Open mike 01/11/2011

98 comments on “Open mike 01/11/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   1 November 2011 at 6:21 am

   A new phrase last night entered our political lexicon. “We live in a dynamic world” may henceforth be used to replace “we lied”. I can hardly wait to try it out in real life.
   • Pete George 1.1

     1 November 2011 at 6:27 am

     Do you think parties should never adapt to changing situations?

     Anyone who implies any statement by a politician should be cast in stone and never changed has no idea about real life, or they are trying to score political points.

     If I had a vote for every time a politician is accused of lying I’d be doing very well.
     • vto 1.1.1

       1 November 2011 at 6:39 am

       Perhaps that is why many politicians today occupy the rungs of the least trusted in the land.

       You realise of course, like all us jo blo averages out here, that there is a world of difference between lying and having to change one’s position for legitimate reasons. Your comment indicates you are unaware of the difference Pete.

       Key clearly admitted that he was lying when he has said those things i.e. he knew at the time he made the statements that he would not follow through. That is a lie.

       Which is entirely different to believing at the time he made the statements that he would follow through, but other circumstances forced a later change of position. That is not a lie.

       Key admitted to the former.

       He is a liar.
       • Pete George 1.1.1.1

         1 November 2011 at 6:48 am

         You’ll have to show me where he has done what you claim to convince me.

         If Goff says “Labour will introduce a Capital Gains Tax” when he know’s he won’t win a lie?
         If Goff says “all New Zealanders….” is that a lie?
         • vto 1.1.1.1.1

           1 November 2011 at 6:56 am

           When, in answer to the question about when is it ok to lie he responded that we live in a “dynamic environment”. i.e. he admitted that on occassion it is ok to lie, and then claim it is due to a dynamic environment.

           He did not say, it is not ok to lie but at times positions need to later change due to external circumstances.

           See the difference? Clearly not, given your subsequent two very obvious questions. A bit like your dopey parable yesterday.
           • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1.1

             1 November 2011 at 7:05 am

             That’s far from convincing.

             Anyone with any sense of reality will know that anything suggested by a politician or party in an election campaign will be subjected to many pressures after the election – the first one being coalition negotiations. I’m referring to all parties here.

             Negotiation and compromise are essential components of politics – which means that any party that becomes a part of government will not be able to implement all their policies, and policies that are implemented will be modified during normal political process.

             And any party that doesn’t beconme a part of government will see few of their policies get anywhere.

             You’d have to be particularly thick to take any published or spoken claim in an election campaign as a “promise”.

             The incessant “lie!” shrill most often comes across as bitter bitching.
             • mickysavage …

               1 November 2011 at 7:12 am

               You are trolling Pete. Address the specific example.
             • vto …

               1 November 2011 at 7:42 am

               Shut up Pete, you foolish goon.

               It was about statements made outside election campaigns as well.

               You’re a waste of space. out
             • Draco T Bastard …

               1 November 2011 at 9:03 am

               So, Pete, when are you going to return to your natural home in the National Party?
               • felix …

                 1 November 2011 at 9:19 am

                 November 27
                 • Pete George …

                   1 November 2011 at 11:14 am

                   November 27 the campaign really begins.
                   As an activist politician (long shot) or a political activist.

                   http://yourdunedin.org/your-dunedin-plan/
                   • Lanthanide …

                     1 November 2011 at 11:41 am

                     Giving up on UF already? You haven’t even not-voted for yourself yet.
                   • Pete George …

                     1 November 2011 at 11:45 am

                     Not at all, it will happen either way – but in the end will only succeed if enough people who keep saying they are sick of politicians ignoring them and that they want to be listened to more can be bothered doing anything more than grizzling.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     1 November 2011 at 4:04 pm

                     People who are sick of typical spinning politicians should vote for Pete George?

                     Hand me a Tui.
             • mikesh …

               1 November 2011 at 3:57 pm

               I think if a politician breaks a promise because of a change in circumstances, he needs to be able to justify that to the electorate. I don’t think Key managed to do so in the case of the GST increase.
     • mickysavage 1.1.2

       1 November 2011 at 6:51 am

       Pete a history lesson for you.  Last election Labour saw the oncoming global financial crisis and stopped all financial promises.  National also saw the FGC but still made gilt edged promises about tax cuts.  They reneged on the tax cuts promise, only the wealthy got tax cuts while ordinary people stayed where they were or went backwards.

       And to fund this they broke another promise, not to increase GST.

       There is also a third lie involved, that the cuts are “fiscally neutral” whereas they are costing the country a billion dollars a year.

       The nats could have kept their promise and not given the wealthy a tax cut.

       So yes this particular promise should have been kept. 
       • Herodotus 1.1.2.1

         1 November 2011 at 4:33 pm

         Thanks MS – I always had an idea that the promised 2nd and 3rd tax cuts that Labour was committed to was part of the mini budget, and was like the previous tax cuts Labour promised and was included in a budget. Yet there was no openess regarding this !! 3 years late, but nice to know of this, and we wonder why there is so much skeptism regarding political parties and their promises or abuse of the English language. Just note JK last night what the Asset sale money “could” be spend on. Was it not included in this years budget to reduce the next 3 years deficit. Now it is to fund nice to have idas !!!
2. Salsy 2

   1 November 2011 at 7:34 am

   New Roy Morgan, Nats still bleeding votes. The tide is turning away from Key right now. With Phil Goff fighting his way into the picture, people now have a serious viable alternative. Labour’s campaign has serious momentum – Keyholes last night was absolutely excellent. National have misread the nation on environment, public transport and asset sales…
   http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2011/4711/

   Today’s Morgan Poll was taken as New Zealand geared up to contest the Rugby World Cup Final on Sunday October 23, 2011. New Zealand was ultimately successful in the World Cup Final with a hard-fought win over France (8-7).
   • Pete George 2.1

     1 November 2011 at 7:41 am

     National bleeding to 53.5%
     Labour soaring on the tide to 29.5%

     Serious momentum? Still fluctuating within recent ranges.

     One party did double it’s support – in United Future you have to hang tough, an election campaign is a rare time the sensible reliable party gets any coverage.
     • Salsy 2.1.1

       1 November 2011 at 8:09 am

       Does it not seem strange to you that at the height of winning the RWC, the incumbent govt is going backwards?
       • Chris 2.1.1.1

         1 November 2011 at 8:32 am

         Not when the drop or rise is within the margin of error – I always just take that to mean no change.
       • Pete George 2.1.1.2

         1 November 2011 at 9:08 am

         Not strange at all. Minor movements within recent ranges.

         I expect National to ease back to mid to high forties by the election anyway. Too soon to tell which way Labour might go.
     • Lanthanide 2.1.2

       1 November 2011 at 8:51 am

       Funny, I seem to remember it was the election campaign and a certain ‘worm’ in 2002 that resulted in UF getting 9 MPs.

       Oh for those halcyon days of yore.
       • Pete George 2.1.2.1

         1 November 2011 at 8:58 am

         Peter Dunne hasn’t needed a worm to demonstrate experience and common sense in the minor party leader debates so far.

         Outside of an election campaign steadily doing the job doesn’t get any attention. It probably doesn’t need to – but unless you are a controversial party a campaign is the only chance (amongst a lot of noise) to get an opportunity to promote yourself.
         • felix 2.1.2.1.1

           1 November 2011 at 9:23 am

           UF’s support is too insignificantly small to be represented by a worm.

           Maybe a maggot. But even maggots serve a useful function.
         • mikesh 2.1.2.1.2

           1 November 2011 at 4:15 pm

           Mr Innocuous seems to want things both ways. He supports the sale of assets that National want to sell, viz power companies and Air NZ, but is vehemently opposed to the sale of Kiwibank and water. Presumably, he wants to pick up a few votes from the anti asset sale group, but to do so without offending National.
           • Ianupnorth 2.1.2.1.2.1

             1 November 2011 at 4:57 pm

             Pete, have you ever considered therapy or medication?
     • Campbell Larsen 2.1.3

       1 November 2011 at 8:59 am

       United future – making up the policies it thinks you want to hear, because it has no intention to deliver on any of them – thanks for clearing that up for us Pete.

       And thanks for reminding everyone that they would have to be ‘particularly thick’ to waste any time listening to you.
3. Adrian 3

   1 November 2011 at 7:53 am

   “Ahhh no, the hair, the hair, get it off me” to paraphase Barney of The Simpsons aversion to “natural light”
4. logie97 4

   1 November 2011 at 8:08 am

   The Employers and Manufacturers Association.
   Must have been a one man band. Remember how
   it was consistently consulted for its views on things political.
   Anyone remember Alisdair Thompson – remind us again
   who he was and why we don’t hear from him anymore?
   Oh yeah, …
   • Uturn 4.1

     1 November 2011 at 8:19 am

     When life is reduced to recipes and slogans, you don’t need more than two people on Earth. One to talk the other to hear. One to instruct the other to do. That’s why the EMA only ever needed one person. It was and continues to be a Thought and Change Free Zone.
5. mickysavage 5

   1 November 2011 at 8:15 am

   How is this for bad news for the Tories?
    
   Business has no confidence in them.
    
   Business NZ yesterday released the results of its election survey of more than 1300 small to large businesses. While almost all believed it was important for the government to have a co-ordinated plan of action that raised economic performance, little more than a third thought John Key’s Government had one.
    
   Yep they can see that Key is the emperor without clothes.  They know that smileing and waving is not a substitute for having an actual plan.
   • r0b 5.1

     1 November 2011 at 8:31 am

     Post coming up on this.
     • travellerev 5.1.1

       1 November 2011 at 8:36 am

       Cool thanks!
     • Carol 5.1.2

       1 November 2011 at 8:37 am

       There was damage control from a business spokesman last night on Checkpoint, saying business people were critical, but still largely behind National.

       http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/20111031
6. Carol 6

   1 November 2011 at 8:25 am

   So the Nats are promising m major shake-up to the welfare system (bennie-bashing subtext no doubt),
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5884943/National-to-unveil-social-welfare-changes

   The changes are expected to target the long-term unemployed, including those on sickness and invalids benefits, and will revamp the way that New Zealand’s unemployed are categorised.
   […]
   The email revealed that Mr Key will announce that National aims to get 46,000 people off welfare, including 11,000 working part time, within four years.
   […]
   It will also see a significant change in the way beneficiaries are dealt with by the state, through intensive case management in a way similar to the way ACC manages people to get them back to work sooner.

   while Labour is promising a big shake-up to strengthen public broadcasting:

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5884947/Labour-signals-broadcasting-shake-up

   Labour is promising a shake-up of radio and television, including a public broadcaster, a new regulator of broadcasting and telecommunications and an investigation into a standard audio level, after complaints advertisements are much louder than programmes.

   The independent public broadcaster, covering Radio New Zealand and TVNZ 7, could include a nationwide news service.

   Spokesperson Clare Curran said it would bring together elements of commercial free public broadcasting that already exist, including the statutorily independent functions of TVNZ 7 and Radio NZ, to both strengthen and broaden them.

   Yay for this! There needs to be a shift to the way media provides a real discussion of important political, social and cultural issues, and an end to infotainment and circuses that divert from the kinds of public discussion that are necessary for democracy to thrive.
7. joe90 7

   1 November 2011 at 9:10 am

   Occupy Wall Street: It’s Not a Hippie Thing.

   For all its social snootiness, Wall Street has suffered far more from the meddling of members of its own class than from intrusions by those outside it. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt, an aristocrat, who held the lords of finance responsible for the Great Depression—securing legislation to establish the Securities and Exchange Commission, asserting federal authority over the stock exchange, and appointing a wealthy stock trader, Joseph Kennedy Sr., to ride herd. Not much better, from Wall Street’s perspective, was FDR’s Cousin Teddy, who as President prosecuted trusts as illegal monopolies. Or Louis Brandeis, a Harvard-trained corporate attorney turned crusader against the concentration of wealth and power.

   These men changed the system from within, as have the ablest regulators in recent times. Arthur Levitt Jr., a vigorous SEC chairman under President Bill Clinton, was first the president of Shearson Hayden Stone. (Levitt is a member of the board of Bloomberg L.P., owner of Bloomberg Businessweek.) Paul A. Volcker cut his teeth at Chase Manhattan before running the Federal Reserve and becoming the gruff animating voice behind the Volcker Rule, which bans commercial banks from engaging in proprietary trading. It’s hard to imagine any of these “opponents” of Wall Street mounting a barricade. They didn’t need to storm the castle to know where the secrets were hidden.

   In its very amateurism, Occupy Wall Street represents something new. Although it’s attracted some celebrities and well-heeled supporters, participants come chiefly from outside Wall Street. Many are unemployed or poorly employed. These are not bankers or reform-minded professors; these are also-rans in the capitalist race, upset with the system itself. Their chief weapon is neither eloquence nor argument, but their physical presence.
   • joe90 7.1

     1 November 2011 at 10:25 am

     OWS support: 43% with 30% undecided

     Teaparty support: 25%, a new low with 42% saying they are neither supporters nor opponents, a new high.
   • AAMC 7.2

     1 November 2011 at 1:00 pm

     @ Carol – Sorry my post on hippies was a response to jackal @9.10am

     Dada = Beat = Hippie = Punk = Hip Hop = counterculture unite!
8. thejackal 8

   1 November 2011 at 9:34 am

   John Key gets Nasty

   After making a big song and dance about his respect for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, John Key resorted to childish name-calling this morning on 3 News Firstline when he referred to Phil Goff as a worm…
   • Carol 8.1

     1 November 2011 at 9:54 am

     I think the claim that hippies were middleclass people who paid lip service to solidarity with working classes, is probably true of the US hippies. But it dioes not meet with my experience in the UK in the middle-to-late 70s. The counter culture there was more firmly embedded in the organised left, with many people from working class backgrounds being involved. This included union actions in support of people in working class jobs – as well as people who were the first in their families to be educated into middleclass occupations.

     NZ hippies were probably somewhere in between the US & UK. But I recall people like Roger Fowler who were strongly engaged with action for prison reform in Auckland in the late 60s, and who were incorporated within the wider hippy culture.
     • Carol 8.1.1

       1 November 2011 at 10:27 am

       Sorry my post on hippies was a response to jackal @9.10am
   • Lanthanide 8.2

     1 November 2011 at 10:21 am

     Um, no, he didn’t call Goff a worm at all.

     What Key wants is the “live audience worm” they used in the 2002 debates that spun Peter Dunne to get 9 MPs, because Key thinks he will go down better with the audience than Goff and wants a little live graphic on the screen showing that.

     Actually I think it would backfire on him. In 2002 they had sections of the audience that supported each party in the debate, as well as an “undecided” section. Such a format would obviously produce the best results for the smaller parties whose message is often not heard, while both big parties have as many supporters as detractors.

     Of course I think you know this already and as usual you’re just distorting things to suit your own narrative.
     • thejackal 8.2.1

       1 November 2011 at 10:30 am

       Nup Lanthanide… I’ve never heard of the “live audience worm” before that you refer to. Could you perhaps reference it so I can tell you’re not just making shit up?

       If your claim is true, it would seem that John Keys relationship with the media is a bit too cozy… but we all knew that already.
       • joe90 8.2.1.1

         1 November 2011 at 10:35 am

         Steven Price: Eat the worm.

         There’s talk that TV3 might use the worm again for its leaders’ debate. In an attempt to persuade them not to, let me revisit a column I wrote before the last election:
         I see the worm is back.
         No, I’m not talking about John O’Neill. I mean the squiggly electronic line that measures audience reaction to politicians’ performance in television debates. I hate that worm
         • thejackal 8.2.1.1.1

           1 November 2011 at 10:44 am

           What an obscure reference. I will leave the post for people to make up their own minds of whether the real drunken sailor was being nasty or stupid! Personally I think it was both.
           • Carol 8.2.1.1.1.1

             1 November 2011 at 10:48 am

             You must have little knowledge of recent NZ electoral campaigns not to know what the worm refers to… ie the live audience worm. I don’t see it as an obscure reference at all. And Key’s tone in the clip doesn’t sound like he’sreferring to a person.
             • King Kong …

               1 November 2011 at 10:54 am

               Cut Jackal a break. He was 11 at the time of the last election so probably doesn’t remember all the details of the debates and some of the graphic tools that were used.
           • Lanthanide 8.2.1.1.1.2

             1 November 2011 at 11:06 am

             It’s hardly obscure at all. You must have either been:
             a. Out of the country in 2002
             b. Under a rock
             c. To young to vote in that election

             The worm got huge amounts of media coverage, specifically the way it reacted to Peter Dunne.

             I think leaving your post up, without any edits to it, is misleading. But hey, wouldn’t be the first time – when I pointed out your “reports of a sonic boom” around the earthquakes were actually old reports from a meteor explosion in 2006 you didn’t make any changes to that post either.
             • thejackal …

               1 November 2011 at 12:54 pm

               You talk a load of rubbish sometimes Lanthanide… I don’t particularly think you can categorically say Shonkey was talking about your worm or referencing Phil Goff.

               Meteor explosion? I gave you a link to the article that said people heard a sonic boom prior to the Christchurch earthquake… perhaps you should recheck the six month old article entitled What are you all HAARPing on about? you’re trying to use to discredit me before appearing anymore the fool.
               • McFlock …

                 1 November 2011 at 2:08 pm

                 Jackal, the worm happened and skewed an election quite significantly.
                 I think Key’s a pile of crap, but shit only where shit’s due – he wasn’t calling Goff a worm.
                 • thejackal …

                   1 November 2011 at 2:56 pm

                   Either it’s Key childishly calling Goff a worm and/or he’s gleeful that biased media will use yet another little tactic to try and make the snake oil salesman look good… take your pick. You’re welcome to your opinions McFlock et al… personally I wouldn’t put such an insult past the juvenile Key.
               • Lanthanide …

                 1 November 2011 at 3:07 pm

                 Sorry Jackal, but you’re trying to re-write history.

                 I asked for your source, you linked to an article that was people talking about the meteor explosion they heard. When I pointed that out, you said this: “The article is still factually correct, we’re unable to know exactly when people made their reports on sonic booms.” which is not true – we are able to know exactly when people made their reports on sonic booms, and it was in 2006, 5 years before the earthquakes you’re talking about.

                 You then came up with your second link since I’d shot your first one down. I didn’t bother replying at the time, but you are taking random members of the public saying they heard a “sonic boom” to mean an *actual* sonic boom of the type generated by something going faster than the speed of sound.

                 Actually the random members of the public are highly unlikely to be experts and simply used the term “sonic boom” to indicate how loud it was, probably meaning louder than anything they’d heard in their life before. That doesn’t make it an actual sonic boom.

                 But hey, your blog can hardly be held up as a standard for objective reporting so maybe I should cut you some slack.
                 • thejackal …

                   1 November 2011 at 3:26 pm

                   Here is the excerpt from the article Lanthanide is fixated on:

                   I’ve mentioned SLF sonic booms in my article about such noise pollution causing whales to beach. It just so happens there were a lot of whale stranding at the time of the Earthquake. From reports people have stated hearing a loud sonic boom prior to the 21 Feb Christchurch earthquake, many people thinking that it was an earthquake, but when the noise subsided, most people did not give it a second thought.

                   The article linked to describing people hearing a sonic boom like noise was written 24/02/2011

                   Curtis said the group heard “a sound like a sonic boom reverberating off the crater above” before they were blown three metres towards the edge of the cliff.

                   “It was terrifying,” Curtis said.

                   The sealift ship HMNZS Canterbury has one of the loudest sonic boom generators in the world btw. Are you an expert in what sonic boom noises sound like Lanthanide?
                   • joe90 …

                     1 November 2011 at 3:34 pm

                     The sealift ship HMNZS Canterbury has one of the loudest sonic boom generators in the world btw.

                     And you know this, how?.
                   • thejackal …

                     1 November 2011 at 3:54 pm

                     I read an article on it joe90… I don’t have time to locate the article for you… why don’t you guys do some research yourselves into the matter instead of bagging mine? I have edited the article to include the following paragraph:

                     Here is one of the reports of sonic boom like noises prior or during the 6.3 Magnitude Earthquake in Lyttleton/Christchurch for your information. It’s not the first time such sonic booms have been heard in the area, however this occurrence in the past was likely to have been comets.

                     I have also removed the commentary as it will no longer make sense with the relevant information in the article.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     1 November 2011 at 5:53 pm

                     For the record, thejackal has deleted the comments on his blog post, of which there were originally 9, with the interchange between me and himself about the sonic booms and his passing off a story about the meteor in 2006 as being related to the earthquake.

                     He’s now deleted the exchange and has posted a misleading summary here, apparently to discredit me.

                     Thankfully, the google cache of the original comments is still available:
                     http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zfRzyZatUJAJ:thejackalman.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-are-you-all-haarping-on-about.html+what-are-you-all-haarping-on-about&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

                     Really jackal, you shouldn’t try to distort the truth like this, it only makes you look even less reliable.
                   • joe90 …

                     1 November 2011 at 5:59 pm

                     Sigh….the loony left indeed Lanthanide.
                   • thejackal …

                     1 November 2011 at 11:12 pm

                     Lanthanide

                     For the record, thejackal has deleted the comments on his blog post, of which there were originally 9, with the interchange between me and himself about the sonic booms and his passing off a story about the meteor in 2006 as being related to the earthquake.

                     You might note that the article where people inform about their accounts of sonic booms in Christchurch was last updated on Tuesday November 1, 2011. You have highlighted only one comment that has a date outside of the Christchurch earthquake.

                     He’s now deleted the exchange and has posted a misleading summary here, apparently to discredit me.

                     What part of my summary was misleading and how does deleting comments discredit somebody? I informed people that I had deleted the commentary on the article because the edit you have been hassling me to make means the comments will no longer make any sense. People reading the six month old post would not understand why you were raising issues concerning something that was succinctly outlined in the post.

                     Please read The Jackal policy before complaining about my administration.

                     Thankfully, the google cache of the original comments is still available.

                     I think you’re starting to get a bit obsessed Lanthanide, and perhaps acting more like Cameron Slater than is good for you.

                     Really jackal, you shouldn’t try to distort the truth like this, it only makes you look even less reliable.

                     Less reliable than what? You haven’t shown that I’ve distorted the truth and really shouldn’t talk a load of crap Lanthanide… it makes you look like a dick!

                     joe90

                     Sigh….the loony left indeed Lanthanide.

                     Perhaps you might like to elaborate on why you think I’m loony or why what I have written about relates to the entire left-wing movement? Such inconceivably stupid comments clearly show you have a lack of functioning braincells.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     2 November 2011 at 10:00 am

                     You might note that the article where people inform about their accounts of sonic booms in Christchurch was last updated on Tuesday November 1, 2011.

                     Jackal, if you check again you will see this “last updated” date will have magically changed to Wednesday November 2, 2011. You know why? Because that is NOT the date the article was ‘updated’ or written, it is in fact the date you viewed the page.

                     Nice try, though. If you look just to the right, there is another article linked with the title “Meteorite most likely cause of boom, observatory says”, which when clicked on has this date as the date of publication: “3:40 PM Tuesday Sep 12, 2006”. Just like I’ve maintained all along.

                     What part of my summary was misleading and how does deleting comments discredit somebody?

                     Because you wrote this: “Here is the excerpt from the article Lanthanide is fixated on:” and then proceeded to quote something that I am not interested in at all. The article you quoted has nothing to do with the meteor explosion, which is the article I am talking about. I am talking about A, you claim I am talking about B (and then also quote C), which is misleading.

                     I informed people that I had deleted the commentary on the article

                     Where? Please link to this. I do not see it on your HAARP post or anywhere in this thread of comments.

                     because the edit you have been hassling me to make means the comments will no longer make any sense. People reading the six month old post would not understand why you were raising issues concerning something that was succinctly outlined in the post.

                     Standard editorial practice at newspapers and the like is to amend the article saying: “Edited” or “Updated” with a line about what has changed. You didn’t do this, instead you simply deleted my comments as if they never happened and pretending that your article is and was always flawless.

                     I think you’re starting to get a bit obsessed Lanthanide, and perhaps acting more like Cameron Slater than is good for you.

                     Yeah, because it took me a whole 1 minute to get that cache. I must be obsessed to have to spend such a huge amount of effort doing something like that.

                     Less reliable than what? You haven’t shown that I’ve distorted the truth and really shouldn’t talk a load of crap Lanthanide… it makes you look like a dick!

                     Less reliable than the MSM that you like to castigate so much for having no editorial honesty. You have distorted the truth by initially using a very outdated article from 2006 as your evidence for sonic booms, and then when challenged you still claim that the 2006 article is valid and go on to produce one from some lay-person cyclists who heard a very loud noise right above them at the same time as boulders started falling down around them from the earthquake. You’ve come to your conclusion that HAARP was involved and now you’re gathering evidence to prove it – the proper way is to gather evidence and come to a conclusion about the most likely explanation.
                   • thejackal …

                     2 November 2011 at 12:53 pm

                     Lanthanide

                     You initially asked for an article showing where people had said they had heard sonic booms prior or during the Christchurch earthquake. I have provided a MSM article that backs up my assertion. Then you argued that the people quoted in the article don’t know what a sonic boom sounds like. Your argument has become juvenile.

                     The article you quoted has nothing to do with the meteor explosion, which is the article I am talking about.

                     I have now removed all reference to the article you’re bitching about.

                     You’ve come to your conclusion that HAARP was involved and now you’re gathering evidence to prove it – the proper way is to gather evidence and come to a conclusion about the most likely explanation.

                     Now we get to the crux of why Lanthanide doesn’t like the article. I have provided information about HAARP and also referenced occurrences on the day of the earthquake. It is for the reader to make up their own minds.

                     Moderator: joe90 is using TheJackal’s name in his comment, can you please edit it out.

                     Todd is not my name.

                     I have added UPDATED to the article. However it will not be edited further.

                     joe90

                     But to those on the opposite side of the aisle the left is monolithic and any utterance is part of the group think and the more outlandish the utterance the happier they are.

                     I have very little concern for what RWNJ’s think, although your reasoning could explain why Lanthanide is fixated on a six month old article.

                     My advice Todd, grow the fuck up, listen and learn and when you make an assertion be well sure that you’re correct because if you’re not you will be called out.

                     I appreciate your constructive criticism… oh hang on a sec. joe90 thinks my assertion is wrong just because he says so. He has totally failed to argue the issues raised. I don’t particularly care how long you’ve contributed to the Standard as this has no relevance to the debate. You highlighting this like it gives your argument weight, which shows that you’re delusional!
                   • Lanthanide …

                     2 November 2011 at 2:07 pm

                     “Then you argued that the people quoted in the article don’t know what a sonic boom sounds like. Your argument has become juvenile.”

                     No, it’s not juvenile at all. Newspaper reporters frequently get facts and details wrong; a friend of mine was interviewed for a story in the press once and the reporter had a dictaphone as well as taking notes. The actual article was riddled with errors.

                     The cyclists may have said “a really loud sound, like a sonic boom or something” and the reporter just shorted that to “sounded like a sonic boom”.

                     Furthermore, these are people who are in imminent danger of their life from falling boulders, which would have been making very loud sounds as they tumbled down. I don’t think you were in CHCH for the quake, but it can be very confusing what is happening in the first few seconds after it strikes (especially if you’re outdoors). The ground could have been shaking (and they were on bikes) before the loud sounds they heard, which I am suggesting were the boulders rolling down the hill.

                     You’re suggesting that they heard a sonic boom, and then boulders fell down. This is possible, although less likely than my version of events.

                     “Now we get to the crux of why Lanthanide doesn’t like the article. I have provided information about HAARP and also referenced occurrences on the day of the earthquake. It is for the reader to make up their own minds.”

                     Hah, the conspiracy theorist in you rears its head. I had honestly never heard of HAARP until I read your article. Note that my original comments were nothing to do with HAARP whatsoever, but asking for evidence of the “sonic booms” that you reported?

                     As far as I’m concerned, HAARP is just like any other crackpot illuminati theory and I’m not interested in it, but I was genuinely interested in these so-called reports of sonic booms. Turns out this is simply desperate over-reaching on your part trying to cobble together more evidence to support your crackpot theory: initially using a story from the 2006 meteor event – you didn’t mention the cyclist story (which is indisputably about the February earthquake) until I challenged you on it, evidently you went to look for more news stories and luckily found one and have since pretended that that was the story you meant all along, despite not offering it initially as your evidence. As outlined above, even this story, when considered objectively, doesn’t back up your HAARP nonsense.

                     Also, the meteor article itself indicates that your supposed cyclist sonic boom was nothing of the sort. The meteor was an actual sonic boom, and occured in the atmosphere above the city. The article you linked to had multiple witness reports of the event. How come this story of the cyclists is the only evidence you can find of a sonic boom happening about the time of the earthquake? Surely there would be dozens or hundreds of people in Christchurch saying “I heard a sonic boom, and then there was an earthquake”. And yet the only story you can find is one about cyclists almost being killed by boulders. Weak.
                   • thejackal …

                     2 November 2011 at 11:24 pm

                     Yawn! Must be time for bed.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     3 November 2011 at 9:42 am

                     I see you have no comeback.
                   • thejackal …

                     3 November 2011 at 8:13 pm

                     It might be advantageous for you to read my comments above again. I have already answered all the arguments you’ve reiterated and don’t feel particularly inclined to respond to your belief that HAARP does not exist.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     3 November 2011 at 10:17 pm

                     Jackal, my post made several points which you have not addressed anywhere. I’ll number them to make it easy for you to follow along:

                     1. Reporters often misquote and editorialise things that others have said.

                     2. The people quoted were in imminent danger of their lives, in a situation that is initially quite confusing; their testimony therefore cannot be trusted. This is a completely separate issue as to whether they are qualified to say whether a loud noise is a sonic boom or not.

                     3. You have not explained why when I first asked for evidence of sonic booms, you linked to the article from 2006, as your only evidence, and only later linked to the cyclist story after I pointed out how wrong you were. At this point I must assume my summary is correct – you only found the cyclist story after I challenged you, but based your original ‘sonic boom’ conclusion on the meteor article and came up with the cyclist article and pretended that is what you used as your source all along.

                     4. You have not explained why these cyclists are the only evidence you can find of people reporting a sonic boom, when the meteor article you yourself linked to shows that, if a sonic boom actually happened, we can expect that many people would have reported it.
                 • joe90 …

                   2 November 2011 at 9:46 am

                   I shouldn’t even bother to reply but WTF, here goes.

                   First off, I don’t think you are ‘loony’ but as you well know Todd the left as a description isn’t just those who share your ideals but rather a loose group who have ideals in common. But to those on the opposite side of the aisle the left is monolithic and any utterance is part of the group think and the more outlandish the utterance the happier they are.

                   So your proclamations on HAARP, sonic booms and marine seismic surveying, although you may be convinced yourself, are to me, absurd, are taken as part of the group think and ‘voila’, all on the left, because we’re monolithic, are the loony left.

                   On one page Todd you’ve managed to jump the shark on the worm comment, made assertions about sonic booms that you’re unable to support and when you’re called on it get shitty with two regular contributors.

                   My advice Todd, grow the fuck up, listen and learn and when you make an assertion be well sure that you’re correct because if you’re not you will be called out.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     2 November 2011 at 10:02 am

                     Moderator: joe90 is using TheJackal’s name in his comment, can you please edit it out.

                     [See Jackal’s comment above. — r0b]
       • lprent 8.2.1.2

         1 November 2011 at 10:54 am

         2002 election.. Bloody useless thing working off the studio audience manipulating an immediate response control. Usually used for measuring the audience response to 15 second commercials where everything is about immediate visceral responses.

         The audience had immediate reactions to comfort phrases and threat phrases and didn’t react to policy. Which meant that anyone talking about policy was ignored, anyone talking about possible dangers or risks was reacted against, and anyone stating meaningless comfort phrases with no substance got a warm cuddly effect.

         The latter category was (and still is) largely occupied by a haircut and an inability to be committed on anything apart from his hairbrush. Just like the local acolyte – PG.
         • M 8.2.1.2.1

           1 November 2011 at 11:34 am

           Agreed Lynn.

           I hate the format of leaders’ debates – there should not be any blather by any commenter or supposed expert who waste valauble time.

           There needs to be genuine debate where the leaders can get things out on the table – I think Key would founder spectacularly because all he is really is an overgrown class clown who is so desperate for everyone to like him.

           I’d like to see Phil bloody his nose for him, metaphorically, and really pin Key down on the shapeshifter figures he mouths which are unchallenged by the msm. Key when pressed really can’t hack it and this would expose the lack of intellect and humanity of this suppository.

           Phil needs to be saying to the voters “Do you feel richer after three years of National?” It may start to turn even the self-interested voters away from National who have been sucker punched by the $50 tax cut promise. I have no sympathy for these greedy, selfish prats but even Labour has come to realise the folly of the Douglas influence and has admitted things like asset sales will have us all swirling around the bowl.
9. joe90 9

   1 November 2011 at 10:59 am

   The 20 worst things people have done to each other and despite the received wisdom on the right the Americas conquest was worse than anything that the usual suspects are supposed to have achieved. .
10. rosy 10

    1 November 2011 at 11:45 am

    Because I’m outside NZ I’ve only just seen the debate over the internet – and well done, Phil. I knew you had it in you.

    A point that struck me is Keys economic plan appears to be an intention to increase mining, comparing the profits we might make and the jobs that can be created here with Australia. I’m happy to admit I know nothing about mining, and expect to be told I’m not comparing apple with apples, but I looked up Western Australian mining (I didn’t bother with the other states) on Wiki and noticed that the 80 gazetted gold and mineral fields in Western Australia total 1,997,814 km2. Total NZ land area is  268,021 km2 – Even if he plans on digging up the whole country, I think he still needs a better plan.
    • marsman 10.1

      1 November 2011 at 11:57 am

      Key doesn’t have a plan but he does plan to fuck over the whole country and then sell it or is that sell it then let the corporates fuck it over and walk away…with the proceeds.
    • Lanthanide 10.2

      1 November 2011 at 12:05 pm

      I hope you’re going to make a special vote!
      • rosy 10.2.1

        1 November 2011 at 12:14 pm

        Certainly am, Lanth. Because I’m enrolled in an electorate. I just have to download the voting papers and drop them off at the embassy, or post them back …. download date is 9th November 🙂
11. joe90 11

    1 November 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Petman and the Robotic Mule, aka Big Dog, terrifying.
12. thejackal 12

    1 November 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Holes in Keys Argument

    On the One News debate last night, Phil Goff called out John Key for his dishonesty concerning the rise in the Goods and Services Tax when he had promised not to increase it. National increased GST to 15% totally breaking their election promise…
13. thejackal 13

    1 November 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Biased Media Protecting Brand Key

    It’s pretty disgusting that in the 3 News video below Rachel Smalley paraphrased what John Key said to try and protect his non-existent credibility…
14. thejackal 14

    1 November 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Media Call Phil Goff Prime Minister

    But what is really amusing is that the media is already calling Phil Goff the Prime Minister…
15. Colonial Viper 15

    1 November 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Occupy Denver

    Nasty business.

    The cops are overwhelmed by the sheer anger of the crowd – and thats when rubber bullets start flying from their semi auto carbines.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      1 November 2011 at 3:48 pm

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcNCrurh-U&feature=feedu

      d’oh. sorry
      • vto 15.1.1

        1 November 2011 at 4:11 pm

        But hang on, the US government openly supported these movements in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya …………..
        • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.1

          1 November 2011 at 5:41 pm

          The dictators like ones that they think they can spin to their advantage – don’t like ones that threaten their power.
      • thejackal 15.1.2

        1 November 2011 at 5:23 pm

        Thanks for the video CV. I blogged it.
      • AAMC 15.1.3

        1 November 2011 at 9:40 pm

        Some powerful stills from Denver also..
        http://www.tannerspendley.com/occupydenver/h5F887FE#h5f887fe
16. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16

    1 November 2011 at 4:18 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10763141
17. ianmac 17

    1 November 2011 at 4:58 pm

    World overpopulation our elephant in the room. Must ask Mr Key what he is going to do about it.
    A baby declared as the world’s seven billionth has been born in India, says child rights group Plan International.

    Baby Nargis was born at 07:25 local time (01:55GMT) in Mall village in India’s Uttar Pradesh state.
    • AAMC 17.1

      1 November 2011 at 9:43 pm

      Consumption the real elephant. One Anglo Saxon consumes much more than many Chinese or Indians or Africans, where the main population froth occurs.

      Before we worry about population, we need to worry about consumption. Catch is, our entire economic model is predicated on growth, which relies on consumption.
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 17.2

      2 November 2011 at 8:56 am

      Must ask Mr Key what he is going to do about it.

      What could he do about it?
18. Hilary 18

    1 November 2011 at 6:04 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10763185

    Dunedin Occupy about to be evicted. Stupid DCC. Totally unnecessary way to escalate a peaceful event.
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      1 November 2011 at 6:16 pm

      Occupy Dunedin wasn’t smart enough to follow the lessons of many a long standing Maori protest occupation.
    • just saying 18.2

      1 November 2011 at 10:15 pm

      Didn’t happen. No explanation so far.
      Occupiers still occupying the octagon.
19. joe90 19

    1 November 2011 at 7:06 pm

    http://royalsociety.org/news/Royal-Society-journal-archive-made-permanently-free-to-access/
20. Penny Bright 20

    1 November 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Got my nomination in today as an Independent candidate in the Epsom electorate.

    Last night I attended the Epsom ‘debate’ (as a member of the public), at the ‘Village Centre’, Mt Eden Rd / Ngauruhoe St. It was just the boyz – John Banks (National “B” Team /ACT) Paul Goldsmith (National “A” Team), David Parker (Labour) and David Hay (Greens).

    I asked the following question of John Banks:

    I noted that ACT’s ’3 strikes and out’ policy doesn’t apply to ‘white collar crime’.

    I noted that since 2006 there have been 64 finance industry collapses in NZ – perceived to be the least corrupt country in the world.

    I asked that if ACT believe in ‘one law for all’ – how come John Banks and Don Brash have not been charged for misstatements in the Huljich Wealth Management Registered Prospectus, along with fellow Director Peter Huljich’?

    The Chair of this public meeting, former Judge Peter Salmond – ruled my question ‘out of order’ because he didn’t think it was relevant to the election campaign.

    If Don Brash and John Banks are charged under s.58 of the Securities Act 1978, then it is my considered opinion, that it will indeed by relevant to this 2011 election campaign.

    Why weren’t they charged?

    Why shouldn’t they be charged?

    If the setting up of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) was to help restore confidence to the ‘mum and dad’ investors – shouldn’t the FMA help to ensure consistency and accountability in prosecutions, or are some directors, like John Banks and Don Brash effectively ‘untouchable’ because of their political connections at the highest levels?

    In the country ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt in the world (along with Denmark and Singapore according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index’?

    Just asking – the HARD questions – that no one else seems to be?

    Penny Bright
    Independent candidate for Epsom.
    Campaigning against ‘white collar crime’, corruption (and its root cause – privatisation) and ‘corporate welfare’.
21. Colonial Viper 21

    1 November 2011 at 9:40 pm

    Massive financial fraud continues on Wall St: MF Global goes under

    One of Wall Street’s largest firms, a Federal Reserve ‘Primary Dealer’ has gone under with up to US$700M of client monies unaccounted for, and potentially much more shifted out of the failing firm early based on insider information.

    I wonder how many worker retirement funds just got fucked by Wall St, again.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/francinemckenna/2011/10/31/mf-global-99-problems-and-auditor-pwc-warned-about-none/
    • Draco T Bastard 21.1

      1 November 2011 at 10:02 pm

      I wonder how much the US Fed will print to try and uphold the financial system. Banks are interconnected. If one goes down, they all go down.
22. Colonial Viper 22

    1 November 2011 at 10:07 pm

    Excellent NZ Occupy Video – NZ History of Labour Struggles

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P20dmHnPu8o

    What a history.
23. randal 23

    2 November 2011 at 2:26 pm

    I thought the worm was that thing that paul homes kept squeezing in his pants pocket.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS