General Debate 10 August 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment153

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (153)

Login to comment or vote

Patrick Starr

as predicted, Carter plays the gay card

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10589753

what a disgrace that guy is
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:04am
starboard

..herald
“because he was so busy as a minister he rarely took holidays. He might have taken one last year”.

..so carters sayin he cant remember if he took a holiday last year or not..fuck off , if his brain cant stretch to remembering a simple holiday..what the fucks he doin as an MP..he’s not up to it obviously. clarks not here to bail you out now fag…you’re on your own…start explain mincer…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:21am
Paul Marsden

Gay my arse. His snout is bigger than the trough. Note to Carter: When in hole, stop digging.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:26am
Patrick Starr

(hey paul, you may want to rethink that first bit?)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:29am
dimmocrazy

To me, the fact that they don’t simply open the books for all to see says more than enough…….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:29am
Jadis

It’s crazy to think that being gay means the MSM hounded him. The media hounded him because he spent a sizable chunk of taxpayer money and took his partner pretty much everywhere he went. I hope he’s not insinuating that there’s a greater need for a gay man to take his partner on work trips, than there is for a straight man. What would gay rights activists have to say about that insinuation?

What is it with Labour? Rather than take responsibility for themselves they blame it on somebody else or some sort of discriminatory action on the part of the rest of society. Carter suggests it is being gay made him a target, with Field it was a cultural issue, the list goes on. C’mon take some personal responsibility!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:29am
big bruv

Thank you Patrick, I did say that Carter would play the gay card.

Our media need to show Carter up for what he is, instead of running away now that Carter has played the gay card they need to take him to task for doing so.

It is NOT about your sexuality Carter it is about the naked abuse of public funds.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:29am
Don the Kiwi

CC = PPP.

🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:29am
CraigM

Mr Carter, you are being questioned because of your activities, not because of your sexual preference.

Way to try closing down the debate. I can imagine the strategy session…play the gay card, then whomever keeps after you, we can call them homophobic…..that’ll stop ’em….

Gutter politics Carter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:31am
Glutaemus Maximus

Just like the very many Labour MP’s in the UK that couldn’t remember whether they had paid their mortgage off?

We have been lucky enough to have visited some flash resorts. On one trip to Oman, there was a huge contingent of European Gays.

Very funny company, and rip roaring humour. They have no children to put through private school or UNI. Therefore loads of money

to spend.

I had just got a set of B&O headphones, and also some in ear B&O earpieces.

For me it was about the quality of the sound. I also had a Bose headphone set prior. And an I-pod with 12,000 tunes.

These chaps were not interested in any technical details, or the sound quality. Just the label, and the LOOK.

I found it all a bit strange to be honest.

The point is that, Gays try and outspend each other! A lot!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:31am
Patrick Starr

no prob BB – (we both did)

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/colleagues_warned_carter.html#comment-594116
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:33am
Glutaemus Maximus

To Clint Heine.

Being old and incompetent, and still trying to learn Apple Mac. I couldn’t mail you.

Perhaps you could detail your mail address here?

cheers,

GM
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:44am
Terry J

‘He said that as Education Minister he had been only the fourth-highest traveling minister last year’, (‘traveling’ the new code word for spending ) but now he has played the Gay Card the headlines should read “Chris Carter number one spending Gay member of the Labour government”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:48am
Auberon

Starboard, “fag”, “mincer”, really? While I’m unimpressed at Carter playing the gay card I think it’s using such labels that gives this forum a bad rep.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:50am
philu

http://whoar.co.nz/2009/comment-whoarchris-carter-plays-the-its-because-im-gay-victim-cardand-in-doing-sohelps-finishing-the-digging-on-his-own-political-grave/

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:00am
Grizz

Message to Chris Carter.

My problem with you is that you spent vast quantities of our money taking your partner on business trips which the taxpayer, ie us have to pay for.

I do not care if it was your, wife, mother, child, auntie, bookie, dog or even some butty boy that you picked up from Pattaya. the fact is if you want to make a whole lot of overseas trips and take a companion with you, do the honorable thing and pay for it out of your own money.

We are not that shallow and insecure. Please do not play the gay card to hide from your responsibilities again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:01am
siobhan

Does this mean Bill English can play the straight card?

I had to have a big ministerial house in wellington because me and my wife breed like rabbits.

I don’t think so Chris Carter – what a miserable prick? You do the Gay community a huge disservice for playing your greed as an anti-gay issue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:01am
tom hunter

A couple of days ago there was some point made about a general lack of critique and analysis on this forum – specifically in the case of the Obamacare debate currently raging in the US.

Someone also wondered why the debate was important to us here in NZ, which is a good point. My response would be that we’re having the same arguments here about a great many things, in our case the arguments being aided by the fact that we can see the problems with the types of systems being pushed by Obama, while at the same being hampered by the fact that we’re far down the hole the Yanks may be about to jump into.

As a result I thought I’d finally follow up on the details of the Pearlstein article that kicked off the kerfuffle rather than just looking at the stupidly partisan nature of it. The original article is here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html?nav=hcmodule):”

Apologies in advance about the length of the post.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress — I’ve made a few myself.

Remember – criticisms are “valid” only when expostulated by a WaPo “business reporter” – or a Blue Dog Democrat.

But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

There are now numerous, in-context, video quotes up on the Web from Democrats, including President Obama himself, that state their intention to replace private insurers with a government-run, single-payer healthcare system. Up until now they have not been shy about making this objective clear because they think it is evil that private sector companies should make a profit from healthcare and they have long been filled with admiration for the government health care monopolies of Canada, Britain, and numerous European countries.
Moreover this has been a long-held article of faith among left-wingers everywhere on the planet: the belief that profit from healthcare is fundamentally evil animates most of the conversation about the NZ healthcare system.
The reason these past comments are now being ignored, denied or obfuscated, is that such activists have always recognised that such a revolution could not be undertaken in one hit. It would have to be done slowly and gradually. Again – Obama himself is on record as saying that it might take 10-20 years to happen. Very sly.
So who are the liars really?

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

See the last comment above. Also note that the Obama campaign spent millions on advertising that hammered McCain’s individual tax exemption plan on this very point. It’s the number-one fear of people who are currently insured – a fear that Obama exploited but that Republicans are not allowed to exploit – because it’s “a flat-out lie”.
See also the fast drive-by statement of “…..who are not old….will continue to be able to buy health insurance from private companies”.
Mr Pearlstein may not have connected this with the disproportionate numbers of elderly people turning up at townhall meetings to give their reps an earful.

The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange — along with their employers — would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy.

Why would there need to be a new “exchange” – all that would be needed would be to allow people to buy out-of-state insurance and get the same tax deduction that companies already get. Pretty simple changes that fall far short of needing a 1000 page piece of legislation.
The degree to which government in the US (state and federal) is already “active” in regulating insurers has to be seen to be believed. I used to wonder why they even bothered being in the business or whether it really could be called private sector at all.
Just a side note, the US government (state and federal), already accounts for about half of all medical spending in the country. Not exactly what I would call a private sector environment.

There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won’t be able to piggy-back on Medicare.

I guess terrorism works.

So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business — the Republican nightmare scenario — is approximately zero.

I guess terrorism works.

If the government set up a large, state-owned farm next to mine, it’s access to cheap money via the Treasury or issuance of bonds (government backed you see), together with it’s influence on regulatory issues of all sorts, and it’s closeness to both regulators and politicians (because Government businesses cannot be allowed to fail), would mean it was highly probable that I would eventually be driven out of business – most likely selling my farm to the Government conglomerate.
I would have thought that a “business reporter” would have some idea of such possibilities.

By now, you’ve probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.
First of all, that’s not a trillion every year, as most people assume — it’s a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.

A lie? Perhaps he should blame the media for soundbites when looking at complex analysis from that hotbed of Republican thuggery, the Congressional Budget Office. Or maybe he should blame the idiots pushing this thing for not having the nous to have been pushing the “per-year” figure.
However, Pearlstien might note that Medicare and Medicaid were going to cost “only” about $1.5 billion a year when they were introduced in the mid-60’s. Last I looked Medicare is now $600 billion per year and growing. That’s not atypical for a Government-run “business”.

Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare:

Before we get to those let’s note that the trillion dollar estimate could also be said to grossly understate the cost because it only goes out to 10 years and because several elements will only be phased in during that time. Their costs don’t really kick in until later. The result is that when the CBO analysis is extended by about 3 years the cost jumps to $2 trillion.
Again, if one is a business reporter one would expect to be aware of PV calculations and the trickiness of cherry-picking time periods. Also for the accuracy of government forecasts (see Medicare in the mid-60’s forecasting the mid-70’s).
But let’s look at the detail of Mr Pearlstein’s argument about what reasonable proposals are being demonised by those partisan Republicans.

reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers,

I see that there is no definition of “unnecessary”. Perhaps they’ve resulted from the usual lobbying of politicians, in which case while they probably should be given the boot such a politicised birth means an unlikely political death, especially in a new environment that even more closely involves politicians.
In any case, whatever gap was filled by the private insurers, will now have to be filled by the government – for the same amount or less in Pixieland.

in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured.

Hmmm! Lower tort demands too? Lowered university fees while training to become a doctor. Reduced property taxes for the hospitals: reduced utility charges, especially if they go Green?
Pearlstein is talking about price controls and price regulation, and he should know exactly where that leads in any industry it has been tried anywhere in the world. Again – I would not expect a political reporter to know this but a business reporter?
Actually he almost certainly does know this but to acknowledge that fact would be to undermine the thrust of his article that these reforms won’t result in rationing health care via administrative bureaucracy as they try to wrestle the budgets to the ground.

The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.

See the above arguments that the history of any such government scheme points to costs and cost increases vastly greater than originally forecast. If this sort of thing was not an unsolvable problem Medicare and Medicaid could be fixed now. In fact I’d have a lot more confidence in Obamacare if those existing programs ballooning costs were being fixed now.

The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy. While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude,

Can certainly agree about the hypocrisy. The Republicans had 12 years where they could have done something to properly reform the health care system but they eventually decided to just piss money up against the wall to win votes.

Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers — the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.

Bring health spending under control? Control of whom? Pearlstein? The other elites of Washington DC?
But get past the last part of his statement and look at the lead-in’s. To put it bluntly this guy is simply doing the classic left-wing thing (and remember this is the WaPo’s “business reporter”) in telling people that they are consuming too much of something and the prices they pay are too high!
Reducing both of those things is the only way he can think to “…..credibly bring health spending under control”.
Indeed – and it’s the only thing Obamacare can think of too, and it does logically lead to all manner of nasty socialist-environment type things. Moreover, Republicans (and it would seem a large chunk of Americans including quite a few Blue Dog Democrats) have also drawn those conclusions.
Yet the trust of the article is that such conclusions – which he himself lays right out in the article – are apparently disingenuous, misleading, and of course – lies!

When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn’t, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly.

Define how “what works and what doesn’t” is to be measured and show me that it’s based on individual freedom to choose and not the usual dross of vast and cool intellects deciding the “overall” cost/benefit to society.
Show me also that giving such information will not lead to commands to act on it if people choose to ignore it. Show me past history where governments have restrained themselves and then I might start to agree that the logic is “wacko”.
Aside from this the implication is that doctors, nurses, health-care providers in general and insurers are not currently interested in finding out these things AND that this conspiracy can best be countered by yet another Government agency rather than changing the perversities of the current marketplace arrangement.

Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it, according to the GOP’s Dr. No.

Mr Pearlstein might like to take a look a recent article in (I think) The Atlantic by a female jounalist who survived breast cancer thanks to Herceptin. The article did a direct comparison with what would have happened to her had she lived in the sort of drug purchasing system he wants – New Zealand’s Pharmac. Her conclusion was simple – she’d be dead.
One might say that he’s talking about the impact on innovation versus availability but that seems like a complete disconnect. If a Government is the only purchaser of your drugs and they won’t buy it because of the cost outright, or because they think the overall, societal benefit is less than that cost, then your research on new drugs is going to be driven by what the vast Government healthcare apparatus thinks are the problems.

Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing.

Rationing is always the logical endpoint once you start raving about something being overpriced and inefficient and over-consumed.
Not a lie. Not an exaggeration. Just a simple economic truth.

Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?

Tough question as that is very two-faced – but …. Yes, I think there might actually be people who are worse.
That would be people who have always loathed the private sector, especially in healthcare, yet pretend that sticking the government in further is “competition” and “choice” that won’t achieve the objectives they previously claimed they desired – and denying that they desired them.

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society — whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.
If health reform is to be anyone’s Waterloo, let it be theirs.

Them? Theirs? Jesus, why not just declare his membership of the Democratic party now and be done with it. This sounds more like a call-to-arms from an MSM reporter than from an Obama minion – or is it the other way around?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:15am
Glutaemus Maximus

Gay men are what they are.

However, they cannot hide behind a prejudice that simply doesn’t exist.

They are out. Unlike Helen Clark, who simply couldn’t make the transition.

Yes, Helen Elizabeth Clark is Gay! Boring. But she will try and deny it. However it is hardly a well kept secret really.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:15am
Chicken Little

Did anyone see the graphics on 3news last night on how much it would cost us if Bill English took a ministerial house? Far more than what he was claiming for his own house. Hmmm, I’m in two minds about this. Nice little attention mover though isn’t it? Nothing has been heard about Goff not cutting the mustard for at least a week.

On the subject of opening the books – Tumekes monthly blog stats appears to have Tumeke at an unnaturally high position. Considering the half literate lunatic rantings of the two idiots that write there and the North Korean style censorship regime they have in place you’d have to wonder if there’s a wee rort going on there too. Is anyone looking at the stats they’re claiming?*

*I would of course liked to ask this question on Tumeke itself but unfortunately questions of this type NEVER make it through moderation. Go figure.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:17am
RightNow

This is a desperate defense for Carter to use, clearly he’s worried and that would only happen if he’d been rorting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:18am
Inventory2

We’re calling bullshit on Chris Carter. If he was a competent MP and Minister, his sexuality would NOT be an issue. But he is the one who is making it an issue,. because he’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and there’s nowhere else to go

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/08/carter-plays-gay-card.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:19am
philu

f.f.s..!..tom..

a teaser paragraph..and a link..

eh..?

yr words/opinions aren’t ‘that important’..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:20am
Glutaemus Maximus

The money laundering regulations in NZ are severe. They are very severe in the UK as well.

How exactly does it prevent terrorism? It is purely a means of increasing the tax take!

I think that any self respecting terrorist has only to position themselves at the end of a runway in Heathrow, and it would be very easy

to take down a wide bodies jet full of fuel.

Just another example of Politicians helping to look after our best interests!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:20am
RightNow

Chicken Little, I suspect all the traffic to Tumeke is people checking the blog stats. Stop believing in them and they’ll vanish.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:23am
Cerium

Here, there, everywhere?

“South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has made a political career out of being outwardly thrifty — known to demand that state employees use both sides of Post-It notes.

Records show that since he took office in 2003 he has taken trips on state aircraft to locations of his children’s sporting events, hair and dentist appointments, political party gatherings and a birthday party for a campaign donor.”

The report didn’t say whether he paid for his trip to Argentina to visit his girlfriend while saying he had gone for a walk in the woods.

I suppose some politicians intend to serve the people. But too often they end up self serving.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:24am
andrei

What has Chris Carter put into his mouth this time?

His foot by the looks of it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:28am
Adolf Fiinkensein

big bruv, please don’t mention ‘Chris Carter’ and ‘naked abuse’ in the same sentence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:31am
Brian Smaller

Starboard, “fag”, “mincer”, really? While I’m unimpressed at Carter playing the gay card I think it’s using such labels that gives this forum a bad rep.

Perhaps Starboard is just trying to reclaim the language, or whatever it is called.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:32am
Glutaemus Maximus

I was homophobic.

Then I grew up.

They are what they are.

But a thief is a thief! Period.

Pay the money back, Carter!

otherwise it will be get Carter!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:36am
david

“siobhan (239) Vote: 4 0 Says:

August 10th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Does this mean Bill English can play the straight card?
I had to have a big ministerial house in wellington because me and my wife breed like rabbits.”

(sorry, don’t know how to change fonts or fancy stuff like that)

This does raise an interesting question of course, what sort of ministerial house did Carter squat in while he was (rarely) in Wellington as a Minister? Anyone close to the action who can clarify that point?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:55am
backster

It seems to me that the accommodation rort could be rectified by causing out of town members to have their accomodation account certified correct and sent to Parliamentary services for payment by the provider.(no allowances) and the Cabinet ministers who are provided with houses pay rent for them and the others find their own accomodation(no allowances}
……….So poor old Carter thinks he is getting picked on for fraudulently mis-using our money because he is a homosexual… so how come no-one is picking on Parekura or Hone because they are Maori..The answer Poofter is they had some sense of what is right and wrong.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:58am
XChequer

Philu – take your own advice!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:17am
billyborker

tom hunter, who other than redbaiter, do you think would be in the least bit interested in your above dribble?

I don’t use american health care, I don’t pay american taxes, I don’t give a fuck.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:20am
starboard

Auberon (321) Vote: 10 3 Says:

August 10th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Starboard, “fag”, “mincer”, really? While I’m unimpressed at Carter playing the gay card I think it’s using such labels that gives this forum a bad rep.

..I dont think so auby. Nothin wrong with a bit of good ole straight talk…if ya cant handle it just mince on back to the strandard…and you say this forums got a bad rap ?…nah , my message to those who take offense to ” such labels ” I say , should go and brew themselves are large mug of harden the f*** up…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:27am
philu

you are a vile little homophobe..starbored..

..end of story..

w.t.f. is to ‘harden up’ for..?

(is that a subconcious confession that you are in the closet..?

..on this gay business..?..

..there..starbored..?)

step up..!..dr freud..!

..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:30am
XChequer

Have just replayed Paul Holmes’ interview with Lockwood Smile (I mean Smith) from Q & A.

Does anyone else think that Holmes becomes more irrelevant and less effective the longer he is on this programme?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:31am
Brian Smaller

Latest outrage. I took a trailer load of garden waste to the tip on Sunday (Silverstream landfill). The cost had gone from $15 to $25 a trailer. $8 to $15 for a car boot. Apparently a law change last year increased the ‘tax’ on landfills – some huge amount per tonne. So – what are we supposed to do with our garden waste now? There is only so much we can compost. I suspect that there will be lots more dumped down by the Hutt River.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:35am
getstaffed

XChequer – yes.. and he’s coming off a low base.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:37am
starboard

..whore…I am entitled to have a non fondness of homosexuals ,…I think its a disgusting practise…now run along and inject some weedkiller into ya veins…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:41am
Auberon

Hilarious that you think I might be a Stranded dweller Starboard, if only you knew the truth. I just support slightly better manners in discourse than you.

Each to their own of course, it’s just, as a longtime commenter here, I’m proud of this forum’s ability to be taken seriously in the national debate. I support your right to use the words you did, and people can judge you on them, I’m simply suggesting it has the potential to have a negative impact on the credibility of the forum. Then again, I have the opportunity through comments like this to arrest the balance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 10:55am
OTGO

Brian Smaller you are a lucky man. Manukau City charged me $60 yesterday for a trailer load of general waste (had to be general waste because it contained flax FFS!) I told the attendent preparing to take my money that it was too expensive and that I’d dump it over the cliff into the sea near our house but she never understood the sarcasm.
Maybe these fees are the reason why a lot of state houses are unkempt. They can’t afford the tip fees.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 11:04am
racer1

“siobhan

Does this mean Bill English can play the straight card?

I had to have a big ministerial house in wellington because me and my wife breed like rabbits.”

He already has.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 11:17am
Chthoniid

@Chicken Little

It was a point made early on in this issue, but seems to be overlooked a lot.

English has arranged his housing affairs so that the taxpayer is better-off but of course, so is English & co.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 11:38am
kaya

I just watched last night’s episode of “Sunday”. I am disgusted at the lengths the “yes” proponents will go to trying to make a case. Deborah Morris-Travers trying to find some link between her sister’s suicide at the age of 35 and being smacked as a child was nauseating. I resent the fact that people like Morris-Travers, Bradford and Delahunty cause me to feel such negative emotions towards other human beings. I need to find my happy place again. “la la la la la la la la la”

XChequer – Holmes belongs on a bad game show, he ceased to be relevant many years ago. The fact that his show replaced Agenda is a joke, shit even Eye to Eye was more entertaining than Q & A!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 11:47am
Buggerlugs

I hear the Labour Party is off on a bus tour of the ‘hinterland’, starting in Levin (ha ha), so I wondered:
– Who will be in the back seat given that Phil Goff isn’t going?
– Can we have a whip round to get them a Korean busdriver?
– Are there enough eggs in the country to supply the numbers that could possibly get thrown their way?
– Will Peter Kaiser be on the trip?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 12:43pm
Sonny Blount

Starboard, “fag”, “mincer”, really? While I’m unimpressed at Carter playing the gay card I think it’s using such labels that gives this forum a bad rep.

Bugger off you Rich Prick!

You’re just a hater and a wrecker posting cancerous and corrosive material like this.

We won you lost eat that!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 12:46pm
Kris K

Brian Smaller 10:35 am,
“… Apparently a law change last year increased the ‘tax’ on landfills – some huge amount per tonne. So – what are we supposed to do with our garden waste now? There is only so much we can compost. I suspect that there will be lots more dumped down by the Hutt River.”

I have the solution Brian.
As a fellow Wellingtonian I refused to pay for my waste disposal from when we lost our free rubbish collection and had to start paying for those stupid council bags.
What I do now is: compost vegetable waste; and burn [that’s right, BURN] ALL cardboard, paper, plastic, garden waste. This leaves me with very little waste consisting of essentially glass and tins, which is relatively easy to get rid of at no cost.

You won’t be surprised that I disagree with the AGW crowd. I feel that I’m just perpetuating the ‘carbon cycle’ and ‘feeding’ the plants.
Problem solved.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 12:53pm
Kris K

Patrick Starr 8:04 am,
“as predicted, Carter plays the gay card
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10589753
what a disgrace that guy is”

Now I’m probably behind the times here, but did anyone note that Carter’s ‘spouses’ name is Peter Kaiser [see photo text]?
What are the chances? Reminds me of the un-PC Irish joke: Patrick Fitz Michael, Michael Fitz Herbert, Herbert Fitz Patrick.

Similarly, ‘Carter’s ‘peter’ fits Peter’s ‘kaiser’. A good case for a change of name by depol I would have thought.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 1:05pm
Brian Smaller

Kris K – Vegetable waste is fine – we have worm farm that takes care of tea leaves, food scraps etc. But when you are trimming, pruning plants, getting rid of that sort of stuff it is too much for a standard section. Like i said – there is only so much compost. We uncovered our open fireplace that has been blocked up since 1992 (from the papers we found in there) and have been using that for heat this winter so a lot of cardboard and paper etc gets burnt. Still, if people have to pay $25 a trailer I foresee more rubbish dumped along lonely quiet streets.

As far as the pre-paid rubbish bags go, in the Hutt if you sue anything other than one of those they sticker it sayign they wont take it. But in parts of Naenae you can put your rubbish out in shopping bags and old beer cartons and it gets removed. Solution – drive over to Naenae and drop your rubbish on a street there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 1:08pm
dave strings

Rather than take responsibility for themselves they blame it on somebody else or some sort of discriminatory action on the part of the rest of society

Bloody Narcississists all of them. They should get mental health help. Oh! Right! They can’t, they closed it all down! (Yes I’m sure! FillYou wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t!)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 1:11pm
Cerium

Someone claiming a theological education and many years in the ministry in the US has deduced that if you take a verse from the Bible (Luke 10:18) that was spoken in Aramaic and written in Greek, find Hebrew words that may be equivalent, and speak them in English with a Rabbi’s acccent, it could sound like ‘I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.’

“Gosh, was Jesus giving us a clue or was this just a freak coincidence?”

http://www.youtube.com/v/sgHUZXgNAWo&hl=en&fs=1&

There may be no certificate to prove it though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 1:15pm
Buggerlugs

More from the Bus:
From the bus
Posted by Clare Curran on August 10th, 2009

And we’re off. Picture opportunities are over, a bunch of Labour MPs on the road, to talk to the people. Annette was threatening to sing “the wheels on the bus go round and round…” but has fallen strangely silent. A sense of anticpation and togetherness. Hmmm. Wondering where we’ll get coffee. More soon

Wondering where we’ll get coffee? Some old slapper singing? Clare, no one gives a fuck. Your lot are yesterday’s news.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 1:29pm
getstaffed

Drug use by at risk teens causes alarm

Extract:

A new study from Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, last week showed using cannabis increased the likelihood of mental health problems.

Who needs a university study (from Netherlands no less!) to confirm this ‘increased likelihood’? A few minutes reading the postings of one of our regulars would lead most to the same conclusion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 2:03pm
Steve

He’s out to lunch, lay the bait later
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 2:25pm
Repton

As a fellow Wellingtonian I refused to pay for my waste disposal from when we lost our free rubbish collection and had to start paying for those stupid council bags.

Agreed –- user-pays is a stupid system. Much better to fund such things centrally from taxation (or rates).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 2:30pm
Brian Smaller

Repton – I am not so sure. I just object to paying twice. Or three times. or four times. I pay rates, I pay for council rubbish bags if I need them, I pay for waste management to take my green wheelie bin, and I pay if I go to the tip.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 2:36pm
KiwiGreg

@ Repton I assume you are being sarcastic.

It’s never free, someone has to pay for the trucks, the garbo’s wages and the land fill, it sounds like a few of you just want that someone to be “someone else”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 2:41pm
stayathomemum

Wasn’t Chris Carter in Pattaya, Thailand earlier this year? (?when the riots occurred?)
Does anyone know if we were funding a business trip or pleasure trip?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 2:49pm
getstaffed

stayathomemum – I think there would be an outcry is the details of what we’ve been funding were released. Carter has opened a can of worms here, and will probably go down (.. did I say that!) in history as the NZ polititian that brought it all to an end.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 2:55pm
Murray M

Just got my arse booted off Red Alert for a week. Those Labour MP’s are a pack of precious prats.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 3:05pm
cha

Someone claiming a theological education and many years in the ministry in the US has deduced that if you take a verse from the Bible (Luke 10:18) that was spoken in Aramaic and written in Greek, find Hebrew words that may be equivalent, and speak them in English with a Rabbi’s acccent, it could sound like ‘I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.’

Translationpartys take on Luke 10:18 is It is doubtful that this phrase will ever reach equilibrium.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 3:11pm
starboard

pfft..nothin will happen re their snouting and rorting of the public purse…Im still waitin for fatboy brownlee to sort out the rorting we are getting from the electricity companies…”nothin to see here..move on move on”..pfftt…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 3:14pm
Bullion

I am hating the spin Nick Smith is putting on New Zealands emissions targets, “Dr Smith said the target was going to be “a big ask” for New Zealand because gross emissions were already 24 percent above 1990 levels.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2737705/Ambitious-emissions-target-announced

Yet is happy to announce that our NET emissions is below 1990 levels, http://www.3news.co.nz/News/PoliticsNews/Kyoto-liability-wiped-out-by-trees-says-Nick-Smith/tabid/419/articleID/113984/cat/68/Default.aspx

So we only have to reduce our NET emissions by 20% to reach the Govt’s target of 20% under 1990 levels, does not seem as big an ask as he is making it out to be. More efficient technology and practices plus some offsetting and we are on our way.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 4:57pm
Patrick Starr

Brian Smaller the ‘huge amount’ on landfills is only $10 per tonne. (Waste Min Act 2008) It equates to about $2.5 per trailer

Repton – thats just stupid. User pays is the only way to go
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:02pm
philu

there is one fact that came to light about the gouging/troughing by english that i am finding very hard to get out of my head..

that is that amongst englishs’ assets..

..are seven superannuation schemes..(!)

..so..english will get his gold-plated..(and boy..!..do i mean ‘gold-plated’) gummint super..

(that was one of those rare occaisons where all the pollies voted as one..eh..?..when they voted that puppy in./for their own back pockets…)

..plus his seven superannuation schemes pay-outs..

(“..mm!!..’seven superannuation schemes’…warm and toasty..!”

..plus his pension…

..and all..courtesy of the taxpayers..

(and how many years of (erroneous) wellington allowance..d’yareckon he should have to pay back..?)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:17pm
Patrick Starr

“…. that i am finding very hard to get out of my head..”

Phool – dont worry, it’ll be gone by tomorrow. Do you own a vacuum cleaner?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:23pm
side show bob

Bullion, Nick Smith is covering his political arse there is no way China and India will agree to this bullshit and thus the crap he is presently spinning will be null and void. Yes by all means bring your emission targets in Smith you won’t get a second chance at it if you pull this rip off off.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:31pm
philu

and i have pointed this out to dpf before..

..that the upcoming economic collapse ..will/could mean that lots of his gummint-money/business cd dry up..

..’cos polling/research wd be one of the first things you wd ax in any ‘real’ austerity drive..you’d think..?

and this new ‘age of austerity’ bearing down on us..just came a lot closer..

..with the expenses scandal/upcoming ‘clean-out’..

..i think we may find that government depts will be forced to do the curtailing of such activities..

and i am sure this will hurt dpf’s gummint-money income..

..it has been a profligate culture that dpf has prospered in..

..with both parties throwing fistfulls of money at anything that asked..in wellington..

..methinks those days are drawing to a close..

..it will be a big belt-tightening all around..

(‘cos really..as far as the economic-meltdown crap coming down..we have not yet really begun..

the commercial realestate bubble in america will be the next to burst..

..and that will really hurt..much more than the residential one..

..not least because that market..as here..has been falsly sustained/propped up by money that fled from residential..

..and thinking commercial is safer..

..the news fr them is all bad..

..then we will have the (the americans can’t just keep printing money)-bubble ..after that..

..so..all in all..dpf should make the mosrt of his holiday..

..his world is going to undergo major upheavels/changes..

..and soon..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:32pm
side show bob

“do you own a vacuum cleaner” very good Patrick, quite funny.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:40pm
Steve

Phool had a good one after late lunch, all go now!
Stupid prick
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:51pm
Nomestradamus

Philu:

there is one fact that came to light about my gouging/troughing that i am finding very hard to get out of my head..
..and all..courtesy of the taxpayers..
(and how many years of (erroneous) DPB allowance..d’yareckon I should have to pay back..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)

There you go – fixed it for you! 🙂

And I see you’re making economic predictions again. How did those political predictions work out for you at the last election? And did you pay that Green party member his winnings from that bet you had (and lost)?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:56pm
getstaffed

RRM – I’ve moved your “I hate rich pricks” thread-jack over here. Why are you so bitter towards anyone with wealth? We all have it – just to varying degrees. I re-iterate my observation that people who keep raising this subject are simply envious, and disguise this dark trait as faux concern for others.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 5:57pm
joeAverage

Having watched liarbor on the green newlands bus trying to connect with the lower North Island the tv host mentioned, chris carter and his bum buddy (they arent a child producing couple) and his travel rorts were bought up.
Where in the world is chris carter and his bum buddy?????????? overseas again, some gay festival on the sweat of my brow ,tosser , what a big arsehole chris carter is, opps im picking on him as hes a queer, no hes a legal rip off artist but still a bludging queer
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 6:24pm
starboard

..plus his pension…

..and all..courtesy of the taxpayers..

why do you care whore..FFS you’re not even a taxpayer, you’re a bludging criminal creton…go back to bed fool…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 6:29pm
kaya

Murray – So why didn’t they stop in Foxton ???? and why did that question get you booted?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 6:47pm
Viking2

9 August 2009
Stand Firm

“In politics, an organized minority is a political majority.” – Jesse Jackson

In a democracy, well-organised minority groups pushing “deserving” ideological causes, can be a real threat to the public good, when backed by politicians eager to capitalise on their “feel-good” crusades. New Zealanders experienced this first-hand, when Parliament banned parental smacking in 2007 under the guise that it would prevent child abuse. As predicted, the ban has not stopped children being abused and killed, but it has affected the confidence of law-abiding parents and grandparents who are now experiencing great difficulty with the state’s unwelcome intrusion into the heart of family affairs.

The Citizens’ Initiated Referendum has given the public an opportunity to tell the government whether the smacking law is a good law, or simply an intrusion of the state into our private lives. And, with around 600,000 voting papers already returned, it looks like the public are determined to make their views known.

In response to public opinion polls which have shown strong support for the right of parents to discipline their children as they see fit, the Prime Minister – who brokered the deal with Helen Clark to facilitate the passing of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill – has promised that if ordinary parents are being criminalised by the new law then he will change it. With research already showing that ordinary parents are being criminalised by the new law, the Prime Minister should stay true to his word.[1]

The political “left” has always been the champion of “we know best” causes. Driven by the belief that governments are benevolent (providing it is they who are in office!), socialists have long recognised the power of the collective: that organisational outcomes far surpass individual efforts. And when organisations are global, like the United Nations, their influence is even stronger.

It’s for this reason that there’s a United Nations committee behind most left-wing causes. Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law was based on the United Nations Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children; the trade union movement has its power base within the United Nations International Labour Organisation (ILO); feminists draw strength from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); the Maori Sovereignty movement is supported by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); the anti-development aims of the environmental movement are fuelled by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

As could be expected, left-leaning governments have historically embraced the political agenda of the United Nations, with its emphasis on central planning and global government. Conservative governments on the other hand, have tended to take a more cautious stance, ever mindful of the conflict between global agreements and domestic law. However, when it comes to climate change, traditional caution appears to have been thrown to the wind.

In what is one of the most important decisions to be made by the new National Government – the setting of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions targets for New Zealand – National’s Climate Change Minister has indicated that he favours ambitious targets. While the US is opting to return emissions to 1990 levels, Canada is looking at a 3 percent reduction, and Australia a 4 percent reduction, Nick Smith is contemplating targets for New Zealand in the region of 15% below 1990 levels.[2] Considering that New Zealand’s gross emissions are currently 24 percent above 1990 levels, to get to 15 percent below, when almost half of our emissions are from livestock and our energy supplies are largely renewable, is a virtual impossibility.

As the Herald’s economics editor Brian Fallow recently argued, achieving Nick Smith’s 15 percent target “would be the equivalent of eliminating, within 10 years, all emissions from transport and electricity generation, and then some, or reducing by two-thirds emissions from pastoral farming.[3]

The United Nations’ global warming agenda was set in motion in 1992 when “climate change” was defined as changes in the climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition.[4] This meant that all changes in the climate were considered by the UN to be caused by mankind’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Pinning the world’s temperature changes on the emissions of man-made carbon dioxide, has enabled the UN to introduce a socialist “solution” in the form of a massive international transfer of wealth. By using the complex mechanisms of emissions trading schemes, money is being redistributed from the world’s richer nations to the world’s poorer nations. The fact that such schemes do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide, nor change the climate, is quietly overlooked.

Unbelievably, the UN’s socialist campaign has gained widespread acceptance, with governments and media from around the world perpetrating the fallacy that man-made global warming will accelerate towards a tipping point which will destroy the planet – unless we are prepared to sacrifice our living standards. And while scientists across the globe have refuted these outlandish assertions by pointing out that the planet has been cooling for over a decade, that climate change is a natural process which has seen the planet up to 5oC warmer than it is today[5] with carbon dioxide levels of up to 1,000 times higher (during ice ages, no less)[6], most politicians and most media have turned a blind eye. (Other arguments can be found in “The Skeptics Handbook” – click here>>>)

The hypocrisy surrounding this whole issue is breathtaking. The Green Party, which has been leading the global warming campaign here in New Zealand, is a socialist collective with Communist Party leanings – cloaked for populist convenience under an environmental guise. As such, the Greens are resolutely opposed to any form of privatisation on the grounds that New Zealand wealth might be siphoned off overseas by foreign investors. Yet the Green Party has now become a cheerleader for a massive transfer of Kiwi wealth overseas through the purchase billions of dollars of overseas carbon credits!

Barry Brill, a former National Government Minister and this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, has examined National’s approach to climate change. In particular he is very critical of their decision to announce an early emissions target for New Zealand for 2020 on the basis that doing so ahead of the negotiation meeting in Copenhagen in December deprives us of negotiating opportunities. He is right – only inexperienced negotiators show their hand before the negotiation process starts:

“Declaring such a premature Target appears to be against New Zealand’s interests, given that:

1. The government has previously committed to a 50% reduction by 2050 – to be achieved by technology changes. Reducing greenhouse gases BEFORE the new technologies emerge can only be achieved by unnecessary pain and sacrifice.

2. In accepting any Liability at all, the government will commit future New Zealanders to a substantial net welfare loss.

3. The quantum of any treaty Liability imposed upon us will be shaped by the government’s negotiating skills, and by perceptions of what is a “fair share” of the burden. A pre-announced target raises expectations and deprives us of negotiating coin.

4. The declared Target will be an “opening offer” to the international community. During the months and (probably) years of subsequent discussions, this initial number will be tortured and stretched until our competitors are satisfied that we have nothing left to give. The natural response is to bid low initially.

5. A Kyoto replacement can offer no positive benefits – only an arguable mitigation of perceived detriments in the distant future. And that possibility has to be regarded as very remote, considering the attitudes of most countries, Kyoto’s history, and the ever-changing science.

6. New Zealand accounts for 0.2% of global greenhouse gases and its actions over the next decade cannot change the future global or local climate. (ie no weather benefits accrue).

He goes on to explain that, “Issues of this complexity demand the use of standard decision-making tools, which would be applied routinely in the business sector – primarily cost-benefit assessments, with a range of sensitivities. In setting up the select committee on the Emissions Trading Scheme, the minister (Hon Nick Smith) directed that a quantified cost-benefit assessment be prepared. My submission to that committee (see here>>>) offered suggestions on measurement methods and targets. Sadly, it seems the government now intends to abandon the cost-benefit approach as being too hard. Instead, it will look to Economic Models for a vague approximation of first-level costs, and make unquantified feel-good assumptions that there’s bound to be some benefits.” To read the full article, click here >>>

While Barry makes the point that the sort of measures that the Minister, Nick Smith has been discussing – a 15 percent emissions reduction level – is unaffordable, he concludes that the 40 percent target promoted by Greenpeace, “would pretty much shut down New Zealand, slashing living standards and inducing widespread poverty”. Clearly the wellbeing of New Zealanders is not a priority for these extreme environmentalists – nor their high profile eco-celebrities.

Meanwhile, the Green Party, which has signed up to Greenpeace’s extreme agenda, and which also – astonishingly – has the ear of the government on this issue, has outlined the sort of steps that New Zealand should be taking to reduce emissions: besides transferring billions of dollars of New Zealand wealth overseas through purchasing carbon credits on the international exchange, the Green Party has suggested exterminating one in five dairy cows in order to reduce the dairy herd by some 760,000 cows; genetically engineering (yes, you heard right!) cows to produce less methane; shifting people out of cars as their preferred mode of transport and onto buses, trains, cycling and walking; replacing coal used for industrial fuel with wood; closing down the Huntley power station and replacing it with windmills and other renewable energy; planting forests; and – bizarrely – killing possums, deer and goats![7]

As an avalanche of new evidence raises more and more doubts about the IPCC’s conclusions, National – in its blind desire to “make a statement to the world” (reminiscent of the strategy employed by Helen Clark) at the Copenhagen summit in December – is about to sacrifice our fragile economic recovery. All of the initiatives that National claim will generate employment and help New Zealanders who have lost their jobs find work will be wiped out if a wealth-destroying carbon tax is imposed across the economy. New Zealand simply cannot afford any new taxes, no matter what alarmist rationale is used as justification.

This country produces only 0.2 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. We could not influence the climate even if it was possible to do so. Committing ourselves to an ambitious self-imposed political target in the wealth-destroying scheme that is set to replace the Kyoto Protocol is not in the best interest of the country. I say to the Government, hold the line and don’t sign up. Back science and reason, not socialism. If the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, is right, there will be other countries waiting for strong political leadership to emerge so they too can over-ride the established bureaucracy and powerful vested interest groups whose livelihoods depend on global warming. Strong leaders should be putting the good of their country and the benefit of their citizens ahead of the United Nations’ global thrust for power.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 6:48pm
Viking2

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/

Key gives away more of our money.When will the Nats learn?
Socialist pricks
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 6:51pm
starboard

Viking2 (544) Vote: 0 0 Says:

August 10th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

brilliant…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 6:54pm
side show bob

Sadly viking2 the government has either taken leave of it’s senses or they firmly believe it will be a no goer and thus a playing the look at us card, aren’t we the bees knees. Either way we are ruled by dipsticks. If this bullshit goes down being a politician could be well damaging to ones health. For their sake I hope the bunker in the beehive is well stocked because there are going to be some mighty pissed off people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 7:06pm
racer1

Wow that post above from tom hunter is complete unadulterated horse shit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 7:19pm
WebWrat

# backster (208) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 1 Says:
August 10th, 2009 at 9:58 am

“It seems to me that the accommodation rort could be rectified by … ”

I don’t think you should be using the word ‘rectified’ in this thread Backster.

Actually your name is bad enough!!!!

LOL
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 7:21pm
WebWrat

# XChequer (41) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says:
August 10th, 2009 at 10:31 am

Have just replayed Paul Holmes’ interview with Lockwood Smile (I mean Smith) from Q & A.

Does anyone else think that Holmes becomes more irrelevant and less effective the longer he is on this programme?

……………………………………

I have NEVER thought of Holmes as being relevant or effective.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 7:24pm
getstaffed

SSB – There is still more left spectrum to be pilliaged for votes, with the subsequently disgruntled and proprtionally fewer right moving further right… and safe into the arms of a coalition partner – ACT. I’m pretty disgusted with National.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 7:27pm
Hurf Durf

tom hunter, August 10th, 2009 at 9:15 am

The more oxygen you give to idiots like Pearlstein and Krudman (and especially Moore when his next shit film comes out within the year), the more attention it gives. It’s best to shut out their shrill, trimulous voices.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 7:36pm
lilman

YOU TOSSER CARTER.
To see you hiding in your office ,what a bloody thief and coward.
That was my money,not yours you bloody liar.
If you want your other half to go on holiday do what I do and 99% of the rest of us do and put your hand in your own pocket.
What a low life, if I was GAY you would make me go straight out of shame.
YOUR MUM MUST BE PROUD.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:13pm
Viking2

Nationals lurch to the left amongst the Greens.

New emissions target ‘big ask for NZ’ – Key
Updated 7:03PM Monday Aug 10, 2009

The Government has set a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith announced today.

The target will be part of New Zealand’s negotiating position at a climate change conference in Copenhagen later this year and the final target would depend on how those talks went.

The offer of a 10 per cent cut was made if only developed countries signed up to a comprehensive treaty and 20 per cent if developing countries signed up as well.

Prime Minister John Key said the targets were credible and responsible.

“It seeks to balance our economic opportunities with our environmental responsibility. The target is going to be a big ask for New Zealand because our gross emissions are already 24 per cent above our 1990 levels,” Mr Key said.

A 10 per cent to 20 per cent reduction was close to Australia and other countries and well above the United States.

Greenpeace has been campaigning for a 40 per cent target, but Mr Key said this would have created unacceptable job losses and cost increases on families.

The target would be met by reducing domestic emissions, storing carbon in forests through more tree planting and purchasing emission reductions from other countries.

Dr Smith said Cabinet had also decided that an emissions trading scheme covering all sectors would be implemented and would be aiming to finalise details of this before the Copenhagen meeting.

It was difficult to estimate how much it would raise costs for households as this depended on the price of carbon and how people changed their behaviour.

One study has estimated that a 15 per cent reduction would result in a drop in disposable income from $49,000 a year to $47,650 in 2020.

Petrol prices could rise by between 3.7 cents a litre and 12.3 cents per cent a litre dependent on the price of carbon.

Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser said the targets put New Zealand in a “fine position” internationally.

“I think people have got to understand this is not a parlour game that people are involved in. This is serious governments taking on serious measures,” Mr Groser said.

Other countries would understand the difficulties New Zealand faced in reducing emissions because of the way its economy was structured.

He did not believe the Copenhagen meeting would see an agreement finalised, but there would be a solid basis to finalise one next year and at that point New Zealand would set a final target.

Dr Smith said the target balanced economic opportunities with environmental responsibilities.

National was still committed to a 50 per cent reduction by 2050.

Treasury and many business groups have suggested an even lower reductions than 10 per cent, but Greenpeace has run a high profile campaign urging the 40 per cent.

Labour leader Phil Goff said the Government’s target was not enough to deal with the problems of global warming and would not be taken seriously by trading partners.

This could mean New Zealand losing its branding image and facing trading sanctions if not seen to be acting sustainably.

Green Party MP Jeanette Fitzsimons said Mr Key was “piking out” and her party had shown how New Zealand could achieve an affordable, more ambitious target.

“Our opening bid is too low. Hopefully New Zealanders will convince the Government to up its game as the negotiations progress towards Copenhagen. This debate has only just begun, and it’s time we had a real conversation about what is possible,” she said.

Greenpeace also attacked the decision while Business New Zealand described it as sensible.

– NZPA
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:18pm
Viking2

Question: Is Helen in charge of both parties now?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:19pm
Hurf Durf

acing trading sanctions if not seen to be acting sustainably.

Progressive!

her party had shown how New Zealand could achieve an affordable, more ambitious target.

No, it hasn’t.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:22pm
tom hunter

Hurf Durf

Quite so and I saw this as all part of the usual technique of debating what the left want to, rather than what needs to be debated.

But this sort of “Look what the New York Times says” crap goes on all the time and just this once I thought I’d jump down the rabbit hole, analyse a piece of it and see if any of the lefties who so lovingly quote these guys would have a counter-argument to my points. A whole day has passed and this is what we have:

tom hunter, who other than redbaiter, do you think would be in the least bit interested in your above dribble?
I don’t use american health care, I don’t pay american taxes, I don’t give a fuck.

Wow that post above from tom hunter is complete unadulterated horse shit.

A couple of years ago one long-gone leftie made this comment

I think the intellectual left are taking over this blog

He spoke more truly than he knew it would seem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:30pm
racer1

National announces new emissions reduction policy: Shit Fuck All.

Bunch of wankers, fuck you very much, bastards.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:36pm
Hurf Durf

More like sensible, nuanced reduction targets that won’t fuck up the economy and send us back to the Dark Age.

Though that’s alway been the agenda for people like you, racer, you fucking criminal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:39pm
racer1

“tom hunter
Hurf Durf

Quite so and I saw this as all part of the usual technique of debating what the left want to, rather than what needs to be debated.”

Your technique: making up complete rubbish. You don’t refute the points raised, you re-hash batshit raving mad conspiracy theories.

You are a partisan hack who’s dribbling is not worth a response.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:40pm
racer1

“Hurf Durf
More like sensible, nuanced reduction targets that won’t fuck up the economy and send us back to the Dark Age.

Though that’s alway been the agenda for people like you, racer, you fucking criminal.
”

Bullshit, what is the cost of doing nothingthis?

Take what you can now and fuck the future, that’s the agenda for people like you Durf, you fucking rapist, fuck off and die.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:42pm
Patrick Starr

Tom Hunter. If racer1 is the “intellectual left” then they dont have much intellect left
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:47pm
Hurf Durf

Wah wah wah.

The cost of doing nothing is losing Tuvalu and Bangladesh. Big deal. The rest of us can build levees and expand our urban development away from the coast and floodplains while purchasing land in Africa and Asia (and the future cereal crops of Greenland and Russia) to secure our own food security. This is the most sensible thing the Nats have done since shitcanning ETS and the only thing the pricks in Gweenpeace, including Quiche and the intolerable Robyn Malcolm, can do is sob into their self-righteousness.

Take your utopian do-gooder save the world horseshit and shove it up your arsehole.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:49pm
getstaffed

David, I’d like to call in the demerits pixie for racer1’s 8:42 outburst. Unacceptable vitriol IMO.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:49pm
racer1

” Patrick Starr
Tom Hunter. If racer1 is the “intellectual left” then they dont have much intellect left”

Plenty of intellect here, not that you’d be able to work that out. How is the resident kiwiblog christian delusion apologist going.

” getstaffed
David, I’d like to call in the demerits pixie for racer1’s 8:42 outburst. Unacceptable vitriol IMO.”

But not Hurf Durf’s 8.39, how predictably hypocritical of you. You’re a wanker IMO.

“Hurf Durf
Wah wah wah.

The cost of doing nothing is losing Tuvalu and Bangladesh. Big deal. The rest of us can build levees and expand our urban develop blah blah (lies) blah”

Rubbish, you should have shut up while you were ahead (or more accurately, less behind).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 8:58pm
Herman Poole

you fucking rapist, fuck off and die.

David, I’d like to call in the demerits pixie for racer1’s 8:42 outburst. Unacceptable vitriol IMO.

Agreed, getstaffed.

There is no moral ground high enough to justify this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:03pm
Patrick Starr

racer the underwear chaser -our resident neighbourhood night creeping peeping greenie?

How’s the neighbourhood clotheslines going?? – found any new stock sniffer boy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 10, 2009 9:05pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Hawaii Day One and Two

Greens announce new emissions reduction policy – abortion »

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

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Geoff Parker: Corey Hebberd’s humbug taken to task
Breaking Views
If only these were the roles of the US President
No Minister
Wash Post admits reality: ‘Amid explosive demand, America is running out of power’ – U.S. ‘power grid’ being pushed ‘to the brink. Utilities can’t keep up’ – ‘It is staggering’ – But WaPo frets energy shortage ‘threatens to stifle the transition to cleane
Utopia
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Populist Extremism and Culture Wars on the rise in NZ? We’ve been here before, but why it’s different this time
The Daily Blog
A crisis of ambition
Point of Order
Open mike 20/04/2024
The Standard
A who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies
No Right Turn
"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes."
Not PC
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
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