But you’ll distort the price signal!

Written By: - Date published: 11:50 am, May 10th, 2011 - 31 comments
Categories: act, election 2011, humour - Tags:

I love that ACToids are always complaining that interest-free student loans are a bad idea because they encourage wasteful, inefficient spending but think that giving out free heart-attack makers is perfectly sensible.

By the way, isn’t this treating?

H/T Dimpost

31 comments on “But you’ll distort the price signal! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Alwyn 1
    10 May 2011 at 12:16 pm

    I do wish they would print the sections of acts in a different order.
    Why don’t the give the exemptions at the start instead of at the end?
    I’ve never seen the definition of treating spelt out, so I followed your link to the legislation.
    I went to a Labour party meeting before the last election at which I had a cup of tea.
    So reading the act I see, under section 2b that Grant Robertson is up for a little time inside. Oh well, not to worry. I’ve never met a politician who didn’t deserve that.
    Then I read section 4 and find that I’m going to be sharing the cell! Not so good.
    Finally I get to section 5 and my panic attack goes away. Why can’t they put that bit FIRST?

  2. Sam 2
    10 May 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Its only treating if they are soliciting votes. Which they are not. ACT on campus is simply celebrating freedom.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      10 May 2011 at 1:24 pm

      It doesn’t actually say anything about voting for the person or parties that are doing the gift-giving. It just says “corruptly influencing”.
       
      In fact it also specifically says influencing people to “not vote”, as in “we’ll give you some burgers if you choose not to vote for anyone”, which is clearly very different from “we’ll give you some burgers if you vote for us”, so to say that the legislation only covers people soliciting votes is incorrect.

    • Colonial Viper 2.2
      10 May 2011 at 4:14 pm

      ACT on campus is simply celebrating freedom.

      Freedom from factory farmed processed chicken meat?

      Freedom from having our lands and strategic assets stolen from under us?

      Freedom from private interests taking ownership and authority of the way our democracy is run?

      Freedom from undemocratic corporate takeovers of our political parties?

      So, what exactly is this “freedom” bullshit ACT is selling?

      • infused 2.2.1
        10 May 2011 at 9:29 pm

        yawn as usual cv.

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1
          10 May 2011 at 9:36 pm

          Sleep walking to selling out the country, infused?

          Your help is going to make your family, your children, your neighbours all poorer. Enjoy the drippings from your lord’s table while they last.

  3. Sally 3
    10 May 2011 at 1:26 pm

    You would have to prove that it was curruptly influencing, which might be difficult – I’d like to think that people value their votes more than that.

  4. todd 4
    10 May 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Don Brash escaping from the crypt to solicit votes with artery clogging poison is one kind of freedom we can do without.

    Perhaps Alwyn and Sam, you should have read the whole section: Notwithstanding anything in this section, the provision of a light supper after any election meeting shall be deemed not to constitute the offence of treating.

    • Alwyn 4.1
      10 May 2011 at 2:08 pm

      Yes Todd, I did.
      The last line I wrote mentions section 5 when I stopped shaking.

      • wtl 4.1.1
        10 May 2011 at 2:23 pm

        Except surely advertising an election meeting and saying “refreshments/snacks will be provided afterwards” is a little different from the way this event was advertised.

    • Richard 4.2
      10 May 2011 at 3:07 pm

      Notwithstanding anything in this section, the provision of a light supper after any election meeting shall be deemed not to constitute the offence of treating.

      This product doesn’t exactly scream “light”. It’s not “supper” either, if it’s served at lunch time.

      • todd 4.2.1
        10 May 2011 at 10:16 pm

        What I meant was that there is a clear distinction between having a light supper and giving some takeaways away to students, at an event that is not an election meeting. Act is clearly in breach of the law. “One law in breach for all” could perhaps be their new catch cry.

        The day Act celebrate freedom is the day the Sensible Sentencing Trust cry foul when a Maori is sent to jail. It’s about as retarded as Bill English when he said McDonalds is a healthy alternative… A healthy alternative to what, eating radioactive waste? If Act think that promoting the double down in some way promotes freedom, instead of an acceptance of New Zealands terrible obesity epidemic, they’re horribly mistaken. Not much new there though.

        What’s really abhorrent is the promotion of fast food companies by politicians while they ignore any policies that could help our health… What’s next, a few smile and waive media wank fests with a coke and just do it T shirt?

  5. Tigger 5
    10 May 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Ooooh ACT, how edgy you are giving away free fast food. Especially when I suspect your crusty leader last ate at a fast food establishment back in the1970s, if ever.

    • Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1
      10 May 2011 at 3:08 pm

      Tigger, you are forgetting his famous Burger King meeting with Rodney. In fact, he is the only leader we know for a fact has recently eaten in a fast food restaurant.

      • Lanthanide 5.1.1
        10 May 2011 at 4:23 pm

        Do we know he actually ate anything though? I mean, it could’ve been Rodney that picked the venue…

    • the pink postman 5.2
      10 May 2011 at 4:05 pm

      doesnt he eat tin peas and crumpet? Oh dear when I say crumpet I mean the toasted type not the Brash type.

  6. KINTO 6
    10 May 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Distinctly lacking in detail, which campus?

  7. felix 7
    10 May 2011 at 3:38 pm

    ACT on campus, the fruity little club whose website homepage screams out “Legalize Drugs” and “Gay Marriage” …

    … and yet they support Don Brash, a man who couldn’t even bring himself to vote for civil unions, let alone gay marriage.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      10 May 2011 at 4:11 pm

      Sheeesh you worry too much about meaningless details felix 🙄

    • Lanthanide 7.2
      10 May 2011 at 4:24 pm

      It’s because they know that progressive social policies are the gateway drug to get the young’uns voting for them.

    • Vicky32 7.3
      11 May 2011 at 11:36 pm

      … and yet they support Don Brash, a man who couldn’t even bring himself to vote for civil unions, let alone gay marriage.

      That is perhaps the least important and the most self-centred reason to be afraid of Brash!
      The average voter is not going to be terribly impressed by that criticism when there are others that she is in fact adversely affected by.

  8. Jenny 8
    10 May 2011 at 6:46 pm

    Maybe it’s a metaphor for the end result of their policies.

    ACT are the party that wants Free Foxes in a Free Chicken Run.

    So if ACT had their way, after they have enjoyed the initial excitement of the frenzied slashing of public assets and social services, what with all the blood spray and feather flying mayhem.

    When ACT finish with ripping into the human and natural environment to feed the greed of the insatiable corporate foxes who back them. This is exactly how we will end up.

    Deep in boiling oil to be laid gently between two soft tasty buns. (minus the buns).

  9. Mike Readman 9
    10 May 2011 at 6:54 pm

    Don Brash said that in hindsight he should have voted for civil unions.

    • Eddie 9.1
      10 May 2011 at 7:13 pm

      Don Brash did what the exclusive brethren told him to do because they gave him lots of money, for which he was willing to trade his ‘principles’

      On one hand, I can’t believe this unprincipled sell-out is the idol of the Right. On the other, it makes perfect sense.

    • Colonial Viper 9.2
      10 May 2011 at 9:40 pm

      Don Brash said that in hindsight he should have voted for civil unions.

      Let’s hear him say it on national TV…instead of just in your wild imagination.

    • Jim Nald 9.3
      11 May 2011 at 11:47 pm

      Yes, the man knows a lot about civil unions or rather the uncivil ones, in addition to … [I’ll let it rest there for the sake of his previous partners].

  10. Rusty Shackleford 10
    10 May 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Eating a double down by itself is probably healthier (in the strictest sense) than eating a tower burger with coke and chips. The insulin (the hormone that helps you store fat) response will be much lower for the double down than the combo because there is much less carbohydrate (sugar).

    ACT, looking out for bludging students.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      10 May 2011 at 9:41 pm

      A double down is also far healthier than being shot in the gut by a 12 gauge, but that’s not exactly a healthy selling point is it?

      • Jim Nald 10.1.1
        11 May 2011 at 11:48 pm

        ‘Double down’ is a new phrase to be added to my vocabulary.
        Thought it had something to do with going on one’s knees twice.

  11. Toby Keith 11
    10 May 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Again if the biggest scandal is giving away a greasy fried chicken burger, the right has nothing to worry about.

    [lprent: Better. For a change you wrote something that made a point rather than spewing up hackneyed phrases from a obsolete playlist.

    Of course you obviously didn’t read the post (you can read past the first paragraph?) because the author of the post didn’t claim it was a scandal and I suspect that the significance of the humor category escaped you. Nor did they claim it was anything to do with the ‘right’ – just Act on campus.

    Try harder. ]

  12. Mac1 12
    10 May 2011 at 10:32 pm

    The act of treating involves the use of alcoholic beverage or food. I don’t think that a prosecution would succeed since Mac’s is not food, at least as I know it. 🙂