Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 17th, 2008 - 46 comments
Categories: election 2008, humour -
Tags:
I see the National billboard on the corner of Dixon and Victoria in Wellington is already down. Are they pulling them all because they have been unanimously ridiculed or were the hilarious extra comments* that kept appearing on this one making it a liability? Either way, perhaps they will consider replacing it with something like this from The Onion:
*my personal thoughts on defacing billboards are it’s better to put up your own banners etc, like this one out by Wellington Airport, not sophisticated but on-message:
Brilliant.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“Putting a smiley after it doesn’t make it OK to say such things G. Fits with your description of women as “silly bitches’ though. Nice.”
Ahh, now that’s dishonest, Rob. I didn’t say all women were silly bitches as you’ve implied here, just those two who wanted to make a big stink about how warm the planet was getting and got stuck in the arctic during one of the coldest blizzards on record. (Bit like that silly prick who tried to paddle up there in a canoe but couldn’t because the ice thicker than your average warm-monger).
Regarding your beloved leader, Clark Jong-Il: c’mon, Rob, you have to admit that airbrushed nonsense simply doesn’t stack up with the sour-faced man/woman with the Third World dentistry we have to suffer on our screens every night.
Vanilla, as I understand it, the spending cap does not include the use of volunteer labour resource. The young nats are clearly volunteering their labour.
There was also some discussion in the Clarkson-Peters case about allocating a portion of the cost of paid staff to the design and printing of election expenses. This is where it might start to get tricky for the EPMU’s evident involvement in erecting hoardings on behalf of the Labour Party, as evidence seems to be emerging on this. Their time and labour could be counted as an election expense.
About 30:70 in the favour of the petty criminals and with a great big blurring line (because activist is such a ‘broad’ term).
No party I’ve even been in (or had access into) has their active activists actively going out and doing the oppositions sites. Ignoring any other consideration, the potential political downside would just be too damn high.
However that is not to say that they don’t do it. But they aren’t told to do it which is quite a different kettle of fish. I’d suspect most of the people who have ever worked for a political party who do it would be the ones who don’t have much else to do for that party. You could speculate why….
But most would be people who have never had any association with any party.
Ahh, now that’s dishonest, Rob. I didn’t say all women were silly bitches as you’ve implied here
The use of the term to describe any group of women is unacceptable G, and it tells us a lot about who you are.
I think that’s about right, LP. The activists I speak to don’t like to see signs of any party knocked over. If, say, all the Labour Party signs are getting knocked down, then they’re the only ones left for the taggers to hit. Likewise, if suspicious numbers of opposition hoardings get trashed, then even if the party whose hoardings remain had nothing to do with it, that just invites retaliation. If you’re actively involved in erecting hoardings and maintaining them, you don’t want to create more work for yourself by setting off a war like that.
I was involved with the hoardings in a political campaign about fifteen years ago. Every time I went around to put up a sign that had been knocked over, I saw a certain member of the press gallery running past.
Are you on Winston’s coaching team, Rob? Very slippery. You know I was only referring to the pair of silly arctic warm-mongers, who deserved my derision after being resoundingly contradicted by our cooling Earth, and yet you dishonestly set out to imply I was a misogynist.
“We’re gonna boil, we’re gonna boil!!” All I have to say to that is Pugh!!
Now, on to the airbrushed truth of the ‘infallibly honest’ Helen Clark. False advertising?
You know I was only referring to the pair of silly arctic warm-mongers, who deserved my derision
Brave resourceful concerned people setting out to help draw attention to an incipient global catastrophe deserve your derision?
after being resoundingly contradicted by our cooling Earth
Belief in a cooling earth is pretty much equivalent to belief in a flat earth G.
and yet you dishonestly set out to imply I was a misogynist
Someone who describes any group of women as “silly bitches” is a misogynist, yes.
I dunno r0b, at least if you believe in a flat earth you have the argument that it’s “turtles all the way down”. If you believe in a cooling earth what have you got? Fewer. Or less. Must ask National which.
“Brave resourceful concerned people setting out to help draw attention to an incipient global catastrophe” who ended up losing their fingers and toes during one of the coldest winters on record!! And you think I’m the flat-earther??? Ahhh, Rob…
Re: “silly bitches”: don’t think that makes me a misogynist…
bitch |bi ch |
noun
1 a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
2 informal derogatory, a woman whom one dislikes or considers to be malicious or unpleasant. [indeed, a very malicious and unpleasant thing to be scaring our children]
• [in sing. ] informal a thing or situation that is unpleasant or difficult to deal with : the stove is a bitch to fix.
verb [ intrans. ] informal
express displeasure; grumble : they bitch about everything | [as n. ] ( bitching) we’re tired of your bitching.
And they were bitching quite vociferously, no?
Re: “silly bitches’: don’t think that makes me a misogynist
It’s nice that you don’t think so G. Why don’t you go round asking women their opinion on the topic. You might be surprised at the response.
Where you living, Rob — in a monastery? You don’t know of any women that call other women ‘bitches’?! Ha! Ha-ha!!