ‘defending’ beyond its breaking point.”

    No.

    “The convoy attacked by the drone was in Yemen.”

    Which is one of the countries al-Qaeda is operating in. It’s a global organisation remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Except he’s not Ryan. Defending the people he’s elected to defend against al-Qaeda does not make him a murderous thug.

    Sure, and Bin Laden attacking the people he alleged were behind violence inflicted on the people he claimed to represent was just him being a good guy. If he was democratically elected, would his actions suddenly become less criminal?

    Obama is assassinating people literally on the other side of the world, killing civilians who aren’t even accused of anything along the way, in the name of “defending against al-Qaeda”.

    Would you be so cavalier about this breach of international law if Rouhani were assassinating people on foreign soil whom he claimed, without trial, were plotting against Iran?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    So the double killer reckons Joe Karam does not fudge.
    How about this, then, from his booklet Innocent.
    “David Bain did not get back from his paper round until 6.45 or 6.46am. He was seen walking the last 300 metres with his dog after delivering his final paper”.
    David Bain was not seen walking the last 300 metres. A witness said she saw him walking through Heath Street. She was driving past and probably only saw him walking 10 metres at the most. So 10 metres becomes 300 metres.
    From David & Goliath.
    “According to his own statements ‘he [David Bain] delivered the final paper on Every Street at about 6.40am according to his watch”.
    David Bain did not look at his watch when he delivered his final paper. He looked at it after passing through Heath Street, some distance further up Every Street from where he delivered his final paper.
    So if those are not examples of fudging then I don’t know what is.
    Needless to say Kent Parker will be appealing some of the judge’s decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,816 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 11:04 am

    The fundamental flaw in left wing thinking regarding al-Qaeda is the assumption that it can be subsumed into the Leftist analysis of politics. It can’t. Al-Qaeda is operating from a world view that pre-dates the existence of the US and al-Qaeda’s terrorism cannot be understood in modernist left wing categories.

    Attacking Muslims generally is feeding Al Qaeda’s agenda, bin Laden could not have asked for a more generous gift from the US than the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. ‘Radical Islam’ seems to be a substitute for the ‘threat’ posed by the Soviet Union, I believe US planners understand they are inciting terrorism by carrying out the kinds of arbitrary killings we witness with drone strikes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Obama is assassinating people literally on the other side of the world,”

    So? Would it make a difference where in the world the terrorists are?

    “Would you be so cavalier about this breach of international law”

    Would you be so cavalier about the issue if you had family who were the victims of al-Qaeda? Or in the WTC on 911?

    Treating the issue of Al-Qaeda’s very real threat as just another Lefty, abstract head game about rules is easy when it does not directly affect you.

    And since when did anarchists become passionate about international law?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. twofish (94 comments) says:

    “Do You think this is a wise thing to do, Jesus? Reconsider, and let this Cup pass. It’s going to hurt like Sheol. People are likely to convince others that You are doing this as a sacrifice to pay for their sins, as illogical as that is, and which will be an incredible irony considering Your stand against sacrificing, and on anniversaries of what You are about to do, enforcers of the highway code will act with closer tolerances of haste and safety, despite that being their duty at all times, and coffee bar owners will charge extra.”

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

    Does anyone find it odd that the name Al Qa’ida in Arabic translates to “the database” and as a matter of fact that was the name given to the actual database the CIA setup in the 1980’s to record the names of the Mujahideen who the CIA had recruited to fight the Russians.

    Of course just because that morphed into the name of an “actual” “real” global tewwor thweat doesn’t mean a damn thing does it and we know this because the western media would never create a meme like that just to justify trillions of taxpayer dollars to arms manufacturers, would they.

    Shame about all those heroin poppies wasn’t it. I mean the Taliban had wiped them out completely then as soon as the US went in within a few years it was record production and it hasn’t stopped since. I mean you’d think with their satellites and all it would be a simple matter to spot and defoliate wouldn’t you, about as easy to the military as lifting their little finger. But curiously despite the damage done to Western addicts nothing at all was done or is being done, apart of course from a few media propaganda pieces pretending something is because again, if something’s in flaming letters a million feet high, you can’t just say it doesn’t exist, much better to pretend it’s something else. And all that money of course, hundreds of billions, wouldn’t be at all useful to the black budgets of the western intelligence services, would it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    Yowza,

    “Attacking Muslims generally is feeding Al Qaeda’s agenda,”

    Doing nothing would feed Al-Qaeda’s agenda.

    The rest of your post is just lefty conspiracy theory, with all the credibility of Ugly’s posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    stephieboy, this may surprise you, but I don’t agree with everyone on everything *shock, horror* :o

    Just because someone is a conservative, doesn’t mean I agree with everything they say or believe.
    Heck, you even have different opinions with family members – people that you love. So how can you expect someone else that you haven’t met to hold exactly all the same opinions as you on every subject?

    An exception to this (for me) would be the Church. I believe they are given divine guidance, and that what the Church teaches is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. cha (4,008 comments) says:

    Recently declassified documents have pretty much guaranteed all the worlds script writers won’t be able to dream up anything to match Project Azorian.

    http://io9.com/that-time-the-cia-and-howard-hughes-tried-to-steal-a-so-1561583789

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (888 comments) says:

    Labour is promising an inquiry into the price of milk.

    Leader David Cunliffe has made the pledge at a business function in Auckland today.

    He has recounted an encounter he had with a mother who told him she could not afford to buy milk for her three children, one of whom is calcium deficient.

    “It’s not good enough is it? It’s not good enough.

    “We will commit to investigating the price of milk, because it shouldn’t be twice as much in a New Zealand dairy than it is in an Aussie supermarket.”

    John Key must be very worried…….single mothers can’t buy milk for their babies….people begging on the streets….people dying on the roads….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Yoza (1,337 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 10:57 am

    Anarchists should be opposed to both forms of terrorism. The arbitrary killings carried out by Al Qaeda are no different to those perpetuated by the US military. It should also be kept in mind that one is a consequence of the other, the Al Qaeda terrorists are reacting to US terror.

    Isn’t that kind of like saying the father who murders the guy who raped and murdered his daughter is no different to his victim because he committed murder as well? Is it perhaps true that regardless of what the law says, and regardless of whether we accept that being such a father still does not justify murder, can we nevertheless still distinguish between the two?

    Also I would disagree that Al Qaeda is “reacting” to US terror. Even if US military actions provide fertile populations for recruitment, I think it’s more true to say that their motivations derive from objections to the western influence in Muslim countries which they view as undermining Islam and their way of life. Indeed the strategy of Al Qaeda (e.g. September 11) was precisely to provoke a military response to have the US come to fight in Muslim lands.

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ypICzykNXiAC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=makkawi+strategy+2020&source=bl&ots=1iFik9U91G&sig=vF2xfwHZ76rhNWD74T2nSmonrdc&hl=en&ei=GJo7TOLyJYH88AbAu4GPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=makkawi%20strategy%202020&f=false

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. SGA (1,017 comments) says:

    muggins at 11:13 am

    Needless to say Kent Parker will be appealing some of the judge’s decisions.

    He’s willing to run the risk of throwing good money after bad? Big call.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Does anyone find it odd that the name Al Qa’ida in Arabic translates to “the database” and as a matter of fact that was the name given to the actual database the CIA setup in the 1980′s ”

    Oh dear.

    Al-Qaeda simply means ‘the Base’. It does not translate as database.

    That’s getting silly even for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Would you be so cavalier about the issue if you had family who were the victims of al-Qaeda? Or in the WTC on 911?

    Treating the issue of Al-Qaeda’s very real threat as just another Lefty, abstract head game about rules is easy when it does not directly affect you.

    And if you had family who were killed by Obama’s drone strikes? And so on, and so on. That is why “I bet you’d agree with me if you were so emotional that you couldn’t think straight” isn’t a good way to make a point. The drone strikes are illegal, and for good reason. Just because you or Obama or Bin Laden could ask me to walk a mile in some victim’s shoes to understand motivations for committing murder, doesn’t stop murder from being murder.

    And since when did anarchists become passionate about international law?

    Partly it’s the hypocrisy. Partly I’m opposed to terrorism no matter who is committing it. And partly it shows that the “rule of law” that liberal statists use to sanctify their government’s terrorism is just a cover for the fact that there’s no difference between terrorism committed by the US government and terrorism committed by a “terrorist organisation”. Their justifications are the same: we’re defending ourselves by any means necessary.

    And everything you’re saying reinforces that. The only difference between the US killing people and al-Qaeda killing people is that the US is more efficient at it. Which murders are good and which murders are bad are just a matter of whose team you’re on. You’re on Obama’s team. Others are on al-Qaeda’s team.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Isn’t that kind of like saying the father who murders the guy who raped and murdered his daughter is no different to his victim because he committed murder as well?”

    Exactly. Abstract moral equivalence arguments fail any meaningful and real world test of morality.

    It’s a pseudo-intellectual head game that some on the far left are overly fond of.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Partly I’m opposed to terrorism no matter who is committing it.”

    Except as Weihana points out, your definition of “terrorism” is an exercise in meaningless moral equivalence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “The only difference between the US killing people and al-Qaeda killing people is that the US is more efficient at it.”

    No. The difference is that from any moral pov America is justified in defending itself.

    “Which murders are good and which murders are bad are just a matter of whose team you’re on. You’re on Obama’s team. Others are on al-Qaeda’s team.”

    I’m on the team defending my family. And it’s not just a matter of teams. It’s a matter of right and wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Isn’t that kind of like saying the father who murders the guy who raped and murdered his daughter is no different to his victim because he committed murder as well?

    No. It’s like saying that someone is wrong when they say: “It’s not murder if I allege that he raped and murdered my daughter and then kill him without a trial.”

    It is still murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    I’m on the team defending my family. And it’s not just a matter of teams. It’s a matter of right and wrong.

    You have made it clear that it’s not a matter of right and wrong. What makes the US government’s killing of alleged plotters in pre-emptive self-defence without trial different from anyone killing US citizens with the same allegations and justifications?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    RandomDude4 weeks ago (edited) Americans should understand taxation without representation. The EU is controlling the taxation of companies without representation from the people while preventing elected governments from taxing the same corporations.

    Starbucks’s side argues “Hey, we paid tax to SOMEBODY – we don’t care who nor why, so we lived up to our end.”

    The problem is the EU.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9IuMEO9sNM&list=HL1397691249&feature=mh_lolz

    So here is the REAL problem . Tax evading corporations the media ignors.

    Nothing to do with beneficiaries et al. That’s simplistic propaganda crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Flipper, in his 10.16 post, said:

    It would help Jack, if you first read the Courtney J judgement. Paras 251 on will enlighten you and others.

    I’ve read it Flipper, and I still think the damages are too high. NZ has always been heavy on libel damages, reflecting, IMHO, a streak in our national character. This at best is a fault to overly conform, and at worst is a sympathy for totalitarianism and antipathy to free speech.

    I don’t see anything wrong with using the courts, if that is the only way, to establish the truth or get a hearing for a submerged side of a story, or to prove an accusation is a lie.

    I see nothing wrong with an aggrieved or exonerated party getting reasonable legal costs. I see nothing wrong with courts awarding moderate damages. But the damages awarded here seem to me to be so heavy that they could tend to stifle free speech.

    If Dotcom and Harawira have quarter of a brain between them, they will try to twist the Karam damages amount into a message to young voters, and not-so-young stirrers. They will say a battle is on between the Establishment and the internet (that is the young and stirrers generally v. the NZ Establishment), and that Dotcom-Mana are the champions of the internet and the free.

    That may be an extreme call, but consider who will win any stand-off between the NZ legal system’s print-tradition on libel and defamation, and the emerging world culture of Facebook, the internet, Twitter, and other technologies to come.

    We hear law commentators on Radio NZ’s Labour Programme say internet publication is no different from print and other pre-internet publishing. IMHO, they overlook the international potential of the internet, with the likelihood that blogs will shift in and out of the jurisdictions of courts, and the increasing ability of internet commentators to be truly anonymous.

    It’s going to be as rambunctious as print was in 17th century and early 18th century England. This time the gallows and transport to Australia won’t be available as remedies.

    Those were the days that gave rise to Milton’s famous statement in Areopagitica . This was his call to the British Parliament to rescind licensing designed to bring publishing under government control by creating a number of official censors.

    The temple of Janus with his two controversal faces might now unsignificantly be set open. And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

    Self-censorship through fear of enormous damages and legal costs is a more economic, but just as effective method of keeping a leash on free speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (6,652 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 11:27 am

    And if you had family who were killed by Obama’s drone strikes? And so on, and so on. That is why “I bet you’d agree with me if you were so emotional that you couldn’t think straight” isn’t a good way to make a point.

    Contrast this with:

    ShawnLH (1,821 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 11:28 am

    Exactly. Abstract moral equivalence arguments fail any meaningful and real world test of morality.

    It’s a pseudo-intellectual head game that some on the far left are overly fond of.

    I would agree that there isn’t necessarily a moral equivalence… but if life is a game of chess we need to be cognizant of how the other team thinks and why wouldn’t they have a very different attitude to drone strikes? So, rushing to fight in the middle east in the face of terrorist attacks may be understandable, but also counter-productive in the long term. If you’re doing what the enemy wants you to do then maybe a rethink is in order.

    So instead of regime change and nation building we are left with drone strikes. Questionable in principle but arguably more effective than invasion. Moreover, while they understandably generate anger in the mideast it is questionable that their absence would also mean an absence of the terrorist threat since radical Islam is motivated by an ideology opposed to any western influence in Islamic lands which would continue even in the absence of drones.

    In my view there is only one promising long term solution and that is to diminish the geopolitical relevance of the region and that is only possible if energy consumption changes to make oil less vital. The Soviet Union was enough to justify going to the moon for no particular reason… why is radical Islam not a good enough justification to make a similar effort with energy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    I just heard an ad on the local radio from the traffic police — they said they will be pulling over and speaking to anyone going over the speed limit…

    ie, if you are going 101kph in a 100kph zone, you will be pulled over (and I assume ticketed although they did not specifically mention this).

    although, in this weather people should be driving under the limit in many cases but that is irrespective of the polices announcement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (6,654 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 11:34 am

    Isn’t that kind of like saying the father who murders the guy who raped and murdered his daughter is no different to his victim because he committed murder as well?

    No. It’s like saying that someone is wrong when they say: “It’s not murder if I allege that he raped and murdered my daughter and then kill him without a trial.”

    It is still murder.

    I accept it is murder. I am saying that fact alone does not mean there is moral equivalence between the two assuming that the allegation is true.

    Also not questioning the importance of legal process, but just pointing out that facts exist independent of legalities. Indeed if drone strikes are compliant with the law that would not change how people react to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,823 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 11:33 am

    No. The difference is that from any moral pov America is justified in defending itself.

    So you should have no qualms about the US military using killer drones to ‘defend’ itself against domestic ‘terrorists’ like Cliven Bundy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    I accept it is murder.

    Well, I am arguing with the position of people who don’t call it murder when it’s done by the right people, or done to the right people.

    I am saying that fact alone does not mean there is moral equivalence between the two assuming that the allegation is true.

    Fine. So, assume that the allegation is true that the US imposed unnecessary medical sanctions on Iraq that killed half a million people and you’ve got your moral equivalence back. That was one of Bin Laden’s justifications for his terrorism against the US.

    Also not questioning the importance of legal process, but just pointing out that facts exist independent of legalities.

    Sure, and in a world of competing claims about facts, perhaps we could put our heads together and come up with some kind of, I don’t know, let’s call it a process, to determine which facts are true enough to end human lives about and which aren’t.

    Indeed if drone strikes are compliant with the law that would not change how people react to them.

    Perhaps the fact that they constitute assassinations without trial and kill innocent civilians is the reason both for how people react to them and for them being illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “You have made it clear that it’s not a matter of right and wrong.”

    Only in your own mind Ryan.

    “What makes the US government’s killing of alleged plotters in pre-emptive self-defence without trial different from anyone killing US citizens with the same allegations and justifications?”

    Trials have nothing to do with war. This is a war, not policing crimes. That I think is part of the deference to the way you and I perceive this. Allied troops did not to carry out trials before invading Normandy, or carrying out bombing raids on German targets.

    The rules of war and the rules of criminal procedure are not the same. Which is why your charge of murder against the US is wrong imo.

    Regardless of all the various possible root causes, the US is at war, and it’s first responsibility is defending it’s own citizens

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Stephen Franks provides a thoughtful response to the outrageous claims of opposition MPs under parliamentary privilege of corruption by Judith Collins.

    Collins’ problem is that she’s already lied about this twice. I remember back to the days when this was a quick cup of tea on the way to the airport. Now we know that it was an arranged dinner in the opposite direction from the airport. Moreover, the National Party appears donkey deep in this company, judging from Gower’s visit to their offices.

    If Collins had done nothing wrong and had told the truth about this from the get go, not just to the house, but to her boss, she would not be in the trouble she was in.

    What she needs to do is dispel the perception of conflict by telling everyone who the Chinese official was. At least then, nobody could accuse her of dodgy behaviour.

    Her problems are entirely of her own making. If she’d demonstrated candour in the first place, this would have been over weeks ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Manolo (13,735 comments) says:

    Stephie, ardent fan of the Messiah, will be bitterly disappointed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/fox-news-poll-many-voters-say-obama-lies-to-country-on-important-matters/

    About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    So you should have no qualms about the US military using killer drones to ‘defend’ itself against domestic ‘terrorists’ like Cliven Bundy.

    Don’t be so naive Yoza. Everyone knows that on Kiwiblog property rights are sacrosanct unless the government owns the property, in which case any right wing nutcase can demand free usage of it at the point of a gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Trials have nothing to do with war. This is a war, not policing crimes. That I think is part of the deference to the way you and I perceive this. Allied troops did not to carry out trials before invading Normandy, or carrying out bombing raids on German targets.

    The rules of war and the rules of criminal procedure are not the same. Which is why your charge of murder against the US is wrong imo.

    It’s war? Oh, good. So the Geneva Conventions apply to drone strikes, correct?

    And the actions of both sides in the war are equally justified by the fact that these two sides are at war? After all, it wasn’t murder when German troops carried out bombing raids on Allied targets.

    Regardless of all the various possible root causes, the US is at war, and it’s first responsibility is defending it’s own citizens

    Right, and the Other Side (what’s their name again?) has a responsibility to defend its own citizens, including killing people on US soil if necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    There were various root causes of WW2. Some, like the treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany, certainly helped in the rise of the Nazi party.

    But does that mean there was no right or wrong? That both sides were equally guilty? No. Regardless of the mistakes made by the allies post WW1 no sane person would claim that there was simple moral equivalence between the two sides. The right team won that war.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Manolo – it comes from fox news though. so stephie will say “faux news”, doesnt count blah blah

    Personally, i find it hilarious that hope & change has done nothing. well, hes killed a bunch of people but thats it

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    Out and about for a few hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Manolo (13,735 comments) says:

    @dime: It’s true and also expected from the unknown amateur Kenyan who deceived a whole nation on his way to the presidency. But as they say, each country gets the government it deserves.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    But does that mean there was no right or wrong? That both sides were equally guilty? No. Regardless of the mistakes made by the allies post WW1 no sane person would claim that there was simple moral equivalence between the two sides. The right team won that war.

    Yes, we can point to reasons for the Allies and Axis not being morally equivalent. I have yet to hear reasons for the righteousness of the US cause that makes their actions, which are functionally equivalent to al-Qaeda’s, morally not equivalent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    But as they say, each country gets the government it deserves.

    Look at ours.

    Botched privatisations.

    Incompetent ministers

    Corrupt minister of Justice.

    Simon Bridges

    You’d think our country had committed crimes against humanity to deserve this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Out and about for a few hours.

    When you’re back, confirm that the Geneva Conventions apply to drone strikes, as you classify them as acts of war.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    It’s war? Oh, good. So the Geneva Conventions apply to drone strikes, correct?

    Much an’ all as I can’t find it within myself to care even slightly that the Yanks killed this creep, that is one awesome checkmate right there…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    You’d think our country had committed crimes against humanity to deserve this.

    From your list, it looks more like we’re guilty of crimes against competence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,824 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 11:52 am

    Allied troops did not to carry out trials before invading Normandy, or carrying out bombing raids on German targets.

    The rules of war and the rules of criminal procedure are not the same. Which is why your charge of murder against the US is wrong imo.

    There is no comparison with the threat posed by the military/industrial infrastructure of Nazi Germany and that posed by disparate terrorist organisations.
    After WWII Nazi soldiers were hanged during the Nuremberg trials for the treatment they meted out to communities they defined as sympathetic to terrorist organisations. Their defense that they were at war and it was their duty to defend their fatherland didn’t wash then, what happened in the interim to make it acceptable now?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    Nah, extra-judicial drone executions are simply socially accepted thuggery (by the tyranny of the majority) – like abortion and the death penalty. No irony intended.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    Nah, drones are simply socially acceptable thuggery – like abortion. No irony intended.

    Not the worst analogy in the world, Scott. To someone who sees foetuses as people, abortion is the hidden-away surgical murder of a human being who is classified as less than a proper human life in the minds of the many. Much like “collateral damage” from drone strikes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You’d think our country had committed crimes against humanity to deserve this.

    Indirectly it has, in its support of the house of Windsor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Muggins

    Needless to say Kent Parker will be appealing some of the judge’s decisions.

    This has been Kent Parker’s problem all along. He fails to differentiate between DB and Joe Karam.

    Regardless of what Mr Parker believes about the case it does not give him the right to make up derogatory statements about Mr Karam, and especially to publish them and encourage others to do the same.

    The Court was right with their decision. A person cannot disseminate lies and encourage others to do the same, attempting to ruin the reputation of a person and prevent them from enjoying the ordinary freedoms of life, just because they do not have the same opinion as yourself.

    That is the sort of stuff that destroys nations, when one group believes they have the right to denigrate another, because they don’t have the same beliefs. Strong stuff, and its time Mr Parker pulled his head in and wrote a cheque :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    I don’t have to be Christian to criticise someone who claims to be a Christian while at the same time being a serial murderer. It’s the partly the hypocrisy of the thing.

    That rather makes the same point I was making. It’s only “hypocrisy” if you think that a group like al-Qaeda can kill and assassinate with the same level of legitimacy to that of a democratic state – which is exactly what I would expect an anarchist to say. Which leads to this …

    Sure, and Bin Laden attacking the people he alleged were behind violence inflicted on the people he claimed to represent was just him being a good guy. If he was democratically elected, would his actions suddenly become less criminal?

    Yes – in that we could at least say that he was responding to the wishes of those who voted him into power, even if he did not have a “state” in the form of a bordered landmass, and had joined the world of states – including the rather frail structures they’ve built such as the Geneva Conventions and “International Law”. He might still be a criminal within that structure – but he would actually be less of a criminal. Also it would not change the fact that al-Qaeda is effectively waging war, but would simply make it more legitimate for us to kill him and his cronies and more legitimate for him to kill us – except in your anarchist view of course.

    In this case, in theory, the law should prevent the US government from perpetrating assassinations without trial.

    The assassinations are of people who are at war with the USA. As such the only possible argument for a trial would be if they were citizens, and even then there is solid legal argument and precedent in wartime for US citizens to be killed if they’ve joined with groups attacking their own country. Apparently you want to accept International Law built by nation states but you don’t accept law – or at least you don’t grant it the same legitimacy- when it is built up by citizens of a nation state.

    Crying out for a trial before anything can be done about such people is simply demanding that the State (and its other citizens) sit on their asses and allow themselves to be killed, along with their state. But again if you’re opposed to the idea of the State then of course you would not care.

    Obama is assassinating people literally on the other side of the world, killing civilians who aren’t even accused of anything along the way, in the name of “defending against al-Qaeda”.

    I think Yamamoto was almost on the other side of the world when the US “assassinated” him too. If his plane had crashed into a Soloman Islands village and killed civilians you would presumably hold that to be a war crime.

    Would you be so cavalier about this breach of international law if Rouhani were assassinating people on foreign soil whom he claimed, without trial, were plotting against Iran?

    Rouhani and his merry bunch of theological mates have been assassinating people on foreign soil for some time now, see the two Argentine attacks on Jewish centres, the Khobar towers bombings and the 1983 attack on the Marines in Lebanon. There was also the recent attempt to bomb and kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington D.C., a failed attack that had all the hallmarks of the Iranians.

    I’m also cavalier about this these breaches of International Law because both it and nation-state law have completely failed to deal with these situations – because it is a war. The only difference with al-Qaeda being that the US has refused to regard it as such for thirty years now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (6,658 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 11:52 am

    Sure, and in a world of competing claims about facts, perhaps we could put our heads together and come up with some kind of, I don’t know, let’s call it a process, to determine which facts are true enough to end human lives about and which aren’t.

    Valid principle.

    But if looking at it from a subjective point of view, are there not times when maybe you might want to ignore the law? Not because you can’t think straight, but because it is in your interests to do so and the extent to which you undermine the concept of “rule of law” is outweighed by the benefit of ignoring the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Milk.

    Coles in Oz. 2 l elcheapo milk. $2.99 so $3.27 NZ
    Countdown online 2 l plain pack milk $3.59

    Oh my fucken gawd! its about 10% less in oz!

    Cun*liffe is onto another winner here :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Rowan (2,291 comments) says:

    Oh dear
    Poor Kent
    He better hope that his loyal cult have been stashing away their pennies for his defence, but whats the bet they have abandoned ship like the true gutless wonders that they are. Hopefully by appealling he will only get the costs increased.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    The West Wing which often is extremely left wing often made good points. This is one of them:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What she needs to do is dispel the perception of conflict by telling everyone who the Chinese official was. At least then, nobody could accuse her
    of dodgy behaviour.

    Her dodgy behavior doesn’t end with her self-serving nepotism. She has previously blocked a remedy for corrupt practice within the NZ judiciary. The judicial corruption is not of her making, but for her to block a remedy in this way dishonours the title of minister of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Just realised its Good Friday tomorrow and DPF is still away :O

    Wonder if he has a post ready to go for easter trading laws. Easter isnt the same without the annual fight between dpf and bruv

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11239878

    basically labour announce new subsidies. “fuckit, youre twice the price but youre a KIWI company who employs ORDINARY new zealanders”.

    Maybe they should call it “kiwi buy”.

    Im sure the owners of said companies will be stoked “lets jack the prices, straight to the bottom line! sweet”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Manolo (13,735 comments) says:

    DPF could be inconsistent regarding trade laws.

    He is in favour of Easter Trade, but keen to try plain-packaging tobacco, which makes him a loyal supporter of today’s left-of-centre Labour Lite, (il)liberal and ambivalent at times.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    That rather makes the same point I was making. It’s only “hypocrisy” if you think that a group like al-Qaeda can kill and assassinate with the same level of legitimacy to that of a democratic state – which is exactly what I would expect an anarchist to say.

    No, it’s hypocrisy because the US claims to have the “level of legitimacy of a democratic state” – inherent to which is the rule of law.

    Which leads to this …

    Sure, and Bin Laden attacking the people he alleged were behind violence inflicted on the people he claimed to represent was just him being a good guy. If he was democratically elected, would his actions suddenly become less criminal?

    Yes – in that we could at least say that he was responding to the wishes of those who voted him into power, even if he did not have a “state” in the form of a bordered landmass, and had joined the world of states – including the rather frail structures they’ve built such as the Geneva Conventions and “International Law”. He might still be a criminal within that structure – but he would actually be less of a criminal. Also it would not change the fact that al-Qaeda is effectively waging war, but would simply make it more legitimate for us to kill him and his cronies and more legitimate for him to kill us – except in your anarchist view of course.

    That’s all I’m saying – that crime is crime, whether it is committed by an elected representative of not. “But he’s elected” is not a free pass to break the law.

    In this case, in theory, the law should prevent the US government from perpetrating assassinations without trial.

    The assassinations are of people who are at war with the USA. As such the only possible argument for a trial would be if they were citizens, and even then there is solid legal argument and precedent in wartime for US citizens to be killed if they’ve joined with groups attacking their own country. Apparently you want to accept International Law built by nation states but you don’t accept law – or at least you don’t grant it the same legitimacy- when it is built up by citizens of a nation state.

    Crying out for a trial before anything can be done about such people is simply demanding that the State (and its other citizens) sit on their asses and allow themselves to be killed, along with their state. But again if you’re opposed to the idea of the State then of course you would not care.

    Okay, bracket the whole “but you don’t even like states!” thing. The illegality and immorality of these actions can be addressed on the level at which they’re stated.

    My emphasis here is on the fact that drone strikes are illegal by the same standards Western liberal democrats claim to uphold.

    Obama is assassinating people literally on the other side of the world, killing civilians who aren’t even accused of anything along the way, in the name of “defending against al-Qaeda”.

    I think Yamamoto was almost on the other side of the world when the US “assassinated” him too. If his plane had crashed into a Soloman Islands village and killed civilians you would presumably hold that to be a war crime.

    If it was predictable and expected, yes, it would be. War crimes are a thing. It’s not a feeling I get sometimes. They’re defined.

    Would you be so cavalier about this breach of international law if Rouhani were assassinating people on foreign soil whom he claimed, without trial, were plotting against Iran?

    Rouhani and his merry bunch of theological mates have been assassinating people on foreign soil for some time now, see the two Argentine attacks on Jewish centres, the Khobar towers bombings and the 1983 attack on the Marines in Lebanon. There was also the recent attempt to bomb and kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington D.C., a failed attack that had all the hallmarks of the Iranians.

    I’m also cavalier about this these breaches of International Law because both it and nation-state law have completely failed to deal with these situations – because it is a war. The only difference with al-Qaeda being that the US has refused to regard it as such for thirty years now.

    Again, if it is a war, then presumably you believe that the Geneva Conventions apply to drone strikes?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Ryan Sproull (7,109 comments) says:

    But if looking at it from a subjective point of view, are there not times when maybe you might want to ignore the law? Not because you can’t think straight, but because it is in your interests to do so and the extent to which you undermine the concept of “rule of law” is outweighed by the benefit of ignoring the law.

    Sure. But if I did that, I’d like to think I’d have the intellectual honesty to call myself a criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    Good article in the Herald today about Easter and believers.

    Unbelievers ignoring evidence of Jesus

    [...]

    More though is required if Jesus’ resurrection is to be considered more than a theological possibility. Evidence is required that Jesus’ body was indeed raised.

    That evidence exists, in the form of the testimony of eyewitnesses, and is as reliable as such evidence can be. Many who know little or nothing of either the Bible or good biblical scholarship dismiss the New Testament writings as myths made up years – even centuries – later. This is nonsense. The vast majority of serious scholars agree that the Gospels were written between 60 and 100AD.

    Those who reject the resurrection of Jesus not only lack any substantial evidence to pit against the New Testament writings (leaving only their own unattested hypotheses), they have the problem of providing a reasonable explanation for how a nascent Jesus movement won converts to a crucified Messiah. Quoting Paul again, a crucified Messiah was “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles”. Paul himself (as Saul) had found the idea so offensive that he made it his mission to eradicate Jesus’ followers.

    That was until he had his dramatic encounter with the resurrected and ascended Christ on the Damascus Road. More baloney, some will say – but on what basis?

    If reason, then reason must also account for the dramatic change in belief, not only of Saul but of all Jesus’ followers who had abandoned him at the cross. If not a real experience of Jesus’ resurrection, what inspired them to give their lives in defence of his claim to be the risen Christ?

    There is no such thing as proof of God, but there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Where that truth is proclaimed confidently, the church is inclined to grow.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11238116

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. dirty harry (481 comments) says:

    “Leader of the opposition, David Cunliffe, grumbled about Mr Key getting too much “face time”, even though he did get 20 minutes one-on-one with William.”

    Love it. What a fuckin tool you are Cunliffe. I would be so embarrassed if you ever became our Prime Minister.

    Loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    There is no comparison with the threat posed by the military/industrial infrastructure of Nazi Germany and that posed by disparate terrorist organisations.

    A death toll comparable to that of Pearl Harbour plus large amounts of destruction on September 11, 2001, would suggest otherwise.

    At the height of her power in 1941-42 Imperial Japan did not think she could sail the fleet across the Eastern Pacific to bombard San Francisco, LA and San Diego. Nazi Germany never thought it could bomb and shell Manhattan of the Pentagon.

    But in 2001 a handful of men, simply using the ordinary, everyday technology of our world, achieved something that powerful, industrialised nation-states of 80 years ago could not.

    It’s still true that the potential destructive capabilities of contemporary nation-states exceeds that of a contemporary terrorist groups, but the quantitative destruction now possible with technology makes the difference in scale largely irrelevant unless you’re talking about nuclear warfare, and even then, deterrence offers a way to avoid it. Eighty years ago, in fact up until quite recently, you could rest easy in the knowledge that large numbers of your fellow citizens could only die suddenly in a war. Not, not so much, and in the future even less so.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    Yoza , you are very gravely mistaken about Al Qaeda and its ideology and intentions.Their second Fatwah was made in 1998 long before the invasion of Afghansitan and Iraq,

    Excerpt ,

    On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims
    The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.”

    This is in addition to the words of Almighty God “And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed–women and children, whose cry is ‘Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'”

    We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

    Almighty God said “O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered.”

    Almighty God also says “O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things.”

    Almighty God also says “So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060422210853/http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

    The declaration of war there is obvious and plain to behold.!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Ryan and others, just a reminder that to criticize Barack Obama on anything is blatantly racist, OK ? It is quite obvious that you are only making such offensive statements because he is black, please stop or you will be vilified in almost every major newpaper in the US.

    Ryan, if it is war against al-Qaeda, there is a problem in that the Geneva convention only applies to conflicts between nations, and in the absence of such only article 3 applies although signatories may observe other articles. al-Qeada members are also difficult to classify; the term “illegal combatant” is not strictly covered in the Conventions although a legal combatant is mentioned by a definition that would certainly exclude AQ.

    The last convention dealing with such combatants appears to be from the Hague Conference back in 1899, where despite some opposition it appears that it was recognized that such combatants (referred to as “francs-tireurs”) can be subject to summary justice.

    In the absence of the Geneva convention applying, then the domestic law of the detaining state applies to prisoners, it is not clear what law applies to the “combat” itself. If we accept it is a war, then presumably any enemy combatants may be killed in any legal manner (that is not by illegal weapons like chemical weapons for example). As long as the intention is to target and kill the combatants, and collateral damage in civilian deaths is not a crime. However if the intention is to kill civilians and not to target combatants, then it is a war crime. Hence, at least as far as I can tell, AQ is sometimes committing war crimes (attacking US armed forces is not a crime in a war against the US), but in general the US does not and generally has not; that is not to say that they haven’t made mistakes.

    There appears to me to be no really satisfactory way to define this situation legally. It is clearly not a war covered by the Geneva Convention, and yet it is de facto not a simple series of crimes meriting only the attention of the criminal justice system. I would advocate an extension to the GC to deal with these “asymmetric” war situations, but I doubt that one could easily produce a set of rules that would be acceptable to enough people to be applied.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Duxton (651 comments) says:

    Actually, tom, Nazi Germany would have been to bomb Manhattan if it had wanted to (and had been prepared to commit the resources required), and proved it by sending an FW 200 Condor across the Atlantic to eastern seaboard of the US.

    It was also not far off being able to reach the US with rockets. The next iteration of the V2 could well have done this.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    It’s war? Oh, good. So the Geneva Conventions apply to drone strikes, correct?

    I would think they do. And one of the things about the Geneva Convention – or at least the way it used to be – was that it only applied if you accepted its rules (whether you signed it or not). Some of the most basic rules were that you made yourself clearly identifiable as a combatant and you did not try and hide in the civilian population, let alone did you deliberately target a civilian population that could not defend itself.

    Before someone jumps in about the RAF and USAAF fire-bombing civilians, please note that while Nazi leaders were prosecuted for War Crimes, Luftwaffe bomber pilots were not. Even the “defenceless” civilians of London, Dresden and Tokyo had more defence surrounding them than most civilian victims of Jihadist terror bombings.

    If you did do those things then the other side were completely non-criminal in summarily executing you in the field, with not even a military court procedure. I’ll have to look it up but I think there may have been a small-scale case during the Normandy invasion in 1944 where some Wermacht troops took Allied troops under fire and then retreated into a village filled with civilians: the Allies went after them and in the process killed a bunch of French civilians. But it was the surviving Wermacht that were held to be the war criminals – the exact opposite of the general approach today.

    Al queda not only does not accept the rules of the Geneva Convention they deliberately flout them as a method of winning, so if the result is a drone strike on them then I do not regard that as any different than if US troops captured them and shot them at dawn in the field.

    So you should have no qualms about the US military using killer drones to ‘defend’ itself against domestic ‘terrorists’ like Cliven Bundy.

    It may come to that. I’m glad somebody has actually linked back to this because it is of a piece if we’re talking about the limits of the State.

    However, it would only happen if Bundy is crazy enough to align with al queda or some other terrorist group that’s attacking his own country. But short of that he’s still a citizen of the USA who would have to be given a trial – and I don’t think the penalty is a Predator drone strike.

    Though, perhaps the inability of democratic mechanisms to rein in the actions of the US government is an indictment of statist liberal democracy in general.

    A sentiment that I’m getting closer to every day. But in the case of Bundy rather than Bin Laden the democratic mechanisms are still operating consistent with the differences between a citizen disobeying the law of his nation and a citizen who wilfully attacks it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    As far as I’m aware, the Geneva Conventions only apply to those NATIONs which signed them.

    Since when has a bunch of hairy arsed Muslim bomb throwing, head hacking rag heads been a party to the GC?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    tom hunter (3,995 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    [Yoza]There is no comparison with the threat posed by the military/industrial infrastructure of Nazi Germany and that posed by disparate terrorist organisations.

    A death toll comparable to that of Pearl Harbour plus large amounts of destruction on September 11, 2001, would suggest otherwise.

    The terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks did not pop out of a vacuum, they believed they were the ‘good guys’ taking the fight to the ‘evil imperialists’. Defining the US reaction as an act of war seems to legitimise the 9/11 attacks as acts of war themselves. Shrouding terrorist crimes, whether committed by states or ideologies, in such a way is more of a semantic trick than it is a valid portrayal of events.

    Eighty years ago, in fact up until quite recently, you could rest easy in the knowledge that large numbers of your fellow citizens could only die suddenly in a war. Not, not so much, and in the future even less so.

    I see this as a largely positive outcome of a more informed population. The only tangible military threat to our way of life are other sophisticated industrial nations who would also struggle to motivate large numbers of their own citizens to become a militarily active threat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    Judith says
    It’s time Mr Parker pulled his head in and wrote a cheque.

    The only problem is, Judith, that Mr Parker doesn’t appear to have any money. I understand he is living in a caravan.
    So he won’t be writing a cheque, because if he did write one it would probably bounce if it was for more than say, a few hundred dollars or so.
    Anyway, the case isn’t over yet. Kent Parker is going to appeal some of the judge’s decisions and I have already pointed out one that he will be appealing.
    Karam said some time ago that Parker and Perkiss would be bankrupted and he is probably going to be proved right although Perkiss is now living overseas so I don’t know how he is going to bankrupt him.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Viking: Anyone who supports a criminal such as the obese German slug is no better than he. He is corrupt, dangerous, and a liar. What in hell are the extradition proceedings all about? Donating to charities!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    Rowan says he is hoping Kent Parker will get his costs increased by appealing. I believe he may well get them reduced.
    But at the end of the day it won’t matter much one way or the other.
    If Kent Parker hasn’t got any money he won’t be able to pay any money.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Tom, GC doesn’t apply to non-states anyway. But certainly it is considered a war-crime to deliberately use civilians as a cover for warfare, and in attacking those doing so killing civilians is NOT considered a war-crime.

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

    Occam’s Principle?
    Is it easier to prove guilt of conflict of interest on Judith Collin’s part, or to demonstrate Winston / Dotcom visits and subsequent Questions are aimed at replacing a Minister of Justice with a weaker perhaps non-extradicting justice person?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    @ Duxton

    Interesting but my point still stands. There is a vast difference between sending a lone FW 200 Condor to the Eastern seaboard and the logistics of sending a bomber fleet capable of inflicting the sort of destruction on Manhattan that the 911 attackers did. Same with the next iteration of the V2, which I don’t doubt could have done the job.

    The point is that in our world, the ordinary technology of everyday life can be used to achieve greater levels of destruction than a militarised nation-state of 70 years ago. This means that dismissing terrorist groups as incapable of inflicting serious harm – the idea that they’ll kill a few civilians but that a nation can accept such “pinpricks” – that was the standard view before the 911 attacks, is simply not acceptable nowadays.

    @Yoza

    Defining the US reaction as an act of war seems to legitimise the 9/11 attacks as acts of war themselves.

    I think you’re right but I don’t have a problem with that. It was an act of war. The fact that it was carried out by an NGO is something I regard as irrelevant in light of the level of death and destruction, and the fact that “terrorist” actions of this scale simply cannot be dealt with by any criminal justice system.

    I’ve made this point before (often the case on Kiwiblog) that we’re only willing to give away reciprocity (“An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth” in domestic law because we accept the structures of a state law and order system of police, courts and laws passed by representative democracy. At the International level those things do not exist except as nebulous institutions that we have even less influence over than we do on the domestic front. Short of such things having real power – and that would mean a world government of sorts, a possibly more scary prospect – things like the Geneva Convention cannot truly operate without reciprocity.

    I’ve been amused to see occasional comments from “international” legal experts, expressing their frustration that groups like al Queda and Herbollah won’t submit to things like the Geneva Convention! Why would they? By flouting the laws themselves while demanding that their enemies obey them they obtain an advantage in war.

    @Ed

    Tom, GC doesn’t apply to non-states anyway.

    That too, but I’m aware of efforts in recent years to extend it to non-state actors, hence my amusement at the frustration of some legalists when those actors refuse to cooperate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    tom hunter, in what ways has e. g the US and Britain flouted the Geneva Convention.?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks did not pop out of a vacuum, they believed they were the ‘good guys’ taking the fight to the ‘evil imperialists’.

    Fantasyland. The mainstream account of 9/11 has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. tom hunter (4,805 comments) says:

    tom hunter, in what ways has e. g the US and Britain flouted the Geneva Convention.?

    Should that question even be directed at me? I’m pretty sure I’m on the same side as you on this one. Is this the reading disability thing again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    U T, 9/11 has no holes as you’ve so ineptly demonstrated. Any holes a fed by your paranoia and delusions.
    Can we begin by discussing once more why William Rodriguez and most of those he rescued managed to survive unharmed an alleged mini nuke explosion in the basement of WTC 1. ?
    Then cam move onto the the 4,000 Jews who allegedly did not turn up at the WTC on 9/11.?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    Easter poll surprise

    National 48.5% (+5.5%)
    Labour 28.5% (-3.5%)
    Greens 11.5% (-1.5%)
    NZFirst 5.5% (no change)
    Conservatives 2% (-0.5)
    Maori Party 1% (-0.5)
    Mana 1% (+.5)
    Internet Party 1% (+0.5)
    Act 0.5% (no change)
    UF 0% (-0.5)
    Other 0.5%

    Roy Morgan poll

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Those who reject the resurrection of Jesus not only lack any substantial evidence to pit against the New Testament writings (leaving only their own unattested hypotheses), they have the problem of providing a reasonable explanation for how a nascent Jesus movement won converts to a crucified Messiah.

    Utter bollocks.

    The very idea that a just and merciful deity would plan for an innocent man (his own son) to be tortured to death is the height of absurdity.

    The explanation for the “Jesus movement” was that he was seen alive after the crucifixion, leading people to believe that he had been resurrected from the dead, since they believed that he had been crucified.

    The explanation of the crucifixion is a major source of differences between Christianity and Islam. The Islamic explanation is that it was someone else who was crucified, someone who had his appearance.

    The problem of identification is highlighted by the act of betrayal: Why would Judas have to betray him with a kiss if he could be recognized by anyone?

    The problem arises again in John 20:15 when Mary Magdelene does not recognize him.

    “God is infinitely changeable, and can assume all forms at will. The Son proceeds from the most perfect of these modifications of the Divine nature and is conceptional with that modification, but not with the Divine nature itself. The Son is not God, therefore, in the full sense, nor has He all the power of God. He cannot change Himself, though He can be changed at will by God.”

    The Clementine writings

    http://www.actsinjunction.info/pages/switched.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Duxton posted at 1.04:

    Actually, tom, Nazi Germany would have been to bomb Manhattan if it had wanted to (and had been prepared to commit the resources required), and proved it by sending an FW 200 Condor across the Atlantic to eastern seaboard of the US.

    Before the war, a Condor with special fuel tanks did fly non-stop from Berlin to New York. For war service the Condors became heavier because of military gear, and range dropped.

    The Condor, even with added tanks (and thus less than its already middling bomb load), had a range of around 5000km. Even a one-way (and thus suicide) trip from the Condor bases in France would have been 6000km.

    Presuming they could have sent these boosted fuel tanks on these planes so they could fly unescorted, one-way suicide trips with on arrival down to about 2000kg of bombs, the Condors would then have had to face American fighter interceptors, long since alerted.

    The Germans were already losing Condors because they not infrequently broke up on landing because of fuselage defects and the weight of the military adaptations. It wouldn’t have made any military or industrial sense for the Nazi Germans to try to bomb America with Condors.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    PG

    Thanks – very illuminating.

    To use the analogy of lift cars in a high-rise building, only one seems to be going ‘up’..

    I wonder what ‘spin’ Cunnliffe et al, will put on the results?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    igm (848 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    Viking: Anyone who supports a criminal such as the obese German slug is no better than he. He is corrupt, dangerous, and a liar. What in hell are the extradition proceedings all about? Donating to charities!

    =========================
    Anyone who supports a criminal such as the obese German slug is no better than he
    There is a difference between supporting a person and supporting the Law and the Principles of Freedom and the right to not have your property rights usurped by Departments of Govt. You should learn the difference before one of them takes more of your Freedoms and Assets.
    The above discussions about Karams case should also warn you about the accusations you throw around.
    Freedom of speech, which you seem to take license with, has responsibilities with it. Just saying.

    Extradition proceedings are about endeavoring to extradite a kiwi resident, who the Americans say and have yet to prove has committed crimes that are not considered crimes in NZ. i.e. copyright law. A civil proceeding.

    The Law allows that each party must convince a judge that the they have a case. This judge (as have others), has decided on the facts submitted and having due regard to our law that there is no case for withholding the funds. Simple as that.

    You should stop behaving like an emotional woman at period time and stick to unemotional consideration of the facts and the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. stephieboy (3,004 comments) says:

    Jack 5 ,thats why the A9 was a potential contender.Anyhow Hitler would be just as satisfied in taking out a more easier target like London.
    Am sure that’s one of the things the Manhattan project had in mind with the race to develop the A bomb

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_(rocket_family)#A3

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

    Colville (1,767 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Milk.

    Coles in Oz. 2 l elcheapo milk. $2.99 so $3.27 NZ
    Countdown online 2 l plain pack milk $3.59

    Oh my fucken gawd! its about 10% less in oz!

    Cun*liffe is onto another winner here :-)

    ===================================
    The difference being of course GST. Applied in NZ to food and not in Australia.

    3.57 X 1.15% = $4.10

    So dearer in Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ muggins (2,895 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    When Kent Parker was first cautioned regarding his defamation, he was not living in a caravan. The fact that he has ‘changed’ his lifestyle once aware he had no chance of winning the case, will not be lost on the Court, who will delve very carefully into his last couple of years financial dealings.

    Of course Kent will take the easy wimps way out of it and declare bankruptcy. I doubt anyone expected anything more from him given his past behaviour and Court performance. The fact that you are recommending that he appeal, is also no surprise, its easy for those of you who do not have anything to loose to give such advice. Actions which speak volumes about your integrity though IMO.

    Kent Parker cannot appeal on the grounds that he doesn’t like the Judges verdict, nor that he believes the verdict was wrong in the Bain case. IT is way past time that Kent Parker stopped relying on useless old men with no legal experience, for advice, and actually got himself a lawyer. Preferably one that will be honest with him and tell him he has no chance in hell, however, he could always get Mr Guest – they would suit each other nicely, similar moral base.

    Absconding to England will not protect Mr Purkiss. If he has the money, even if it is tied up in assets, he will be made to pay.
    Kent, will get off without losing anything, however, if the last couple of days are anything to go by, he will be back before the courts very soon, and not just for his appeal, (which I can assure you, the Court will not be impressed with, given the vexatious nature)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Rowan (2,291 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 1.34

    Yes Joe Karam has been proven to be right yet again how many times is that? Kent has been shown up as the narcissistic POS that he is. Todays decision is called Karma.
    For once in your life you have something correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    It’s time Mr Parker pulled his head in and wrote a cheque.

    The only problem is, Judith, that Mr Parker doesn’t appear to have any money. I understand he is living in a caravan.

    Typical of the Bain ranters. Kind of guys that used to stand on street corners claiming the end was nigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Not having read the decision, I am assuming that Kent Parkers’ site has not been ordered down?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Easter poll surprise

    National 48.5% (+5.5%)
    Labour 28.5% (-3.5%)
    Greens 11.5% (-1.5%)
    NZFirst 5.5% (no change)
    Conservatives 2% (-0.5)
    Maori Party 1% (-0.5)
    Mana 1% (+.5)
    Internet Party 1% (+0.5)
    Act 0.5% (no change)
    UF 0% (-0.5)
    Other 0.5%

    I’m not surprised.

    My guess is that the big winner in this election will be the Russell Brand party.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    woohoo, and boohoo….genesis shares up 17%.

    But, i got less than 1/2 of what i requested.

    Not making huge money , but enough to pay for a years power & gas maybe (I’m a genesis customer too).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    “society is devoting an ever-growing share of its resources to financial wheeling and dealing, while getting little or nothing in return”. ( Soundfs like NZ).

    “In short, we’re giving huge sums to the financial industry while receiving little or nothing – maybe less than nothing – in return,” Krugman says.

    the finance industry of 1900 was just as able as the finance industry of 2010 to produce loans, bonds and stocks, and it was certainly doing it more cheaply,”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11239227

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    “society is devoting an ever-growing share of its resources to financial wheeling and dealing, while getting little or nothing in return”. ( Soundfs like NZ).

    “In short, we’re giving huge sums to the financial industry while receiving little or nothing – maybe less than nothing – in return,” Krugman says.

    Sure, but the mob are quite happy to vote for the status quo. It’s the PT Barnum society.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. OneTrack (3,087 comments) says:

    Komata – “I wonder what ‘spin’ Cunnliffe et al, will put on the results?”

    I’m looking forward to Sir Cullen’s Sidekick’s thoughts on it :-).

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

    Fletch (5,715 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    More though is required if Jesus’ resurrection is to be considered more than a theological possibility. Evidence is required that Jesus’ body was indeed raised.

    That evidence exists, in the form of the testimony of eyewitnesses, and is as reliable as such evidence can be.

    Which is not very reliable at all. Certainly insufficient for such an extraordinary claim.

    Those who reject the resurrection of Jesus not only lack any substantial evidence to pit against the New Testament writings (leaving only their own unattested hypotheses), they have the problem of providing a reasonable explanation for how a nascent Jesus movement won converts to a crucified Messiah. Quoting Paul again, a crucified Messiah was “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles”. Paul himself (as Saul) had found the idea so offensive that he made it his mission to eradicate Jesus’ followers.

    One does not require substantial evidence to reject the ressurection story. The lack of compelling evidence for such an extraordinary claim is in itself sufficient to doubt it. The onus is not on skeptics to disprove your faith.

    Moreover, your argument relies on presupposing the accuracy of an account, the truth of which is the very subject in question. And even if we accept it to be true, one could equally question how any religion gains a mass following based on extraordinary claims. Given the claims of various religions the rise of any of them might seem implausible, yet they cannot all be true on that basis lest we come to accept that Kim Jong Il’s birthday was foretold by a swallow, heralded by a double rainbow and a new star in the heavens simply because of the implausibility of having this be the official account of an entire nation.

    When I see with my own eyes people today coming to questionable conclusions based on nonsensical lines of thought and flimsy evidence, despite living in the most information-rich environment of any age in all of history, I have little doubt that people that lived 2000 years ago were even more susceptible to reaching erroneous conclusions based on faulty logic, chinese whispers and questionable standards of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    V2

    Re: The milk price vis a vis Australia, and the fact that supposedly, Oz milk would be dearer as a result of GST…

    This is of course another example of Mr. Cunnliffe’s standard operating method and lack of investigation, which can be summarised as being ‘why let a perfectly good and inconvenient fact get in the way’?

    In addition to the one you have highlighted (GST) there is IMHO, another factor which I believe will lead to a price difference between the two countries: the NZD / AUD currency exchange rate variation.

    I haven’t got access to the current rate, but this must inevitably lead to a skewing of the relative prices

    However, the sheeples won’t question it, Cunnliffe has doubtless ignored it as ‘inconvenient’ and usual, the MSM won’t bother to investigate, since it would spoil the narrative…

    It would be nice if someone would, but I’m not holding my breath in anticipation.

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

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/opposition-damages-public-morality-oravida-claims-dc-154962

    (My comment – yet to be published)

    Yes – note the difference between the NSW situation, where the Premier has resigned because he misled the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption.

    NSW has an Independent Commission Against Corruption – New Zealand does not.

    High time we did – because – in my considered opinion, New Zealand is rotten with corruption, and our ‘perceived status’ as the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ is nothing more than a sick joke.

    http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

    Please be reminded that on the watch of Minister of Justice Judith Collins – New Zealand STILL has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption.

    Has she even read it?

    It would appear that she has not.

    Have these mysterious ‘Cabinet officials’ who purportedly give advice on corrupt ‘conflicts of interest’- read it?

    It would appear that they have not.

    Here – read it for yourselves – and ask how can it be possible for the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ to have not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption?

    http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/Convention/08-50026_E.pdf

    What a CROCK.

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Manolo (13,735 comments) says:

    The deeply corrupt Miss Dim makes a cameo appearance.
    Have you paid your rates yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    komata
    Coles in Oz. 2 l elcheapo milk. $2.99 so $3.27 NZ

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    Jesus’ death and resurrection is in fact well evidenced and can’t be denied if you look at the evidence. However some people have already made up their minds it didn’t happen and aren’t even willing to look at the evidence.

    It’s quite laughable to hallucinate that our 21st stage of science is so sophisticated that we’re capable of overturning truths that have stood for over 2000 years including amongst many to most of the greatest thinkers in history.

    As I say the evidence is there if you want to look at it and I’m not even going to tell you where it is because you’re capable of finding that yourself, if or when you open your mind to the enquiry.

    I’ll just make one point that may or may not make any difference, not that I care because while I’m supposed to love everyone I don’t have to like them and it gets extraordinarily tiresome explaining things over and over to dunderheads with closed minds they refuse to open. The point is this: that given the power the Jewish leaders had over their people at the time, don’t you think they would have done everything in their power to demolish the resurrection as a “myth” if they possibly could? The fact they couldn’t, even though they had all the motivation and all the power and all the opportunity so to do, should give anyone with a 3-digit IQ pause for thought.

    GL on your quest for the truth. Don’t forget to open your mind. Same with 911 as well. But compared to that, Christianity is the critical truth you need to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Kent won’t be appealing para 125, but somebody else made need to. How very sad, it’s probably one of those people that promised Kent money then sent info to Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (642 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Not having read the decision, I am assuming that Kent Parkers’ site has not been ordered down?

    If you have not read the decision, why would you make such an assumption? Because he hasn’t taken it down? He has proven time and again that he thinks he knows better than any officer of the courts, from the Bain case and right through this defamation case. The judgement did make mention of the fact that he promised the court he would take it down, but that he subsequently resurrected it.
    He obviously doesn’t understand what constitutes defamation when he states that every unfavourable book review is defamatory, when book reviews speak about the book rather than tell lies about the author.
    As long as he leaves the site up there, he will repeat the same mistakes because he seems to believe he has done no wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    The GUTLESS ANONYMOUS ‘Boyolo’ is back with his unsubstantiated highly defamatory CRAP.

    Of course I have not paid my rates.

    I’m making a principled stand for the lawful rights of citizens to ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.

    (Something you probably don’t know much about ‘Boyolo’?)

    It is Auckland Council which is acting unlawfully (not complying with the Public Records Act 2005, s.17) by not telling citizens and ratepayers EXACTLY where public rates monies are being spent on consultants and private contractors.

    Are YOU one of those with your snout in the trough ‘Boyolo’?

    Just asking …..

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    (Who at least puts her name to her posts :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,678 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Kent won’t be appealing para 125, but somebody else made need to. How very sad, it’s probably one of those people that promised Kent money then sent info to Karam.

    Only the lowest of the low would do something like that. You just can’t trust some people, can you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    Reid

    Here’s something for you to get your teeth into. It doesn’t disprove the Biblical story as told but introduces a credible aspect to it.

    Ref: http://www.tombofjesus.com/index.php/en/faq#qu14

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Jesus’ death and resurrection is in fact well evidenced and can’t be denied if you look at the evidence.

    The Biblical story of the resurrection is an outlier. There are three apocryphal accounts which describe a switch, this description is also consistent with the Quran and the gospel of Barnabus.

    It’s quite laughable to hallucinate that our 21st stage of science is so sophisticated that we’re capable of overturning truths that have stood for over 2000 years including amongst many to most of the greatest thinkers in history.

    Belief isn’t necessarily truth. We’re living in an information age, we have a much greater range of information to shape our beliefs than the people of the early first century.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    “Belief isn’t necessarily truth. We’re living in an information age, we have a much greater range of information to shape our beliefs than the people of the early first century.”

    Which is exactly why we know we live in the last days as Daniel tells us information will run to and fro describing the internet age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. big bruv (13,880 comments) says:

    “Jesus’ death and resurrection is in fact well evidenced and can’t be denied if you look at the evidence. ”

    There is no bloody evidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Reid (15,502 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    It’s quite laughable to hallucinate that our 21st stage of science is so sophisticated that we’re capable of overturning truths that have stood for over 2000 years including amongst many to most of the greatest thinkers in history.

    Argumentum ab auctoritate et traditionem :)

    The point is this: that given the power the Jewish leaders had over their people at the time, don’t you think they would have done everything in their power to demolish the resurrection as a “myth” if they possibly could? The fact they couldn’t, even though they had all the motivation and all the power and all the opportunity so to do, should give anyone with a 3-digit IQ pause for thought.

    Or alternatively, given they have such power why are they afraid of a little myth? Maybe it’s because the myth is true!

    Don’t believe anything until it’s officially denied.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    “Please be reminded that on the watch of Minister of Justice Judith Collins – New Zealand STILL has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption.”

    That says so much and should be raised in the house…very repeatedly.

    So obvious the vested interests that abound. If anything, the winebox saga National tried to suppress proved that difinitively.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    IN DEEP: The dark and dangerous world of extreme cavers.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/21/140421fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    “tom hunter, in what ways has e. g the US and Britain flouted the Geneva Convention.?”

    Pffffffff

    Why do you think Manning went to prison. Because he documented proof of allied atrocity.

    Not surprised no Kiwi Blogger answered you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (642 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 3:11 pm
    Not having read the decision, I am assuming that Kent Parkers’ site has not been ordered down?

    The Decision states:
    [ 247] Mr Karam also seeks an injunction requiring the offending material to be removed and permanent injunction preventing the defendants from further publishing material defamatory of him. I am satisfied that this relief is necessary. In particular, it is of considerable concern to me that, following his advice in open court that the Counterspin website would be taken down, Mr Parker has since resurrected it. The terms of the injunction will not require either site to be taken down but will require all defamatory material to be removed from them. This is notwithstanding that the Facebook page is now private.

    [252] Mar Parker has behaved egregiously in advancing and maintaining defences which had no serious prospect of success. In particular, asserting the defence of truth to the point of cross-examining Mr Karam and opening his case before finally admitting under cross-examination that he was unable to prove any of the matters, in itself, justifies indemnity costs. Nor was there any prospect of the defence of qualified privilge succeeding. It is true that I found several statements to have been protected by the defence of honest opinion. However, that modest success does not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct in every other regard. There are to be indemnity costs against Mr Parker.

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Only the lowest of the low would do something like that. You just can’t trust some people, can you?

    Some people (those people) are still giving Mr Parker advice. Given the judges comments (252), I think that any appeal Mr Parker puts forward, along similar lines as he has already done, and using the advice of the same people, is likely to upset the Judge further.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Certainly couldn’t trust someone that gave ‘fatherly’ approval for some of the things Robin was accused of. I’ll need to read it again but I think there was an order from Courtenay about the removal of material from the hate-site if he doesn’t comply it will be off to prison he goes Kanz. Estimate of Court Costs is approaching 600k, but the ‘good old boys’ won’t mind if the tax payer picks up part of that because they’re so enlightened they never get anything right.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Big change to the polls favouring the Nats at the expense of Labour. It may be true, much to my surprise, that Labour lost support because of distancing themselves from the Greens and turning down the offer of an agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    Nos, do you think perhaps Kent will sell off the caravan and move into a tent so he can file an appeal that is bound fall at the first hurdle? Or perhaps some of his “well heeled” (but stupid) supporters will offer to fund this too?

    What was truly funny was when they were discussing what to do with the left over money from their fund raising.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    The very idea that a just and merciful deity would plan for an innocent man (his own son) to be tortured to death is the height of absurdity.

    UT it is to our eyes but Isa 55.9:

    “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

    What God was doing was defeating Satan and opening the portal to all believers to enter into the Kingdom.

    Why do you think God permits evil? Why do bad things happen to both believers and to non-believers? To build spiritual muscle aka faith. And spiritual muscle is what this school we call life is there to teach us. You are more aware than most of the machinations of the evil one and his minions. I don’t know how well versed you are on things satanic but let me assure you the fingerprints are all over their evil work from the very lowest players to the very highest and the reason is, Satan is real, just as God is.

    It’s frankly tragic, just how good at deception Satan is. He’s managed to convince most of the world that not only God doesn’t exist but that neither does he.

    One thing I struggle with understanding in the non-believers is that how pray tell, do they think this thing we call Christianity has survived all this time if Jesus really was just a human? I mean, how many other humans who lived over 2000 years are on the lips and thoughts of so many both believers and non-believers on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis? No doubt many believers simply hallucinate it’s just a product of civilisation and it too will pass as our “science” “advances” and “rationality” “overcomes” this silly, nay primitive, “superstition.”

    Has it ever occurred to you in particular UT, versed as you are in the meme functions, that the thoughts I just expressed in the quote marks are memes of their own? It’s just that when you approach religion with the same attitude one applies to obtaining the truth in any of the fields we share, you’ll find the world opens up to that approach, the puzzle pieces fall neatly into place and that what was once apparently bizarre and unreal becomes in fact, the unequivocal actual and evidential truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    No real pleasure in this Kanz, I hate to say it but I think Kent has been used. I still don’t understand why he didn’t take the opportunity to pull his head in, perhaps its his mental health problems and other people taking advantage of him. The very description he gave of Karam actually applied to himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    EVIDENCE that New Zealand has yet to ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption:

    https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html

    Yet New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark, according to Transparency International’s 2013 ‘Corruption Perception Index’.

    http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

    If New Zealand was genuinely the ‘least corrupt country’ – shouldn’t we be the MOST transparent?

    If New Zealand was genuinely the ‘least corrupt’ and most ‘transparent’ – then arguably – shouldn’t we be the least financially secretive?

    So – how then is New Zealand ranked the 48th most secretive out of 82 nations, in the 2013 Tax Justice Network ‘Financial Secrecy Index’?

    http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2013-results

    File (again) under ‘You Couldn’t Make This Sh*t Up’?

    Want to see a ONE page ACTION PLAN which would establish a genuine, meaningful framework for transparency and accountability in New Zealand?

    Try this:

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ANTI-CORRUPTION-WHITE-COLLAR-CRIME-CORPORATE-WELFARE-ACTION-PLAN-Ak-Mayoral-campaign-19-July-2013-2.pdf

    ‘Where the people lead – the politicians will follow …..?”

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    ….”how pray tell, do they think this thing we call Christianity has survived all this time”…..

    Top rate promotional efforts & an efficient franchisee network probably Reid. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,681 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    No real pleasure in this Kanz, I hate to say it but I think Kent has been used. I still don’t understand why he didn’t take the opportunity to pull his head in, perhaps its his mental health problems and other people taking advantage of him. The very description he gave of Karam actually applied to himself.

    Well, that is where we differ Nos. I do take pleasure in it.
    There were many times and many people who tried to warn him/them. You went to great lengths to advise him and received nothing but abuse for your efforts (I see above it is still happening) and nothing has been learned.
    From what he has posted since reading of the court’s decision he still thinks he knows the law better than Justice Courtney.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    Top rate promotional efforts & an efficient franchisee network probably Reid.

    Yes I guess when you’re the one who created the universe and everything in it you pretty much understand marketing inside out nasska. :)

    You went to great lengths to advise him and received nothing but abuse for your efforts

    What IS it about the Bainiacs that gets them so very polarised? Personally I don’t think he’s guilty and I never have, but I don’t think the ChCh creche guy was either, nor is Tamihere nor is Watson. But I don’t get the obsession. It just goes on and on and on and on, with both sides totally and passionately convinced their argument is the correct one. It happens on AGW and 911 too, but personally I can’t be arsed discussing those either. It’s pointless since the information is out there on all those things. Read it and make your own mind up and sure, if you don’t come to my conclusion on those then you’re wrong and you’re an idiot, but I don’t particularly care about it.

    But why get so obsessed about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    God knows what people in other nations must think of life in NZ thanks to the reported actions of our fecund underclass. This joke from a UK website:

    ….”William and Kate said they wanted to give baby George ‘the full Kiwi kid experience’ while he was in New Zealand.

    So they’ve left him in the car while they spend the day at the pub.”…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    There is no bloody evidence!

    Well, exactly. No body. That is evidence itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    One thing I struggle with understanding in the non-believers is that how pray tell, do they think this thing we call Christianity has survived all this time if Jesus really was just a human? I mean, how many other humans who lived over 2000 years are on the lips and thoughts of so many both believers and non-believers on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis? No doubt many believers simply hallucinate it’s just a product of civilisation and it too will pass as our “science” “advances” and “rationality” “overcomes” this silly, nay primitive, “superstition.”

    Getting past humanism involves going back to where it all began, back to Babylon. Humans exist in a state of confusion, separated from the source. They typically think they are the be-all and end-all of mankind, but that’s just pride. The word human comes from homo humanus, a term which was used to distinguish Romans from other people. Today humanism is promoted by the United Nations, it is no coincidence that the UN logo has a Roman laurel wreath around the world.

    Has it ever occurred to you in particular UT, versed as you are in the meme functions, that the thoughts I just expressed in the quote marks are memes of their own? It’s just that when you approach religion with the same attitude one applies to obtaining the truth in any of the fields we share, you’ll find the world opens up to that approach, the puzzle pieces fall neatly into place and that what was once apparently bizarre and unreal becomes in fact, the unequivocal actual and evidential truth.

    The memes you mentioned relate to the secular aspect of humanism, ie the seclorum of the NWO “novus ordo seclurom”. The corruption of NZ’s judicial system can also be seen in this light. The way this corruption plays out in the NWO scheme of things is that natural rights are ignored and human rights are advocated instead. Of course NZ has some distance from the UN, I doubt that our definition of corruption would agree with theirs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    More legal woo mixed up with jejuene spirituality Ugly? You can do better than that to entertain us. How about some tales about Betty Windsor the genocidal reptilian shapeshifter?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Re the defamation decision, it is good that the decision is available to read on the ‘site’, I should have just looked and answered the question for myself. As for appeals, clearly one is expected at [223] regarding publisher liability. I never understood why it (the site) was taken down in the first instance unless by court order, which there wasn’t and that is obviously not a current requirement either. A month given for further housekeeping by the looks of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Ever had this happen to you?

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y-jiot0fSvk?rel=0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. RF (1,396 comments) says:

    The Labour camp is really pissed off and many are blaming the Silent T for the poor poll result. I know Mickey Savage has been walking around with a shitty look on his face as his dreams of walking hand in hand into the sun set with Cunliffe go down the sewer. Don’t give up your day job just yet Mickey.

    Its clear they have given up winning the election this year and hope for next time… If there is a next time..

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Before Kent Parker was living in a caravan he was living in a rented house . He has no assets to speak of so far as I am aware.
    The actual whereabouts of Vic Perkiss are not known. He has no assets to speak of so far as I am aware.
    So it looks like bankruptcy for the two of them if what Karam has said is anything to go by.
    Cost to Karam $500000.
    Cost to Parker. Well, he had to pay out $9000 a couple of years ago.
    Cost to Perkiss. In dollar terms ,nil.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi.
    There was no requirement to remove the counterspin website. The judge has ordered that all comments that were found to be defamatory are to be removed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. big bruv (13,880 comments) says:

    Has anybody else noticed Cuntliffe’s new hushed (almost whisper) style of talking when being interviewed? It just makes him seem all the more creepy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    The Minister of Justice Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON
    I refer our previous correspondence. I have subsequently had referred to me the response from Justice Binnie to your discussions with him about the glasses evidence which I raised in my letter to you dated 10 September. I am most grateful for the circumspect way in which you raised that matter with the Judge.
    But the Judge’s self-defensive reply is most disturbing, almost as if it is designed to blind you to the relevance of that evidence. My email to you was dated 10 September, your discussion with the Judge was on 13 September and his reply was dated 25 September. He chooses to go on the attack raising issues of my own character and credibility and thus obfuscating the intense relevance of the very matter you raised with him. The detail he has provided raises the question as to who gave him all of the Law Society material. How is it relevant? I have been judged and found wanting but those issues do not alter the incontrovertible facts of the matters I have raised.
    However much of a scoundrel Justice Binnie wants to paint me, the salient facts are these:
    Trenchant and continual criticism of me by the Bain team surely waived privilege from the early stages. There is common law authority to that effect.
    Mr Bain informed both myself and my co-Counsel, Miss Jonelle Williams, that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening before the 6.30 am murders the next morning.
    In response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses tne night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did.
    The Crown Solicitor therefore knew this fact at trial.
    Justice Thorp gives my evidence to the PCA the clear stamp of credibility because the Crown Prosecutor confirmed to him what I had told him at trial.
    The importance of this admission of wearing the glasses the night before is, quite simply, a damning admission because the police found the bent frame and one lens in David’s bedroom and the other lens in his murdered brother’s bedroom.
    Justice Binnie then appears to mislead you by quoting and relying upon a passage from the Court of Appeal decision at paragraphs 21 and 22 of his recent Report to you.
    21. This inconsistency gives rise to issues of both of substance and credibility. As to the substance of the claim, the Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 December 2003 subsequent to the Thorp Report concluded that
    “The glasses and lens issue has not featured significantly in our analysis of the strength of the case against David. It does not in any way tend to exculpate David.” (para 244)
    22. For reasons that follow, I agree with that conclusion. Assuming as I do that what Mr Guest told Sir Thomas Thorp is true, it does not “feature significantly” in resolving the substance of the case.
    8. BUT THIS QUOTE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL was dealing with a different issue relating to the glasses because that Court DID NOT KNOW of the evidence of what David Bain had told myself and my co-Counsel and what we had told the Crown Solicitor at trial.
    Consequently, it can be stated on reasonable grounds that Justice Binnie has himself succumbed to a tunnel visioned approach to the assessment of all relevant evidence relating the prime question he was asked to answer.
    I do not request or expect any response from you. I conclude by congratulating you on a most professional approach to your role as Minister of Justice in this whole sorry affair.
    Yours Faithfully
    Michael Guest
    Justice Binnie has succumbed to tunnel vision. We all knew that.
    No way David Bain will receive any compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Steve (North Shore) (4,559 comments) says:

    A little bitching from me:
    We had a phone call today from North Shore Hospital. They were trying to confirm an appointment for Mother in law, who passed away just over one month ago.
    I always said North Shore Hospital is great, the Doctors, Nurses, Cleaners, Volunteers, Specialis Surgeons are great, but once ADMIN get hold of your info, it is fucked.
    Congratulations North Shore Hospital – another clusterfuck

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. RF (1,396 comments) says:

    big Bruv. Cunliffe is taking media lessons after the union guy got into his ear and is trying to sound serious / statesmanship.. Even plug head Cosgrove is toning down his outbursts.

    Cunliffe has about 6 different roles that he plays and its bloody creepy. So false.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    A wedding occurred just outside Cavan in Ireland. To keep
    tradition going, everyone got drunk and the bride and groom’s
    families had a storming row. They then started wrecking the reception
    room and generally kicking the crap out of each other until the Police
    were called in to break up the fight.

    The following week, all members of both families appear in court.

    The fight continues in the court room until the Judge finally
    brings silence with the use of his hammer, shouting, “Silence in
    Court!”

    The court room goes silent and Paddy, the best man, stands up and
    say’s. “Judge… I was the best man at the wedding and I think I
    should explain what happened.”

    The Judge agrees and asks Paddy to take the stand.

    Paddy begins his explanation by telling the court that it is
    traditional in a Cavan wedding that the best man gets the first
    dance with the Bride.

    The Judge says,” OK”.

    “Well,” said Paddy, “after I had finished the first dance, the
    music kept going so I continued dancing to the second song, and
    after that the music kept going. I was dancing to the third
    song…when all of a sudden the Groom leapt over the table, ran
    towards us and gave the Bride an unmerciful kick in her privates.”

    The Judge instantly responded, “God… that must have hurt!”

    Paddy replies; “HURT!!… he broke three of my bloody fingers”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    muggins (2,897 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    Judith,
    Before Kent Parker was living in a caravan he was living in a rented house . He has no assets to speak of so far as I am aware.
    The actual whereabouts of Vic Perkiss are not known. He has no assets to speak of so far as I am aware.
    So it looks like bankruptcy for the two of them if what Karam has said is anything to go by.
    Cost to Karam $500000.
    Cost to Parker. Well, he had to pay out $9000 a couple of years ago.
    Cost to Perkiss. In dollar terms ,nil.

    I can see how to a person for whom money is god and who has no morals, that could all be seen as a moral victory.
    To all right thinking people however, having a good name (not one as a defamer and liar as a court has found) and paying one’s debts is far more important. Being able to hold one’s head up with the self respect of knowing one has done the right thing is worth far more than any money.
    Bankruptcy is far more than simply avoiding one’s debts but then that is obviously still a lesson that is coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    So in this sort of situation would a ‘No asset procedure apply’ in lieu of bankruptcy, if it is a given that Joe Karam is going to bankrupt Kent, should Kent get in first? I guess that any further action will have to wait on any appeal process undertaken.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    I shall answer myself, re the threshold, NAP is up to $40,000.00 so that will be a no in this instance. I do however still wonder in other court ordered awards.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ goldnkiwi (645 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    If you read the judgement you will see that Kent Parker told the Court he was going to take the site down, therefore the Court did not need to request it. He then changed his mind (all within a few hours) and put the site back on line again. As you will see, this did not impress the Court at all.

    The Court decided he can keep his sanky site, but he is to remove all defamatory material. A quick glance tonight shows that he hasn’t, but then he never come across as a very quick learner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kanz (1,218 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    There will be consequences for Kent Parker if he is declared or declares himself bankrupt. He will be unable to get student loans etc to complete his studies if he ever wishes to qualify as a psychologist, he will be unable for some time to purchase a property etc – although I believe his family is rather wealthy, let’s hope that they don’t have him tied into any financial arrangements that could rebound on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    Judith, did I see some idiot above say that they only had to remove material that had been found to be defamatory? The judgement I read said “defamatory material” must be removed. As they are proving that they don’t know defamatory from truth, then Kent is going to be in more trouble for what he is leaving there.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “When you’re back, confirm that the Geneva Conventions apply to drone strikes, as you classify them as acts of war.”

    I don’t care of they do or not. The Geneva Conventions are irrelevant. They were not written for asymmetric warfare.

    This is the issue. The US is not only fighting a war, it is fighting one which has never been fought before. A global asymmetric war against a global terrorist organisation and it’s allies, that does not fight in any conventional sense, that does not have soldiers in uniforms on battlefields, and uses tactics specifically aimed at citizens is a radically new situation that the Geneva Convention did not foresee. Such a threat throws the rules out the door.

    The US has two and only two moral imperatives. 1. Destroy al-Qaeda by any means necessary. 2. Defend it’s citizens.

    So while all the lefties whine from the safety of their armchairs that the US MUST obey their definition of the rules, while acknowledging that al-Qaeda will not, are just engaging in exactly the bullshit left wing bias I was talking about to begin with.

    “The US MUST obey the rules, even IF it gets Americans killed! Oh, but we know al-Qaeda won’t.” And I say, fuck that.

    The first responsibility of the US gov is to it’s citizens, not to dated rule books, not to armchair critics, and less to fashionable leftie anarchists who have suddenly (yeah right) found a passion for international law. The claim that because the US is a democracy it must have it’s hands tied, when we know al-Qaeda does not, is bullshit. It’s asking the US to get it’s citizens killed for nothing more than faux moral exhibitionism.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kanz (1,219 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    Yes, you are right, the judgement states very clearly that he must make all reasonable steps to remove ‘defamatory material’ within one month from the date of the decision.

    I NOTE here the judgement says defamatory material – it DOES NOT specify only the defamatory material relating to Mr Karam.

    I suspect the Spinners will overlook the fact that they must REMOVE all of it – and knowing how much is on there regarding other people, I doubt they will have much to talk about in the future. Most of their ramblings seem to be concerned with other people rather than the matter they claim to be supporting.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Sanky? site. Yes, I have read the judgment. Actually I think the site was off line for more than a ‘few hours’. If as you say the sites’ existence is annoying to the Judge, then I am sure she would have ordered it to be taken down as part of the decision, as clearly that would be within her authority. Not so easy with facebook I am sure, but then if a court ordered a facebook profile to be removed, facebook would no doubt comply even if the ‘owners’ didn’t want to. Clearly the Judge knew the site is live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ goldnkiwi (646 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    It was not the site that was annoying to the Judge, it was the fact that Mr Parker (being a man of his word – NOT) said he would be taking the site down permanently – that is what he told the Judge, and he then reneged on that.

    I don’t think its wise to lie to Judges, or try to ‘trick’ them. But then when you have nothing to lose but a reputation that already stinks, I don’t suppose it matters much to him or any of his friends, who mostly seem to have similar reputations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Rubbish, knee jerk reaction on Kent’s part, perfectly understandable but unnecessary at that juncture and now. Bit hard under bombardment by cross examination to think everything through. One man against the behemoths’ and juggernauts’ of the legal profession.
    On reflection there was no need for it to be taken down without court direction, he was quite right. The court has chosen to not direct that still, confirming his understanding of the situation in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    The court is giving him the chance to be a man and take down all offending material or hang himself by not doing as instructed. Which do you think he will do? In my opinion he is not clever enough to know what to remove, and will be lead by the uninformed as he has up until now and leave it all there. Bye bye Kenty.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Now we have someone that took 30 years to get through Law School telling the board that giving an undertaking to the
    Court doesn’t have to be honoured. Maybe a donkey could make sense of that, I’m sure the Law Society wouldn’t. And so we now have the ‘one man’ syndrome, forgotten so quickly that it was a political party in the making and had the support of 20,000 people who were going to sign a petition. Wow – Kent sure knows how to gathers nutters together, oh that’s right he is one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ goldnkiwi (647 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    Except for years now, people have been telling him to get legal representation so that he isn’t ‘bombarded under cross examination’ but he refused to listen to that advice and insisted he was more than capable of taking care of the matter himself and winning.

    To now try and defend him based on the fact that what he was told by many people, and even advised by professionals, and he chose to ignore, has now worked out to be true – is rather pathetic don’t you think?

    He told the Court he was taking the site down – a subsequent conversation among members urged him to put it back on line, which he decided he would do. His excuse is as weak as his demeanor.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    One thing I struggle with understanding in the non-believers is that how pray tell, do they think this thing we call Christianity has survived all this time if Jesus really was just a human?

    Reid has just “proved” that Hinduism is true.

    “Hinduism has been called the “oldest religion” in the world…”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

    I don’t wish to be rude, Reid, but the fact that you ‘struggle to understand’ this really does explain a lot. It’s a completely infantile argument completely devoid of logic or reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    What Judith, all in a few hours like you said? Miraculous, surely it was at least a couple of weeks, but clearly unnecessary.
    Whether represented or not cross examination can still be harrowing, especially if it is a first experience. Subsequent appearances no doubt get easier as the processes are better understood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    Whether represented or not cross examination can still be harrowing, especially if it is a first experience.

    Which is an excuse to lie to the court? Not an acceptable defense, sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ goldnkiwi (648 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    Rubbish – he was warned time and time again by many people, including his own group members – but he insisted he knew what he was doing and would not be intimidated by the experience. He stated many times he completely understood the situation and it was well within his skill base to cope with it.

    His arrogance has got him into this situation – it is admirable that you try to defend him, but you are far too late for that. 2009 would have been the time for Mr Parker to have acted in a wise manner – he has had multiple occasions where he could have acted with integrity and done the right thing – but he chose not to – and now, well, I guess being defended by you is just what he deserves – I doubt any respectable Lawyer would touch it – and the less than respectable ones will probably ignore him too, especially knowing he’s clean out of cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    I guess we are lucky, again, to have it pointed out how a absolute loss is actually a victory. Great to have a lawyer telling the board how a Judge got in wrong by not overlooking Kent’s foot in his mouth. What joy. Anybody know of anyone who has been in the first year intake of Law School 27 times?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Isn’t nature wonderful, when even the shit on one’s shoe thinks it can have an opinion, especially a ‘legal’ one lol ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,827 comments) says:
    April 17th, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    [Ryan]“When you’re back, confirm that the Geneva Conventions apply to drone strikes, as you classify them as acts of war.”

    I don’t care of they do or not. The Geneva Conventions are irrelevant. They were not written for asymmetric warfare.

    The US has access to unprecedented overwhelming force, almost any conflict in which their military becomes involved is inherently asymmetric. The Geneva Conventions represent an idea that those resorting to armed conflict consider the consequences of the violence they are unleashing. Far from being irrelevant, those using armed force on behalf of a democratically elected body are representing the moral and ethical values of that society. If neither combatant is concerned with the predictable consequences of the violence to which they are resorting then we are witnessing a terror competition where the protagonists are competing with each other to perpetrate increasingly horrific levels of terrorism.

    This is the issue. The US is not only fighting a war, it is fighting one which has never been fought before. A global asymmetric war against a global terrorist organisation and it’s allies, that does not fight in any conventional sense, that does not have soldiers in uniforms on battlefields, and uses tactics specifically aimed at citizens is a radically new situation that the Geneva Convention did not foresee. Such a threat throws the rules out the door.

    Indifference to the suffering of civilians isn’t unique to Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates, the US military has a long history of slaughtering civilians en masse a long time before radical Islam turned up. In the eyes of the imperial force anyone opposing its exercise of force is potential combatant – as the Collateral Murder video comprehensively demonstrates.

    The US has two and only two moral imperatives. 1. Destroy al-Qaeda by any means necessary. 2. Defend it’s citizens.

    I don’t think this makes any sense.

    So while all the lefties whine from the safety of their armchairs that the US MUST obey their definition of the rules, while acknowledging that al-Qaeda will not, are just engaging in exactly the bullshit left wing bias I was talking about to begin with.

    “The US MUST obey the rules, even IF it gets Americans killed! Oh, but we know al-Qaeda won’t.” And I say, fuck that.

    The argument so far is less about what the US must or must not do, rather it is the values the US purports to be fighting for contrasted against the arbitrary acts of violence it is practicing. Using murder to justify the prevention of murder doesn’t work.

    The first responsibility of the US gov is to it’s citizens, not to dated rule books, not to armchair critics, and less to fashionable leftie anarchists who have suddenly (yeah right) found a passion for international law. The claim that because the US is a democracy it must have it’s hands tied, when we know al-Qaeda does not, is bullshit. It’s asking the US to get it’s citizens killed for nothing more than faux moral exhibitionism.

    Far from protecting its citizens the US’s exercise of military violence creates the conditions which ensure such a threat is an inevitable consequence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    A somewhat pertinent series of topics here as to the here and now and history.

    Freedom of speech and legitimate exercise of force by an imperial power and those opposing it and the connection to local elites in league with one or the other. Especially when connected to freedom of religion, freedom from religion and claimed respect for due higher authority.

    The Sanhedrin representing the Temple cult of Judea and the Pharisees would have both been acutely aware that the Hasmonean era (Alexander Jannaeus) had been a problem for both. And that the Essene promotion of a Messianic age revival could be exploited by zealots resorting to violence against Rome. Any public figure with associations with a national throne ancestry could soon attract nationalist support, regardless of their own position on the relative merits of a militant or pacifist renewal movement. And of course, as with many local elites that sided with the imperial cause against local terrorists, the word terrorist could be used to discredit any local dissident that posed a challenge to their authority.

    There are many examples over the years since 9/11 re how this can be exploited by locals in league with imperial power. Moslems advocating for democracy soon portrayed by military or royal rulers as Islamists associated with terrorists. This has posed a problem for the West in so far that its anti-terrorist actions were to be legitimate, and in no way inimical to an emergent democracy in Moslem nations. Yet despite this, local rulers have manipulated public opinion in the imperial West to

    1. obtain consent for their suppression of democracy.
    2. diminish support from the West for democratic transition.
    3. discredit those that threaten established power.

    Possibly it is the more Christian of the West that have bought into this local ME ruler tactic (and in both Israel as well as surrounding Arab nations). Israel and the surrounding Arab elites have common interest in there being a real politic understanding whereby democracy is secondary to security.

    Of course, as in Malaysia, there is the inference that the dissident is immoral, rather than just apart from the religious or political orthodoxy.

    But ultimately the matter is one of the peoples security, is it better that someone who poses a threat to the imperial peace established for the national realm should die, so that the risk goes away? Inferring a problem with the legitimacy of the individual, as one of the religion/national people, is to make this choice more palatable to public opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    After the American lie about the head of the CIA being in Ukraine, Putin finally admits Russian forces were in Crimea.

    He says this to increase credibility to his claim that they are not yet in Ukraine (whether this is true we cannot easily know).

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11240146

    Ukraine was wrong to respond to local activists as they did (re show of force). Much smarter would have been overnight movements into key airfield positions (to reduce Russian troop movement options) and a statement that decisions on autonomous rule in the east (as Crimea had) would be determined after presidential and parliamentary elections – with the candidates and parties seeking mandate for their policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Collins admits that some may have seen her as a shape shifting reptilian, but now can see she is just another human politician.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11240077

    Whether the affair had damaged her politically was for others to judge, she said. “But I think most people see that this is a situation where having my family attacked like this and brought into it in some way humanises me because I’ve never been seen as someone was particularly human.”
    ——————————————————————————-

    Sure, it’s hard to prove someone is down to earth, and one of us, until they cohabitate with another human.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Stealing kittens from little children, police involved before she would return it, the lowest scoring mayoral candidate in how many local elections, not to mention warnings regarding bribing the electorate members, and a person that sued their own father, and we won’t even mention the donkey – now thinks she can hear the shit on her shoe talking to her. Oh my, there isn’t much further to fall is there?

    Are you sure its not your own voice you can hear? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    When will someone at the New Zealand Herald realise that none of the links on their front page work, you simply get a page refresh (the whole world is embarrassed for you)?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “The US has access to unprecedented overwhelming force, almost any conflict in which their military becomes involved is inherently asymmetric.”

    Nonsense. You don’t understand the meaning of the term asymmetric, and “unprecedented overwhelming force” is dubious. Calling the power of the US military “unprecedented” is loading your definition with subjective hyperbole as a weak attempt to justify terrorism.

    “The argument so far is less about what the US must or must not do, rather it is the values the US purports to be fighting for contrasted against the arbitrary acts of violence it is practicing.”

    Bollocks. The reason the US is fighting has to do with the only value that matters in this situation, defending it’s citizens.

    The rhetoric in any war tends to get a bit flowery, but nobody takes that seriously. The reason a country goes to war after an event like 911 is self defence.

    Whether or not Lefties are happy with that or not is irrelevant.

    “Using murder to justify the prevention of murder doesn’t work.”

    Killing terrorists soldiers is not murder. That’s leftie propaganda, not objective moral fact. And you might as well say that putting rapists in jail does not work.

    “Far from protecting its citizens the US’s exercise of military violence creates the conditions which ensure such a threat is an inevitable consequence.”

    Bullshit. This is a standard leftie claim that is not born out by history. Neither Japan nor Germany are threats to anyone. Why? They lost. At any time in WW2 the claim could have been made that the actions of the allies were just provoking Japan and Germany.

    Making the claim during an ongoing war is pseudo-intellectual drivel. ‘Violence in self defence just makes more violence” is a mindless, greeting card level slogan for lefties who have given up serious thinking about issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. muggins (3,586 comments) says:

    I see there are some people still posting on yesterdays daily debate so I guess I might as well do so.
    All I would say is that those posters on kiwiblog who continue to support a multiple murderer have no morals or scruples.
    Not surprising , I guess , when one of them is himself a double killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Kanz (1,367 comments) says:

    Morals and scruples consist of paying one’s dues. Those without scruples are those who would hide behind their age, and attempt to avoid taking any responsibility for their reprehensible behaviour. Those who can only feel good about themselves by making others look bad and needing to lie to do even that.Those without morals are the ones who need to join lynch mobs so that they can claim to have friends. Sad pathetic people who make themselves a laughing stock and do it publicly, such as the jfrb group.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,835 comments) says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 7:57 am

    Making the claim during an ongoing war is pseudo-intellectual drivel. ‘Violence in self defence just makes more violence” is a mindless, greeting card level slogan for lefties who have given up serious thinking about issues.

    So in your serious mind, is the US the only country in the world that can assassinate people with drones or if China or Iran decided they would start using killer drones to eliminate people outside their territory with whom they’ve decided they’re at war, you would have no problem with that? Or is the US whacking whoever it wants, wherever it wants ok because the victims are generally darker skinned people being dealt to by the kind of wholesome apple-pie white kids we have been conditioned to identify with through being constantly bombarded by media images. Is this really the best you can do, Shawn?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Or is the US whacking whoever it wants, wherever it wants ok because the victims are generally darker skinned people being dealt to by the kind of wholesome apple-pie white kids we have been conditioned to identify with through being constantly bombarded by media images.”

    LOL!! :) Seriously? It’s all about racism? That’s the best you can do? And the large numbers of African Americans in the US military has no bearing on the issue? Or the large numbers of Native Americans? Or the large numbers of Latinos?

    Cripes man, the best I can do is clearly better than your drivel.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    You’ve been reading ‘How to Answer Complex Questions with Simplistic Left Wing Slogans For Dummies’ a little too much Yowza. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Of course it’s about race. Do you honestly believe the US would get away with using drone strike assassinations against white targets in developed countries. Those white militias in the US have already demonstrated they are prepared to resort to mass-murder to make a point, Timothy McVeigh proved that. Cliven Bundy has called for an armed insurrection to take on the federal government there, he holds no fear of being the target of a drone assassination. The major mass killing in which the federal government participated at Waco has been the subject of volumes of analysis in the media and official reports – killing a similar number in Pakistan, Yemen or Afghanistan would struggle to get a mention in the middle of a mainstream daily.

    Brown skinned people in poorer regions of the planet do not rate highly enough in the eyes of the Western elite to merit human rights when the US is projecting its authority around the globe.

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