About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

April 3, 2007 1:39pm by David Farrar

Waa waa waa waa waa

waa waa waa was waa , Mummy that National Party is the nasty party. Waa waa.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment71

Uncategorised

Related Stories

Translation of latest Brian Rudman column
Waa waa waa says Internet Mana
Yawn

Comments (71)

Login to comment or vote

Whaleoil

And then he goes onto say about National;
“creepy conservatism”
“tough and uncaring”
“combined with a bit of the more British descent into racism”
“hyperliberalism and me-first attitudes”
“unholy debate about Section 59”.
“aggressive throwbacks”
“tone of National MPs in this debate has been nothing but nasty and indeed sinister”
“regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers”
“fruitcakes of the far religious right”
“I’ll be raising this evidence of National showing its true face as the Nasty Party.”

Oh look who is the nasty one…it would be Jordan and the Labour party.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 4:55pm
tim barclay

But when they get perasonal like this you just know you have won the argument. Good to see.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 5:56pm
GPT

I would have to say it is getting a little tiresome being branded as either stupid for not understanding him or nasty/bad/right wing idelogue for disagreeing with him. It must be nice to be Jordan and have all the answers…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 6:04pm
Neil Morrison

Maybe Jordan doesn’t know that the Rabid Left niche of the political ecosphere has already been filled over at TUMEKE WITH AN EXCLAMATION MARK IN CASE YOU DON’T GET I’M REALLY REALLY OUTRAGED AND IRRATIONAL.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 6:25pm
dad4justice

Hey Jordan are the leftie people suffering from back firing utopianism ?? oh dear- lets blame karl and sigmund eh ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 6:42pm
AGJ

Internal polling must be showing them to be taking a hammering.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 6:42pm
Craig Ranapia

Fuck-a-doodle-doo, did someone get on the bullet train to Crazy Town or what? I’d like to get back to being able to defend Jordan as one of the more temperate and thoughtful Labour bloggers out there…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 7:10pm
idiotboy

Whaleoil says – “Oh look who is the nasty one.”

Ah – Whaleoil – so you are saying that it is nasty to say that national is nasty. Would it therefore be true that you are nasty to say that it is nasty to say that national is nasty? Would it therefore be true that i am now being nasty in saying that you are being nasty in saying that it is nasty to say that national is nasty?

The argument you make here, dear Whaleoil, is of the ‘I know you are, you said you are so what am I’ variety. It is commonly used by five-year olds and mentally retarded people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 9:31pm
burt

idiotboy

Whaleoil hit the nail on the head all the same.

BTW: Like your ad hominem, his point was proven with a simple level of debating skills – therefore it must be invalid.

Na… He’s spot on. Plenty of people agree with him here and over on Jordan’s.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 10:28pm
jay

Craig R and others inclined to use expletives in their posts – please don’t! I like to check this blog at work occasionally, but our web filters pick up language like that and report it for possible improper use. Then unless I want a conversation with the departmental netnazis, I have to wait a month or so before visiting the blog again. sign
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 10:30pm
Craig Ranapia

jay:

Well, that’s fair enough – then again, I work in a place where you’ve got to apply for internet access and it’s closely monitored. Personally, I find a bit of *ahem* Anglo-Saxon vernacular easier to take than a rabies facial, but as Sly Stone used to say, different strokes for different folks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 3, 2007 11:10pm
dad4justice

idiot boy can you give jordan back up ( excuse the pun ) as he is getting hammered by nasty national supporters on his blog .
Thank you dear .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 7:57am
Fletch

I heard a whacky radio DJ refer to the Govt as the ‘Labia Party’ the other day; probably not too far from the truth….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 8:19am
Whaleoil

Idiotboy…how apt is that moniker?…I need say no more.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 8:31am
phil u

jordan carter said..

vis a vis national on bradfords’ bill..

“..To line up with a bunch of regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers to lie to the public about an emotive issue and whip up totally underserved hysteria will fatally undermine the whole careful repositioning that National has tried to adopt since Key took over…”

um..what is untrue about that..?

there will be many in national who are cringing at the reactionary/regressive rhetoric coming from national..(with some honourable exceptions..rich..et.al..)..

and with the reactionary fundo-wingnuts national is siding with/echoing their rhetoric..

how is any of that incorrect..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 9:39am
dad4justice

Phil froths “reactionary fundo-wingnuts” that is the meaning under the word “Greens” in my dictionary !!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 9:53am
phillipjohn

Whale oil: considering your track record, you should be the last to speak on issues of nastiness.

Craig: I think Jordan has a right to be angry at the Nat’s cynical manipulation of this issue. Sure they have a right to be utilising every legal leverage to get back in power. But when you’re lining up with victorian-minded religious bigots, and indulging in a campaign of manipulation and lies in order to achieve this end, you have to wonder whether your sacrafacing your decency in the process. And jordan is right, when the public discovers that this bill doesn’t result in decent kiwis being persecuted by the police they are going to be thinking about how they were taken for a ride by the National Party and its associated bible bashers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 10:00am
dad4justice

Remember Phil that your lunatic – utopian infested – tree hugging mates shut down Timberlands and lots of angry residents were further insulted when Helen Clark called them feral inbred’s while the sad fiasco was going on . It was the best forest management plan in the world !!!

pj – you are a sad person .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 10:03am
Nicholas O'Kane

Phil u said:
“..To line up with a bunch of regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers to lie to the public about an emotive issue and whip up totally underserved hysteria will fatally undermine the whole careful repositioning that National has tried to adopt since Key took over…”

um..what is untrue about that..?
1)The “child-hating” part. Obviously he believes that a parent who gives their child a light smack for misbehaving hates children.
2) The “whip up totally underserved hysteria” part. The fact Labour plans to vote down the Borrows ammendment indicates that they want to ban the use of force when it only causes “transitory and triffling” harm gives reason to believe that they intend to ban smacking. If Labour was genuine about not banning smacking they could vote for the Borrows ammendment or propose their own ammendment to xplicitly allow smacking for correction.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 10:27am
Anon

What is all this stuff about opponents of the Bradford Bill telling lies? I support the Bradford Bill precisely because it does ban smacking. The only lies being told are by those who claim it doesn’t. If Bradford and co would just stand up for principle and tell the truth about what the bill does they might win some respect and win over the public on the issue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 10:28am
insider

PJ Can you provide any examples of this “cynical manipulation” and “a campaign of manipulation and lies in order to achieve this end”?

And seems odd that in a democratic society you view “lining up with victorian-minded religious bigots” as either unusual or even offensive. Are such bigots not allowed to express views and can they not also be genuinely held by other NZers? Why the need to smear?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 10:42am
phil u

um nicholas..i didn’t say that..i was quoting the piece under attack..

btw..i am cheered that you only disagree with the ‘child-beating’ part..

so you are ok with the “regressive fundamentalist losers’ description in that line..?

that’s a start..i guess..

and i’m with anon..

and am totally against children being hit by anyone anytime…

and after this ‘excuse for abuse’ is removed..

we will see the same sea-change in societies attitudes that we have seen since corporal punishment in schools was banned..

the very idea of that horrifies the sane amongst us..now..

but oh…!..the cries/lamentations/predictions of anarchy in the classrooms…

when teachers’ ‘rights’ to cane/strap our children were taken away from them..

and the repeal of section 59 will lead to ‘no more smacking’…

eventually…

so..nic o’kane..(cane..funny that thing about names..eh..?..)

there is no way i would support your call/plaintive cry..

to..”..xplicitly allow smacking for correction…”

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

btw..whaleblubber said…”…I need say no more..”

how on the money/freudian is that..?

one day he might really surprise us all..eh..?

and come up with an idea..?

or..at the very least..a coherent argument/riposte..?

we live in hope..eh..?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 10:57am
dad4justice

Translate please you nutbar drug addict !!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:04am
phil u

(sigh..!..)..do try and keep up..d4j.

or..you could go and play in the other room/outside for a while..?

if you like..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:17am
phillipjohn

PJ Can you provide any examples of this “cynical manipulation”

well, national has been perpetuating the idea that this bill will turn good parents into criminals, giviing the impression that you may end up in jail for giving your child a light smack. This is clearly manipulative and misleading, the police will not proceed wit ha prosecution on such grounds. it’s like saying that assault laws turn decent kiwi males into criminals because they sometimes may pat their mates on the shoulder. Technically that could be construed as assult, but the police have more common sense than to take such a complaint seriously – you see what i mean?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:19am
idiotboy

burt –

Ok then – well, is this then a case of ‘shooting the messenger’? What about the message itself – why not take a shot at that? whaleoil’s only contribution is to directly quote the message – i dont know about you, but if whaleoil wants to convince me that I should disagree with what he quoted then he will have to go a hell of a lot further than just saying – ‘the messenger is nasty’.

What are the actual issues here? For example:

If the Christian-right insists on making death-threats against other peoples children because of a difference of opinion – then do you think that the author is wrong in describing them as:

“regressive child-hating, fundamentalist losers”
“fruitcakes of the far religious right”

If so then why? Why do you think that is ok for the far religious-right to act in this way?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:21am
phillipjohn

D4J

you have to either be disingenuous or a bit dull to be claiming that you can’t comprehend Phil U’s posts – yes they’re written unconventionally and even creatively, but they certainly aren’t incomprehensible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:24am
dad4justice

Sorry pj I can’t understand utopianism language.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:28am
llew

“you have to either be disingenuous or a bit dull to be claiming that you can’t comprehend Phil U’s posts ”

I like that there’s less of the “eh?”, today 🙂

That was nothing personal Phil.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:30am
dad4justice

I don’t see Phil posting over at Public Address as I don’t think they have got a interpreter either ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:32am
idiotboy

dad4justice says –

“idiot boy can you give jordan back up ( excuse the pun ) as he is getting hammered by nasty national supporters on his blog. Thank you dear.”

No. But thank you for asking so politely – dear.

love ya – ya big ole cuddly wuddly teddy bear you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:35am
dad4justice

Careful idiotboy the anaconda doesn’t like being disturbed by intruders .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:38am
idiotboy

put it away – dad4justice – put it away…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:41am
insider

PJ

I could be wrong but I don’t recall any politician seriously saying someone could end up in gaol for giving a child a light smack – do you have an example? A conviction yes. If you are convicted under the crimes act you are by definition a criminal I would have thought. However, given it is a crimes act offence, it possibly ‘could’ end in a gaol sentence though that would probably be the result of previous offending.

But whether you agree with the liklihood, it is not manipulative and misleading to posit the potential outcomes of a law change, especially in the face of various police comments that they will have to investigate complaints. You are equally open to the accusation of being manipulative and misleading to say they will not prosecute.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:45am
dad4justice

Love to chat idiot, but I must prepare myself as I got to McKenzie friend a confused person in criminal court 2.15pm – pre trial depo’s .Unfortnately I can’t tell the judge to “put it away ” .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 11:47am
idiotboy

well – dad4justice – you just make sure that you put it away before you attend that appointment – not a good look mate – not a good look at all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 12:06pm
Pita

I see that the the comment s to Jordan’s entry closed at 9.57 this morning…not one comment in support for his vituperative diatribe…perhaps some of the trolls that frequent this site should go and lend him a hand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 12:56pm
idiotboy

“child-hating” –

The Christian-right insists on making death-threats against other peoples children because of a difference of opinion.

Oh my Lawd! – That thar is some of that thar “child-hating” right thar – is it not mates? Oh my Lawd!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 1:13pm
idiotboy

“child-hating” –

Graham Capill preaches Christian values while molesting young girls.

Oh my Lawd! – That thar is some more of that thar “child-hating” right thar – is it not mates? Oh my Lawd! When will it stop?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 1:27pm
idiotboy

I’ll tell you when it will stop – It will stop when you people have the moral fortitude (read: the guts) to condemn their actions outright!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 1:37pm
idiotboy

But oh no – the silence is deafening.

Well kiddies – do not be too surprised if you, yourself are labelled a “child-hater”. You made your bed – you f**king sleep in it!

If you can…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 1:47pm
dad4justice

Who employed Capill as a police prosecuter ?

Wasn’t it the corrupt department of injustice ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 2:03pm
dad4justice

Got you again you f..ked up idiot !!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 2:10pm
sean14

pj – how does sharing a similar viewpoint with “victorian-minded religious bigots”, as you might consider them, mean that National is “lining up” with them? Might it just not mean that they agree on this particular issue? Can I line up with the churches on this despite being an atheist?

Sharing a point of view with a group or individual on one particular issue does not mean that you automatically endorse everything they stand for, as the Left has consistently tried to make out by tarring all and sundry as fundamentalists.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 2:12pm
llew

“Sharing a point of view with a group or individual on one particular issue does not mean that you automatically endorse everything they stand for, as the Left has consistently tried to make out by tarring all and sundry as fundamentalists”

Well said Sean14. I’ve even found myself agreeing with most here on some issues, even Redbaiter, probably should have told him at the time.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 2:19pm
idiotboy

sean14 said – “”victorian-minded religious bigots”, as you might consider them”

Of course you, yourself wouldn’t have the guts to criticise their actions in any way now would you?

sean14 said – “Sharing a point of view with a group or individual on one particular issue does not mean that you automatically endorse everything they stand for.”

Indeed – it may not. But when you state your support for that group or individual on most issues while failing to condemn outright evil in the actions of that group or individual – one is left wondering.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 2:40pm
phillipjohn

Sean – I would count adopting and deseminating someone’s rehtoric as lining up with them. Wouldn’t you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 2:53pm
Craig

DF hasn’t linked to it yet, but Jordan has posted a “reprise” to all of the comments he received. Needless to say he thinks the comments just prove his original post to be correct. Worth a read if you need your blood pressure raising, or a good laugh, depending on your approach to life.
Wonder how long it will be before he gets the Cullen treatment…i.e. shut down with no apology.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 2:54pm
sean14

Idiotboy – I don’t recall personally attacking you, but thanks for calling me gutless. How could you possibly have any idea of who or what groups I would/wouldn’t criticise? You don’t know me.

“But when you state your support for that group or individual on most issues while failing to condemn outright evil in the actions of that group or individual – one is left wondering”

Who is the ‘you’ in that sentence, and what groups or individuals are you talking about?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:03pm
phillipjohn

A little bit off topic, but I consider this the most profound soungs written about abuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQDuRb7uP0k&mode=related&search=
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:03pm
sean14

pj – on a single issue, no. To my mind, lining up means general agreement on most issues. I agree for example with Helen Clark that whaling is abhorrent, but that doesn’t mean I am lining up with the Labour party (and I sure won’t be voting for them). I just agree on this particular issue. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:11pm
idiotboy

Sean14 says – “I don’t recall personally attacking you, but thanks for calling me gutless.”

Sorry Sean14 – please accept my apology. I got a bit carried away there.

Sean14 says – “Who is the ‘you’ in that sentence, and what groups or individuals are you talking about?”

The ‘you’ in that sentence is John Key and the group is the National Party.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:14pm
phillipjohn

This is semantics sean – the fact is that the Nats have taken up the disingenuous and misleading arguments of some old school christian fundies in order to some cheap political points. Call it what you want, but it’s always going to be distasteful.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:22pm
burt

I think Jordan should re-name his blog to an acronym of his name.

Just Offering Random Denigration Against National

idiot boy

Give up. You made a fool of yourself claiming that Whaleoil’s argument was of the level usually used by 5yr/olds or retards. If as you claimed his argument was wrong, then you would have made him look very silly. However your attack on Whaleoil failed and so the only conclusion is that you would be beaten in a debate by either a 5yr/old or a retard. The fact you still try to dig yourself deeper further supports this conclusion.

If you want to run with the big dogs – don’t piss like a puppy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:32pm
Craig

PJ- politics is distasteful, across ALL parties. As long as politics is about power rather than public service, it always will be. Let’s not pretend that Labours stance on this bill is anything other than for political gain..ie. keeping the Greens on-side, so they can stay in power. Let’s keep both eyes open.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:37pm
idiotboy

Craig says – “Worth a read if you need your blood pressure raising, or a good laugh, depending on your approach to life.”

I dunno – i think both sides could appreciate this one:

“Having ya face up Clarks minge as long as Jordan has will send ya loopy eventually.”

lol!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:39pm
sean14

Cheers idiotboy, fair enough. I don’t recall John Key and/or the National Party ever stating their support on most issues for, for lack of a better term, extreme religious groups, though I do recall their support for the right to religious freedom. The attack on Bill English recently for conducting a constituency clinic with Exclusive Bretheren was just ridiculous – the implication being that MPs should screen who they meet with based on religious grounds.

Anyway, that’s off the point. For the record, I think that National and the EB took part in some dodgy behaviour at the last election, and I find it very hard to take seriously a group that seeks to exert influence over the political process while refusing to exercise the most basic right in a democratic society.

I also think that Labour took part in some dodgy behaviour, the pledge card springs to mind. Neither side is lily white, and I don’t understand how anyone can claim perfection for their side. In the case of the section 59 debate, I simply don’t think it is reasonable to state that the National party is endorsing “fundamentalists” and their practices because they happen to agree on this one particular issue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:40pm
phillipjohn

“PJ- politics is distasteful, across ALL parties. As long as politics is about power rather than public service, it always will be. Let’s not pretend that Labours stance on this bill is anything other than for political gain. ie. keeping the Greens on-side, so they can stay in power. Let’s keep both eyes open.’

OK Craig, I’ll give up the assertion that the Labour Party is the paragon of moral virtue – oh, that ‘s right, I never said such a thing. Overall however I do agree with you – But I can’t let you Tories do all the moralising now can i?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:50pm
idiotboy

burt said – “so the only conclusion is that you would be beaten in a debate by either a 5yr/old or a retard.”

sh*t burt you are right – and by beating me in this debate you have proven your point once again – brilliant!

please burt – have mercy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 3:53pm
burt

idiot boy

I was responding to:

“burt –

Ok then – well, is this then a case of…”

Just have mercy on yourself – I had no intention of beating you any further than you had beaten yourself – until you tried to keep it going.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:05pm
Craig

Fair enough Mr PJ. I’ll agree you made an assertion rather than a comment. However, you might like to agree that you have asserted I am a Tory even though I have never said so. In case you missed it in my last post….I have a rather strong aversion to all politicians. I wish they would all give up, retire to Queensland with all the other morons and leave the country to people who care about our country. Now you may feel free to put me in whatever pidgeon hole you choose. Cheers.
Ps: feel free to marolise away, it is a free country…unless you’re a chinese/NZ reporter.
🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:05pm
idiotboy

Craig says – “politics is distasteful, across ALL parties”.

It is the degree of distastefulness that bothers me. You got death-threats to children and a child-molesting leader on one side. What do you have on the other?

Seriously.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:09pm
idiotboy

burt –

You don’t need to tell me what you were responding to – your argument is surely, absolutely devastating.

My only problem is this: What part of “please burt – have mercy” do you not understand mafugga!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:16pm
dad4justice

pj thinks the Marxist red dishonest people are the “paragon of moral virtue” , poor wimpish /foolish git, I think he meant to write that they are a paradox of moral virtue .

Clearly pj has continued to exhibit signs and symptoms consistent with a mental disorder, namely delusional disorder .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:19pm
dad4justice

As for idiot girl – she shows signs strongly suggestive of paranoid persecutory delusions .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:22pm
phillipjohn

D4J – you always make me laugh, whether it’s with you or at you, usually the latter (though your use of snake metaphores has been getting a bit out of hand lately).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:25pm
dad4justice

I feel sorry for you as you exhibit perceptual disturbances, thought disorder and delusions of reference .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:33pm
burt

idiotboy

There are two old saying:

1. Once you have sold – shut up.
2. If you find yourself in a hold – stop digging.

Either make any sense to you ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:37pm
burt

oops…

2. If you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 4:41pm
Matty

…meanwhile, over at Kiwiblog, dad4justice demonstrates an acute case of Freud-textbook-shoved-so-far-up-the-backside-it’s-dislodged-his brain.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 5:02pm
idiotboy

burt –

“If you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.”

Sorry burt – but you see my problem is this – my stupidity is so incredibly mind-boggling that i just cannot tell that i am actually in a hole – thus i just keep digging.

Again – burt please – have mercy! boohoohoohoo – see look what you have done now – you have made me cry!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 4, 2007 5:45pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The Bazley Report

David Russell retires »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Top Stories

General Debate 23 April 2024
Call for Support: Has the Time Come for a Wellington Ratepayer Activist Group?
General Debate 24 April 2024
A good win for Newsroom
A weak Three Strikes law
The Otago University backlash
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1
Dunne on Labour
General Debate 22 April 2024
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body

Recent Posts

General Debate 24 April 2024 24 April 2024
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1 24 April 2024
Call for Support: Has the Time Come for a Wellington Ratepayer Activist Group? 23 April 2024
A good win for Newsroom 23 April 2024
General Debate 23 April 2024 23 April 2024
A weak Three Strikes law 23 April 2024
The Otago University backlash 22 April 2024
Dunne on Labour 22 April 2024
General Debate 22 April 2024 22 April 2024
Guest Post: Moral Equivalence Hamas and Israel 22 April 2024
The hate crime fiasco in Scotland 21 April 2024
General Debate 21 April 2024 21 April 2024

Never miss a post

Email Address

Recent Comments

General Debate 24 April 2024
MCōs
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1
David Garrett
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1
Wayne Mapp
General Debate 24 April 2024
mikenmildagain
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1
Benedict Yu
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1
David Garrett
General Debate 24 April 2024
Local Miller
General Debate 24 April 2024
imalwaysright
General Debate 24 April 2024
bennerg
General Debate 24 April 2024
thirteenstars
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1
cmm
General Debate 24 April 2024
Benedict Yu
General Debate 24 April 2024
imalwaysright
General Debate 24 April 2024
MCōs
Meet a (Won’t be a striker at all) – former Third Striker # 1
David Garrett

Links

Professor Robert MacCulloch: How National Can Neutralize Serious Allegations of Corruption
Breaking Views
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Your New Meme That’s Fun To Be With
No Minister
REEFTON – THE NEW PARIS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Political Caption Competition
The Daily Blog
Open mike 24/04/2024
The Standard
More criminal miners
No Right Turn
A Look at the Wacky Transit Industry
Utopia
#CountdownToAnzacDay: On “the last afterglow of the most radiant cultural atmosphere in human history”
Not PC
RMA reforms aim to ease stock-grazing rules and reduce farmers’ costs – but Taxpayers’ Union wants even more changes
Point of Order
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Puberty blocker story backfires
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d