New posters/leaflets

66 comments on “New posters/leaflets ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tim Ellis 1

   20 October 2008 at 6:48 pm

   Gosh. That’s exactly the same theme of the John versus John TV ad I saw from the Labour Party just a minute ago.

   Good on you for authorising it appropriately SP. I realise you’ve gone with black and white to keep costs down, but it’s unfortunate that the colours you’ve used make it look like an NZ First pamphlet.

   At least that was my initial impression.
2. randal 2

   20 October 2008 at 6:55 pm

   it might look like somebody elses poster but there is no mistaking the dick cheny sneer
3. lprent 3

   20 October 2008 at 7:02 pm

   TE: Everyone should highlight the things that others are good at.

   I’m good at programming. John Key is good at flip-flopping.

   He does feel a bit like a classic black and white portrait of a politician – old school style. Good smile, likeable, two-faced, and with a limited vision and understanding.

   But maybe that is just the effect of having advice from Crosby-Textor. They like cartoons for candidates.

   So maybe the colours are appropriate for both politicians, both Winston and John Key. I have problems telling them apart.

   captcha: wreck because
   ha ha. well the poster says it all…
4. Rex Widerstrom 4

   20 October 2008 at 7:20 pm

   It’d hold up a bit better if the quotes allegedly said by Key were referenced (small print in the corner somewhere would do).
5. QoT 5

   20 October 2008 at 7:25 pm

   Agreed with Rex – that’s actually the strength of the similar Labour TV spots for me, the fact that every single “he said this” is referenced for all to see.
6. randal 6

   20 October 2008 at 7:39 pm

   boring
7. dad4justice 7

   20 October 2008 at 8:25 pm

   Yawn.
8. burt 8

   20 October 2008 at 8:37 pm

   lprent

   So maybe the colours are appropriate for both politicians, both Winston and John Key. I have problems telling them apart.

   There is a quick cheat you can use to tell them apart. One is loved and supported by Labour irrespective of what he does and the other is denigrated by Labour irrespective of what he does.
9. Doug 9

   20 October 2008 at 8:41 pm

   Labour’s coilition partner New Zealand First Winston Peters has put forward a radical proposal to float shares in Kiwibank. Is this Labour policy?

   [lprent: Don’t be silly. Tell me does the party you support consist completely of idiot trolls, just because you are one. Read the About and the Policy at the top of the page. It usually pays to look at the local policy and comments before getting moderated for stupidity.]
10. Pascal's bookie 10

    20 October 2008 at 8:51 pm

    ooh look, burt made his comment again.

    Funny how he spins on and on and on about two ticks long enough to curdle water, but still doesn’t understand that in MMP big parties will have coalition agreements with small parties. And that this will involve compromise, (ooh dirty word. Impure. Unclean. Bring out your dead.), or that the parties in coalition are in tactical/strategic arrangements, not moral or even, necessarily, ideological ones.

    I actually think that he feels that if it wasn’t for the two ticks strategy of the big parties, ACT would be getting enough votes to have their policies taken seriously. He just can’t accept that no one likes ACT’s policy program. That can’t be it, it’s all the fault of those darstardly two tickers and the unions. Always the bloody unions. Every comment is a retrospective of his comments past.
11. lprent 11

    20 October 2008 at 8:58 pm

    burt: I’m a strong Labour supporter. I’ve never said a good word about either national or NZF (that I can remember).

    Of course I also have the same opinion about the strange obsession that some of the politically naive of the right have with assuming that different parties of a coalition have the same policies. It speaks of a type of simple minded view of the world that must be hard to carry off. Reality, especially political reality, must be very hard for you to endure. It is no wonder that that most on the right seem to have problem with MMP. It makes things too complex for their simple minds.

    Tell me, does your opinion also apply to the Bolger/Winston coalitions of the past?

    (Man you left yourself wide open for that)

    BTW: anyone notice that randal and d4j are in agreement. Now that is scary.
12. r0b 12

    20 October 2008 at 9:49 pm

    BTW: anyone notice that randal and d4j are in agreement. Now that is scary.

    More than scary – isn’t it one of the portents of the apocalypse?
13. burt 13

    20 October 2008 at 9:53 pm

    lprent

    As Winston was ex-National the coalitions with National didn’t register as ‘unlikely’ to me then as it would now with the passage of time allowing more specialisation of the NZ1 brand. I’ve never been a big Winston supporter, I’ll be honest.

    Additionally Bolger never defended Winston through a period of parliamentary privilege censure to keep his happy face on for the election.
14. burt 14

    20 October 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Pascal’s bookie

    You listen to what I say, I’m flattered.
15. randal 15

    20 October 2008 at 10:05 pm

    so what?
16. milo 16

    20 October 2008 at 11:36 pm

    There is some great entertainment coming out of all this, and some very pithy sayings. “Tranzrail eyes” was fantastic. And “Don’t let the Green-eyed Labour Monster loose on the streets” was almost as good.

    I’m hoping for more – there’s still weeks to go!
17. G 17

    20 October 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Speaking of flip-flopping, let’s have a squiz at the all-time biggest election flip-flop ever — tax cuts:

    Helen: “Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of visionless and intellectually bankrupt people.’

    Helen again: “We are not prepared to lash out with across the board tax cuts which would throw New Zealand back into debt, increase mortgage rates, and cut important public services.’

    Cullen: “We just don’t believe in tax cuts – it’s against our fundamental philosophy – after all we are socialists and proud of it.’

    Cullen again: “So, when anyone promises tax cuts, you need to read their lips carefully, because what they are actually saying is longer waiting times for health care, longer queues for public services, lower pensions, fewer police and so on.”

    Nine years — nine freaking years without a tax cut. But when it looks like this one’s going to be all about tax cuts…
18. travellerev 18

    21 October 2008 at 8:41 am

    G,

    Yep, if National gets in the upper crust will get their tax cuts while the mugs will fork out for the almost half trillion NZ dollars John Key wants in place to help his banking buddies.
    Funny how bankers embrace Capitalism when it’s them scamming the suckers and cry for Socialism when their scams fall flat and they need to bailed out.

    r0b,

    Yep, I thought it was scary too. LOL
19. randal 19

    21 October 2008 at 8:47 am

    ev…justa cosmic coincidence or if one was to get suspicious ummmmmmmmmmm and just a note to all you infantilised co dependents I dont do co-dependency or fuzzy wuzzy feelgoods.
20. G 20

    21 October 2008 at 9:24 am

    Anyone here have the integrity to admit Labour has flip-flopped on tax cuts…?
21. Phil 21

    21 October 2008 at 9:30 am

    Trav,

    Would they be the same wholesale interbank deposits that Cullen has now decided to include in the current scheme?

    You missed a trick there, when you didn’t ‘out’ him as being part of the global money-master conspiracy… you’re slipp(ery?)ing.

    —

    Seriously though, I personally don’t like the scheme at all. But we live in an interdependant world, and if we don’t commit to a course of action, EVERYONE loses out – small businesses, mortgage holders, consumers, mum-and-dad investors, so on and so forth. One area where you and I have always been in agreement (I think) is that, going forward, there needs to be a serious review of how banks operate.
22. Matthew Pilott 22

    21 October 2008 at 9:33 am

    “Anyone here have the integrity to admit Labour has flip-flopped on tax cuts ?”

    You’re spoiling for a fight aren’t you, wee fella? Anyone have the integrity to conceed to a false dishotomy? .
23. G 23

    21 October 2008 at 9:49 am

    This thread is about flip-flopping on policy, Matthew — care to concede Labour has flip-flopped on what was the biggest political issue prior to the meltdown?

    And “conceed (sic) to a false” what?
24. randal 24

    21 October 2008 at 9:56 am

    nah..this thread is about john keys fundamental flaws…dishonesty and flip flopping. so tell me g what do you think about privatising ACC and selling kiwibank or do you prefer to remain in the land of projected blank pottlekettles?
25. appleboy 25

    21 October 2008 at 10:02 am

    G – I’d like to respond to your post on whether Labour have flip flopped on tax – after you provide the links to the full unedited source to your posted quotes. I believe you are trying to deceive us in providing selected/edited quotes out of context.
26. burt 26

    21 October 2008 at 10:03 am

    G

    Yes they sure have flip-flopped. They were always going to. Labour stupidly painted themselves into a corner on this one. If thresholds don’t adjust and earning inflate over time more and more people are paying rich prick thresholds. It’s not rocket science.

    Cullen also laid out the four way test, another great flip-flop. Dr Cullen told us how prudent it was to stick to these basic principles. Then he ignored that when polling reality gave his belligerence a kick in the teeth. Not be outdone on just ignoring the 4 way test to win this election he threw caution to the wind completely and legislated to forget about his four way test completely for the next 3 years.
27. randal 27

    21 October 2008 at 10:09 am

    burt..pottle..kettle…blank..project.
28. Tane 28

    21 October 2008 at 10:13 am

    G, burt. As usual you leave out the key qualifier:

    “in today’s circumstances”

    But I’m guessing that kind of subtelty is beyond people like you who think the answer to any question, in any circumstances, is sweeping tax cuts across the board.
29. burt 29

    21 October 2008 at 10:18 am

    randal

    I just think the ‘flip flop’ line is a stupid one to run in a campaign for any party that has build a solid history of such behaviour. It’s pointing a gun at your own head, the public are not completely stupid. It’s not as black and white as Steve P. wants us to think it is.
30. appleboy 30

    21 October 2008 at 10:20 am

    and i am still waiting to hear from dad4justice – a few days ago he was claiming Labour would slide to 25% in the polls on the back some immigration scandal. 24 hours later we all found out that the chinese gentleman concerned met 3 times with John Key, donated $5K to National, and had Patsy Wong write a letter of support. How does it feel to such a prat? I think d4j you may be one of those who wears swimming trunks in the bath to stop themselves looking down on the unemployed.
31. burt 31

    21 October 2008 at 10:22 am

    Tane

    Hello again. It’s been awhile. Labour just did tax cuts across the board, why is across the board tax cuts suddenly about me?

    I’ve been a big advocate on this blog for regularly reviewed thresholds, seems Cullen has partially caught up with my thinking that they need regular adjustment. The difference is I think policy should set the thresholds as a percentage of earners and thresholds should be tweaked to maintain integrity of the policy settings on an annual basis.

    Dr. Cullen seems to think that he can predict the economy 3 years into the future and lays them out. How will his 4 way test be applied Tane? Or is that something we don’t talk about these days?
32. Tane 32

    21 October 2008 at 10:30 am

    Hi burt. It has indeed. I’ve been rather busy with work and with helping the real life campaign, so the blog’s kind of taken a back seat.

    My point is that Labour’s policy has always been to build surpluses in the good times to allow for deficits in the bad times. Cullen’s paid down our debt and put us in a good position to handle deficits without having to slash services, cut benefits and reduce wages – a course of action that we know from experience would only drive the country even further into recession.

    I’m not saying I agree with everything Cullen and Labour do. I’m just saying there’s a logic to their surpluses and it’s the same logic that applies to their tax cut package. The supposedly contradictory quotes from your mate aren’t contradictory at all.
33. G 33

    21 October 2008 at 10:36 am

    Appleboy, that quote from Cullen, “We just don’t believe in tax cuts – it’s against our fundamental philosophy – after all we are socialists and proud of it” was a direct lift from his inaugural budget speech in ’99, and cannot be taken out of context.

    The others are all well documented but I’m not wasting my time searching for them. I don’t care if you concede the point or not — it’s obvious to the rest of us in the world outside this blog that, after nine years of denying us a tax cut, Labour has flip-flopped and given us one a month before the election.

    To point fingers at the opposition and cry “flip-flop” is hypocritical, plain and simple, and the fact that none of you socialists are willing to concede it exposes your lack of integrity.
34. burt 34

    21 October 2008 at 10:47 am

    Tane

    That surplus is stored in the form of lower debt.I have no argument with that, sadly though the lack of productive developments created by the surplus has left us poorly prepared. Now we need to borrow (remember that incredibly expensive thing we must not do) to fund tax cuts. A growing economy also produces opportunity to repay debt, without making the people poor to do it.

    I’ll tell ya what. In late 2009 the 2008 tax year stats will be available. I’ll wager a beer that over 20% of workers (employed people who paid tax – not working age people) have been classified as rich under the Labour-led govt before tax cuts were finally given. This is the result of the ‘top 5%’ tax policy.
    (can we remember to check this late 2009?)

    Teachers being taxed as rich bastards was not a good look for the govt, Labour should have seen that coming and made inflation adjustments in 2005. It was a stupid mistake for Labour to take such a principled stand that tax cuts were bad when it was bloody obvious something had to change soon.
35. burt 35

    21 October 2008 at 11:04 am

    Tane

    20% is my lower prediction from way back here.

    burt on thresholds at the standard
36. r0b 36

    21 October 2008 at 11:09 am

    it’s obvious to the rest of us in the world outside this blog that, after nine years of denying us a tax cut, Labour has flip-flopped and given us one a month before the election.

    G, your quotes re Labour on tax are mostly 9 years old, and in some cases explicitly contextualised to that time. Now after 9 years of inflation, bracket creep and so on, Labour have decided that it’s time for a tax cut (which fixes 9 years of creep for incomes over 47K and gives a bit more to those under it).

    You can call that a flip flop if you like – knock yourself out – it’s obvious to the rest of us in the world outside your head that it’s responding sensibly to circumstances that have changed after 9 years in office. To be unable to adapt to a changing world is a mark of stupidity wouldn’t you say?

    Compare and contrast with National and Key, who hasn’t been PM for even 5 seconds (expect perhaps in his dreams), and has already racked up a far larger number of flip flops on a far wider range of issues than is really seemly. Just sayin.
37. Matthew Pilott 37

    21 October 2008 at 11:16 am

    G, people not conceding to your point isn’t through a lack of integrity, but an understanding that your points aren’t vaguely valid.

    It’s really quite simple. Labour doesn’t ‘believe in tax cuts’ in the respect that they don’t believe in a progressive weakening of the ability of the state to provide where required. Against that is Cullen’s economic philosophy Tane outlined above.

    The two are not irreconcilable. It’s your shortcoming that you lack the ability to see that (I’m sure your response to this will illustrate that clearly, specious rhetoric about ‘waiting nine years’ notwithstanding), so expecting an admission based abon your flaws is not a little bit unreasonable.

    The question about a flase dichotomy? It’s well documented (i.e use a dictionary) and I’m not wasting my time researching for you. Are you wearing ignorance as a wee badge of pride?
38. Daveski 38

    21 October 2008 at 11:28 am

    I think the Labour strategists have done a wonderful job of spinning the flip-flop line – again, it’s all about perception, not reality.

    I compare HC’s attitude to Key over the tour with HC’s track record in earlier Labour govts particularly in terms of asset sales. It’s remarbable that National hasn’t tried to turn the heat on HC given the consistent line of attack on Key and National. Add to that the barbs about National’s front row when Labour’s core four are even older and more institutionalised!

    As for Cullen’s flip flop, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t an election bribe given Cullen’s philosophical opposition and the timing of them. If it wasn’t a bribe, why not wait until 1 April when every other tax change is planned? At the time the changes were announced, there was no crisis so the timing was purely about maximising votes.

    Having said all that, I think the commitment to policies is less important under MMP than it was under FPP. Commitment to bottom lines is most likely more helpful to voters.

    Much of the debate here gets polarised along Labour/National lines which is less relevant in an MMP environment.
39. Matthew Pilott 39

    21 October 2008 at 11:37 am

    Daveski, you could try and run the line that it’s a flip-flop that Labour isn’t selling assetts, but why stop there? Why not say they’re flip-flopping because in 1939 they put New Zealand in a state of Total War production? They sure didn’t do that this time. We haven’t even declared war on Germany! Flip-Flop!

    “ At the time the changes were announced, there was no crisis so the timing was purely about maximising votes.”

    I could maybe agree with you there – the specific timing of the cut was most likely to make it take effect before the election, but we’re talking here about a few months. At least you’re conceding that that’s not why they had the tax cut in the first place, only that the timing was pushed forward a bit.
40. Travellerev 40

    21 October 2008 at 11:44 am

    vto,

    Sad, really the baiting. John Key’s lies are enough for me. Lying about his career timeline trying to disconnect him from Andrew krieger and his NZ dollar raid, about his involvement with the LTCM scandal and his ice little business with subprime derivatives, his shares and his policies.

    Are you perhaps a closet case masochist and do you like being abused with lies and dishonesty? Someone lies to me and he’s out. You go and hug your banking scum mate and enjoy his abusive lying.

    So far I’ve only been able to find a commitment for upto 150 billion and John Key just wants to tripple that to 450 billion.
41. Travellerev 41

    21 October 2008 at 11:47 am

    Randal,

    Just joshing mate, I think your comments are generaly hilarious and to the point.
42. randal 42

    21 October 2008 at 11:51 am

    labour= I block of cheese now
    national= 1/2 block of cheese maybe in 2010
    what about the non cheeze eaters
    what do they get
    and when do they get it?
43. Daveski 43

    21 October 2008 at 11:54 am

    MP – my point was that events in 1981 were used in an attempt to damage Key yet more recent events that involved HC doing things diametrically opposed to her current position have been overlooked.

    In terms of the tax cuts, I expect that Cullen was still opposed to them based on his dogmatic principles but was overruled by those worried about the election.

    Trying to be constructive here – Labour fairly can be acknowledged as being a safe pair of hands over the last 9 years although there is a debate about whether they could have been expected to have done more.

    So the question has to be why is Labour struggling to get re-elected particularly when I agree that National hasn’t put a compelling case for election.

    I wonder whether the attacks on the flip-flops are actually counter productive in the sense that most of the flip-flops are things that the general punter supports??

    It will be interesting to see how the next debates pan out given that Labour definitely under-estimated Key’s ability to compete. I would expect the flip-flops to be a line of attack and will be interested to see how Key responds.
44. burt 44

    21 October 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Economy over the worst: Cullen – NZ Herald. 12 Sep 2008

    Finance Minister Michael Cullen thinks the worst of the economic recession is probably over – and that Labour’s tax cuts will help to push the economy back into positive growth just as voters head to the polls.

    Labour has good tax cuts, they are powerful. National tax cuts are bad – I’m getting how this works.

    Cullen is just a talking head isn’t he, there are the frequent sharp quips from this man but he has no idea what is going on. He is, as he said himself, out of his depth.
45. Felix 45

    21 October 2008 at 12:29 pm

    I don’t think I want to be paid in cheese anymore randal.

    It’s more than I can eat and stay in good health, no-one accepts it as currency, the house is getting overrun with rodents and the bank won’t let me store it there.

    Gonna be a stinky summer if this goes on much longer.
46. lprent 46

    21 October 2008 at 12:32 pm

    Daveski: Incorrect. Cullen stated the rationale for when tax-cuts were appropriate a long time ago. I can’t remember the exact list or a link (and have no time to locate them). But they went like this

    1. Get government debt down to an acceptable level. In 1999 it was something like 37% of government revenue mostly from stuff carried from muldoon in the early 80’s. Now it is about 17% and is operational rather than long-term.

    2. Fund the forward obligations of current tax payers. ie fund the superannuation bulge that really kicking in between 2020 and 2050. That is partially done by the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver. However the Nay’s now wish to plunder then destroy both.

    3. Start putting in the physical infrastructure that had been deferred since the late 1970’s. This is partially done and more is underway. Currently the Nay’s appear to want to defer most of this until they have a chance to shift the projects to PPP and make the public part as plunder from the Cullen fund.

    4. Stop wasting people in unemployment. Train them so they can be employed and then make sure the economy is able to employ them. ie Upgrade our human infrstructure.

    Quite simply the morons calling for a tax-cut are short-term idiots who are trying to throw debt onto their children. They haven’t understood or more likely choose not to understand what has been going on in the government for the last 9 years. What they want is consumption now rather then building a sound economy.

    The Nay’s are pandering to that by feeding them carefully selected numbers from the books and stats.
47. Phil 47

    21 October 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Tane,

    G, burt. As usual you leave out the key qualifier:

    “in today’s circumstances’

    But I’m guessing that kind of subtelty is beyond people like you who think the answer to any question, in any circumstances, is sweeping tax cuts across the board.

    2005 called – asked if you could pass on a message to Helen about her pathetic attempt to suggest Brash didn’t want anyone to own a house.
48. Daveski 48

    21 October 2008 at 12:44 pm

    LP Happy to agree to the fact that Cullen did propose some tests. However, the substantive point I made in my post was the timing which undermines the constructive case.

    Why else were the tax cuts scheduled for 1 October? In fact, the other two cuts are scheduled for 1 April … just not the first one.

    Cullen seems hell bent on not being a populist so the decision I suspect seems to have forced on him. You may be able to comment further.
49. Matthew Pilott 49

    21 October 2008 at 12:47 pm

    felix – the bastards are paying me in stilton. If this goes on any longer I’m off to aus.

    Daveski – the attacks over the flip-flops are useful especially when you see what follows them. Key hates WfF, then professes to like it, then acts to negate it. The flip-flops are all populist ones (don’t scare the horses) but underlying that has to be a suspicion that they are ones of convenience, not resolution, and will easily be forgotten out of some future percieved necessity.

    Why is Labour doing badly? A few scandals involving ministers, interspersed with some dedicated research into the performace of the public sector helped to create a perception of the government that isn’t effective, and National’s spin was set to capitalise on that – well they would be since it was clearly the National Paty digging all the stories up. And so they should – just interesting that when Labour does the same, it’s noted that the information came from Labour, thus somewhat negating the attacks. There’s a myriad of small things that have added up to a medium ‘mood for change’. Labour’s support has not diminished a great deal, but National’s has coalesced. If National’s policy was as good as their spin they’d probably easily get a majority, but behind the slick media manipulation and effective attack tactics lies some pure idiocy. Can research programmes? Remove incentives for reform in prisons? $50 rape/murder levies? They’re probably lucky their spin has done as well as it has – I just hope people see that lack of substance before it’s too late.

    Burt – find me someone in a similar position who did predict the recent economic troubles. Good luck with that.
50. Daveski 50

    21 October 2008 at 1:05 pm

    MP – a fair and reasonable analysis for the part. I would add the *perception* that Labour has lost touch and to an extent I think it is true. It was fascinating to see some constructive criticism around HC’s performance in the debate here for example.

    As I’ve noted more than once, I think there is post-Brash a much greater similarity between National and Labour – including some of the flip-flops.

    But the attacks on Key have been signalled for some time (SP created the template) but they don’t seem to have gained any traction, at least not yet.
51. G 51

    21 October 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Matthew: “The question about a flase dichotomy? It’s well documented (i.e use a dictionary)”

    First you wanted me “to conceed a false dishotomy,” Now it’s “a flase dichotomy?”… and you want ME to use a dictionary?!

    I couldn’t make up this stuff! 🙂

    Okay, so when National adopts Labour policy it’s a flip-flop, but when your lot do it it’s a-okay. When National wants to give us a tax cut it’s irresponsible and inflationary and it’s gonna cost jobs on the frontline — goodbye doctors, nurses, teachers and cops! But when Labour gives us a tax cut “it’s responding sensibly to circumstances.”

    I honestly couldn’t make up this stuff!! 😀
52. Matthew Pilott 52

    21 October 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Well done, you’re picking up spelling mistakes as if they are important. I guess it’s one way to deflect attention away from the fact that you’re having trouble understanding what I was getting at, but you could eat a little humble pie and admit it – I’d be happy to help you out there. Otherwise you’ll actually answer the point in your next post, instead of trying to divert. I won’t be holding my breath!

    If you think a tax cut is for one reason and one reason alone, then I can see how you’d reach your conclusion. In doing so, you’re admitting that “Labour believes in tax cuts”, I guess, very kind of you. Even if you’ve got it somewhere between backward and reality.

    No, I honestly don’t think you could. I could make up everything you say, though, with an absolute minimum of fuss. I hope Lynn programmes a troll to do it as he’s been threatening, I reckon it could be better than debating with the real thing!

    [lprent: I will, I will. After the election and probably before xmas. I’ll trial with a wingnut and then the same with (bugger can’t remember the name) and left wing troll. If they pass acceptance testing, I’ll try some blind trials with an IP relay]
53. Felix 53

    21 October 2008 at 3:25 pm

    “First you wanted me “to conceed a false dishotomy,’ Now it’s “a flase dichotomy?’ and you want ME to use a dictionary?!”

    But G, you have been using a dictionary – online ones and several of them. And even then it’s taken you bloody ages to realise you were looking for the wrong word.

    The funny thing is you think no-one knows.
54. Pascal's bookie 54

    21 October 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Lynn.

    It’s wingnuts vs moonbats I think.
55. lprent 55

    21 October 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Daveski: I suspect that many politicians in labour would have preferred them last year in 2007 or early in 2008. However the debt only crawled down to the acceptable target rate towards the mid-end of 2007.

    They were announced in this years budget, and typically pay systems require 6 months to get the changes in place – it takes that long to get everything updated. Thats why it was October. Of course that was political as well…

    The point I’m making is that Cullen was doing the fiscally responsible thing based on plans made before the election in 1999. The Nay’s look extremely fiscally irresponsible, especially in their plan to plunder the future returns of my superannuation savings with both the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver to pay for taxcuts.
56. G 56

    21 October 2008 at 6:55 pm

    I won the English prize at school, Felix, I’m pretty good at spelling. Though I do admit to the odd error, which I usually spot on the printed read and unfortunately can no longer correct (what happened to the edit function Sysop?).

    But you have to admit, it’s pretty funny that Matt was telling me to examine a dictionary and couldn’t spell his own sentence. Twice. 🙂

    Nice one though guys on The Double Standard: Labour tax cuts good; National tax cuts bad. Hilarious.

    [BTW, there was no ‘false dichotomy’ in my statement — he’s completely misused it]
57. G 57

    21 October 2008 at 7:03 pm

    “The Nay’s look extremely fiscally irresponsible, especially in their plan to plunder the future returns of my superannuation savings with… the Cullen fund…”

    Ha! You guys are really cracking me up these days!

    Market meltdown costs Cullen Fund $881m

    I say give it to me now, you prick, and let ME decide how to plan for my retirement.
58. Robinsod 58

    21 October 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Oh G, G, G – There is nothing more I would like to see than you be given your own money to fuck up with but alas we live in a society that is designed to save even idiots like yourself from yourselves…

    Is it just me or is the joy one would get from watching stupid libertarians (if I may indulge in tautology) get devoured in a free market the only arguable case for libertarianism?
59. lprent 59

    21 October 2008 at 7:31 pm

    G: You’d just waste it speculating on something and then expect me to pay for your wastral ways. I’ve seen your type of idiot investing before.

    Slightly less than 5% loss on the Cullen is very good in the current market. That is pretty much the same as the NZX and a lot less of a loss than the US/UK and almost everywhere else. I haven’t been monitoring because I dropped out to wait out the recession a while ago. The speculators were getting over-excited yet again….

    I’d expect that they will take some more losses over the next 6 months, but it sounds like they’ve been investing the money in the right types of companies. They should also be able to pick up some useful stakes now that the prices have fropped.
60. randal 60

    21 October 2008 at 7:40 pm

    g…calm down or they will come and take you away!
61. randal 61

    21 October 2008 at 7:42 pm

    g..just been going over your other stuff and the indications are delusions of grandeur with incipient megalomania. just dont let it show in public eh…for your own benefit like.
62. vto 62

    21 October 2008 at 8:04 pm

    randal why is your picture a gladiator?
63. randal 63

    21 October 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Nosiness leads to the same sort of mental problems that g suffers from.
64. G 64

    21 October 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Nosiness is socialism’s middle name, randal little-letters — you guys simply kant keep those sticky beaks out of other people’s business.

    BTW, when Labour got in back in ’99 I invested my savings in gold at a tad under $3, liquidated when it hit $9.50 in July and bought a shit-load of property at really low prices. I could retire but I like my job too much. 🙂
65. Robinsod 65

    21 October 2008 at 10:06 pm

    G – in my experience there are no rich libertarians. Only libertarians who think the reason they’re not rich has something to do with the government…

    For any libertarians (other than G) reading this comment – some advice:

    You’re not rich because you are stupid and unpleasant to be around. Neither the government or the Zionist conspiracy have anything to do with it.

Links to post

1. Going Negative « The Dim-Post: posted on 21 October 2008 at 9:13 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS