So. Very. Funny.

54 comments on “So. Very. Funny. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. xtasy 1

   16 May 2013 at 9:06 pm

   Judith the HARD one, and she is, so we deal to her, and she is shallow as to deal with in person, hard is a strange word for it.

   Judith betrayed on the MMP agenda, she did the hard line on law and order, she is denying the OIA reforms, recommended by the Commissioners in question, and much more, she is a DICTATOR woman, and some love it.

   So rethink, relearn, reevaluate, and see this for reflection, perhaps:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEj7jnR–Dg&list=PLD5B5A871D6D13C01

   NZ must as a people wake up and take charge, or are you going to want to be full sold out?
   • prism 1.1

     16 May 2013 at 9:52 pm

     Good question xtasy
     NZ must as a people wake up and take charge, or are you going to want to be full sold out?

     This is a plea from anti nazi protesters. Has the same ring as your sentence.

     …why do you allow these men who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one domain of your rights after another, until one day nothing, nothing at all will be left but a mechanised state system presided over by criminals and drunks? Is your spirit already so crushed by abuse that you forget it is your right – or rather, your moral duty – to eliminate this system? (From Leaflet 3)

     I think this is the right link to three quotes from the White Rose anti nazi group.
     http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11052013/#comment-631524
   • Steve Withers 1.2

     16 May 2013 at 10:59 pm

     Tories love dictators. It’s at the very root, the heart, of being a Tory.
     • Tracey 1.2.1

       17 May 2013 at 8:27 am

       dictators dont require pesky things like consensus and votes.
     • King Kong 1.2.2

       17 May 2013 at 8:36 am

       So do the people. Their heart says Labour but their head wants a Tory to lower taxes, brutalise criminals and rule over them like a king.

       To paraphrase Sideshow Bob.
       • ghostrider888 1.2.2.1

         17 May 2013 at 2:17 pm

         wotta’ load of codswallop
     • Populuxe1 1.2.3

       17 May 2013 at 2:43 pm

       So no left winger said nice things about Castro or Stalin ever?
       • ghostrider888 1.2.3.1

         17 May 2013 at 2:45 pm

         and it’s Buber, not Buble’
   • Ugly Truth 1.3

     17 May 2013 at 8:19 am

     “she did the hard line on law and order”

     Only when it suits her. She had no interest in addressing a case of overt judicial fraud from 2011.

     “NZ must as a people wake up and take charge, or are you going to want to be full sold out?”

     Take charge of what, exactly, and how? Activism without a workable strategy will probably be a waste of time and energy.
     • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.3.1

       17 May 2013 at 8:57 am

       A people’s common law tribunal will sort it all out. Why don’t you convene one?
     • Populuxe1 1.3.2

       17 May 2013 at 3:00 pm

       Quite right. Special Victims Unit was by far the superior TV show.
   • Maggie May 1.4

     17 May 2013 at 3:04 pm

     Love the video, love the music, thanks
2. karol 2

   16 May 2013 at 9:08 pm

   I laughed at this one from Imperator Fish.
   • veutoviper 2.1

     17 May 2013 at 6:57 am

     So did I!

     And I particularly liked the one comment although not directly related:

     “Good news: 99% of voters didn’t see Shearer’s speech.

     Bad news: 100% of his caucus did.”
3. vto 3

   16 May 2013 at 9:14 pm

   People like Judith Collins are easy to handle.

   Just say no.
   • marty mars 3.1

     16 May 2013 at 9:20 pm

     hey vto not sure if you saw this which answered a question you had the other day
     http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15052013/#comment-633462
     • vto 3.1.1

       16 May 2013 at 9:22 pm

       No I didn’t but it looks interesting. Let me have a gander and a wander back in five…
     • vto 3.1.2

       16 May 2013 at 9:48 pm

       It was unintentional and not noticed.

       I have been following the constitution debate thingy from time to here and there and time.. On that Sunday I was actively involved in another activity and listening only side-on to te wireless. I obviously missed who the person was who asked the question and in evidence of that if you go back to the original post you will see I had some questions marks and uncertainty around that.

       What I heard was the question. The particular person of the question was immaterial to the question, as I was whistling while I worked and missed it. But mine ears perked at it from thence forth listening more closely. The panelists all declined to answer. That was very odd, given the situation, hence my post.

       Note that the host, a mr simon price i think, allowed the question to be raised by mr asnell. There were only a handful of questions permitted – why would mr price endulge mr ansell? That is a question (of limited use).

       I responded to this to weka yesterday or so on the thread.

       The mistake aorund the questionnaire is immaterial to the point raised. Once you glean out the flotsam and jetsam.

       John Ansell is someone else of another world.

       We should keep talking and not succumb to assumption. It is good. Weka was very concentrated in her responses and missed or avoided countless wider and more important points made. Don’t lose what I said there marty mars, it was real and true. I know you read it and understood it despite weka’s attempt to zero in on this error.

       I don’t think that has covered all of the things. Onwards with good intent is the only way.
       • veutoviper 3.1.2.1

         17 May 2013 at 7:03 am

         The host was Stephen Price, a Wellington barrister who specialises in media law and blogs at

         http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/
       • marty mars 3.1.2.2

         17 May 2013 at 8:24 am

         The respected panelists didn’t answer because it was a loaded question from a known fool.

         The assumptions you made in your original post were false – what you said about the panelists, the question and the wider implications of talking about the issues was not true.

         The list I presented was woeful but not in the way you mean – put your own list up vto and let’s get the debate going – I’m not going to trawl through your comments looking for quotes – been there done that, and posted on it in the past, remember…
         http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/vto-and-me.html
         • weka 3.1.2.2.1

           17 May 2013 at 11:32 am

           Ugg, hadn’t seen that write up before. That makes me very angry.

           vto “… and through inter-marriage and conquest these migrants merged with the resident Waitaha and took over authority of Te Waipounamu.” Ngai Tahu website. LOL, this is exactly what I was referring to. A painting of history at odds with the reality. For example, why write “…through inter-marriage and conquest … took over authority” which implies inter-marriage was somehow equal at the time to conquest? I tell you why – because it makes for a better looking history when compared to writing “though military conquest the Waitaha were conquered and authority assumed by mamoe at the end of a taiaha. … ” As for inter-marriage, how long after the “conquest” was that? Or was it a result of the rape by soldiers?

           Vto, all I can say is try asking those questions face to face within Maori communities or on a Marae. And make sure you ask the women. Until you are willing to do that you are full of shit and a coward. Looking at tourism site boards, and then applying your own interpretation to what Kai Tahu write on their website without knowing anything useful about the deeper reality of Southern Maori and their histories is just wrong.

           Sorry, I have alot of respect for you in other things you write on ts, but in this you are very very ignorant. I can hope that one day you will walk far enough into Te Ao Maori to understand just how ignorant you were in 2012.
           • Populuxe1 3.1.2.2.1.1

             17 May 2013 at 3:19 pm

             I suggest reading Hana O’Reagan’s excellent book Ko Tahu Ko Au – Kāi Tahu Tribal identity. Intermarriage began very early in the South Island, particulalry as Scottish and Irish settlers came from cultural patterns relatively sympathetic to Māori tikanga. The use of the word “conquest” is perhaps a tad emotive out of context – a metaphorical, economic, psychological, and cultural conquest of Kāi Tahu, certainly, nonetheless terrible – but the Lad Wars were strictly a North Island phenomenon, though there was at one point a plan to establish “native reserves” in Canterbury – a notion quickly discarded. Even the individual provincial govenments functioned quite seperately. It is a mistake to view both islands as sharing an identical history of colonisation – that is a reductive simplification of a very complex/multiplex historical process. Some people might say that the colonisation of New South Wales and Victoria were genocides, but out of context that would be to do a disservice to what happened in Tasmania. I also have to wince a bit whenever some respected Kaumātua bandies the word “Holocaust” around.
             • ghostrider888 …

               17 May 2013 at 3:27 pm

               ahhh, The Lad Wars.
       • weka 3.1.2.3

         17 May 2013 at 11:22 am

         vto, I accept that it wasn’t intentional. But am disappointed with your response now.

         “The mistake aorund the questionnaire is immaterial to the point raised. Once you glean out the flotsam and jetsam.”

         No. It’s. Not. Your whole argument was that a good question was asked, and that it was strange that the panelists all refused to answer, and your conclusion was that they were afraid to. You were wrong vto, just admit it and then we can move on to more productive discussion.

         Further, the very nature of the question was racist, given who was asking it and why. Can you even acknowledge that now that you see the context?

         Anyhow, here is the actual question, devoid of the immediately surrounding context:

         Given that polls tell us that 80% of New Zealanders are distressed at seeing their country being slowly surrendered to the part descendants of the minority of Maori who breached the Treaty by rebelling against the Crown in the 1860s, could we use a republican referendum process to entrench racial equality?

         In what ways is this a useful question?

         What do you think is really being asked here? (given it is an oddly phrase question).

         Do you have any qualms about the implication that Pakeha are unfairly treated as a ‘race’, or do you agree?

         Do you believe that there has ever been credible research that asked NZers how they felt about NZ being slowly surrendered to the half caste descendants of Maori rebels?
         • weka 3.1.2.3.1

           17 May 2013 at 12:01 pm

           Have commented on Open Mike so we don’t derail this thread

           http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17052013/#comment-634309
     • vto 3.1.3

       16 May 2013 at 9:52 pm

       Marty the list is a good idea but the first cut is woeful. A collation is perhaps a better way…
4. marty mars 4

   16 May 2013 at 9:18 pm

   yes very funny – I wonder if there are actually any humans in that cabinet instead of the bloody replicants
   • Ugly Truth 4.1

     17 May 2013 at 8:22 am

     Humans are part of the problem. Mankind has been around much longer than Cicero’s homo humanus.
5. Descendant Of Sssmith 5

   16 May 2013 at 9:52 pm

   Now that I’ve read that I can’t unread it.

   My favourite movie and Judith Collins in the same sentence – aaarrggghhhhhh

   Thanks a lot.
6. sukieDamson 6

   16 May 2013 at 11:41 pm

   I must admit I find it hard to reconcile the Collins as next leader meme with the buffoonery I hear whenever she opens her mouth.
   • felix 6.1

     16 May 2013 at 11:46 pm

     I bring to your attention their current leader.
7. Ad 7

   17 May 2013 at 7:03 am

   I prefer Colins to Shearer.

   Remember when Clark stared down anyone? It’s sexy, because we see a politician wielding power skillfully.
   Thats what makes her the natural successor. Shearer head to head with Collins on tv anyone?
   Get ready to weep.
   • karol 7.1

     17 May 2013 at 8:14 am

     Clark and Collins? Chalk and cheese.

     Spot the differences….. it’s not that hard.
     • Ad 7.1.1

       17 May 2013 at 8:41 am

       Go right ahead list them.
       Its the political-force similarities that make them both so attractive.
       • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1

         17 May 2013 at 11:28 am

         And if she’d just wear high heeled shiny black lace up vinyl boots in the House it would be perfection, right?
         • Ad 7.1.1.1.1

           17 May 2013 at 1:04 pm

           I’d just settle for knew how to dress.
           It shouldn’t matter, but image really does.
           • karol 7.1.1.1.1.1

             17 May 2013 at 1:29 pm

             The differences go much deeper than image. Clark’s strength was in her grasp of the extensive details of policies and issues. Collins just relies on the perception of toughness based on a superficial understanding..
   • ghostrider888 7.2

     17 May 2013 at 2:21 pm

     sad Ad; Collins stands for everything I despise; she is the worst sort of lawyering bully; makes me feel disgust just thinking of her.
8. millsy 8

   17 May 2013 at 7:45 am

   I don’t know whether to laugh or shudder.
   • Ugly Truth 8.1

     17 May 2013 at 8:34 am

     Even if you don’t know of the replicant meme, she’s acquiescing to a slanderer. Slander is an essential part of the Crown’s modus operandi, but it usually isn’t recognised as such.
     • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.1.1

       17 May 2013 at 8:59 am

       Verbal wanking, on the other hand, can be seen from miles away.
       • ghostrider888 8.1.1.1

         17 May 2013 at 2:22 pm

         that is funny, too. 😀 (you sure grow some good lines OAK)
         • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.1.1.1.1

           17 May 2013 at 4:17 pm

           My little twiglets.
9. Tracey 9

   17 May 2013 at 8:26 am

   If the turtle was walking through the dessert instead, would she save the turtle to rescue the dessert?
   • Ad 9.1

     17 May 2013 at 8:40 am

     She would dip the turtle in the dessert, particularly if it were a mousse.

     Your spelling has deserted you.
     • Tracey 9.1.1

       17 May 2013 at 11:19 am

       na-ah, I spelled it exactly as I meant it 😉
       • McFlock 9.1.1.1

         17 May 2013 at 12:44 pm

         the mousse that roared…
         • ghostrider888 9.1.1.1.1

           17 May 2013 at 2:23 pm

           the mousse police never sleeps…
           • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1.1

             17 May 2013 at 4:02 pm

             The creme de la creme of law enforcement.
             • ghostrider888 …

               17 May 2013 at 4:10 pm

               and on that spoonful, it’s time for port (and maybe a little cheddar). Spy ya tomorrow from the Round Widow.
10. dewithiel 10

    17 May 2013 at 8:31 am

    It’s a pity she’s not a Serco, oops, I meant Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 model which, of course, was meant to last only four years.
    • Rhinocrates 10.1

      17 May 2013 at 12:16 pm

      She’s a rather clumsily-executed waxwork effigy of Thatcher, I think. I wonder if the Tory planners are wondering if they can persuade Argentina to invade the Chatham Islands?
      • ghostrider888 10.1.1

        17 May 2013 at 2:24 pm

        or folk norf
11. Populuxe1 11

    17 May 2013 at 2:58 pm

    I think she would have ripped the tortoise apart and eaten it to survive. She’s good at that.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS