Open mike 25/11/2021

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 25th, 2021 - 109 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

109 comments on “Open mike 25/11/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bwaghorn 1
    25 November 2021 at 6:57 am

    Bridges is going on the am show just after 7 , retiring? excuses?or war???

  2. Ad 2
    25 November 2021 at 7:28 am

    National may as well just admit that they work for Ardern.

    The only time in a term that National has had Labour in any Parliamentary trouble was yesterday when the Speaker started warning Ardern for the urgency bill on mandates.

    Played well in the public it could have become another Auckland cycleway moment.

    Then, shanking Bridges late last night, Collins has cleared the media week for Ardern to do absolutely anything she wants. Way to pull out the 5-year-old hit file Judith.

    Collins just gave Ardern her Christmas gift early.

    Bridges must surely have signalled that he was going to challenge: there's no other reason for Collins to pull the hit file.

  3. Jester 3
    25 November 2021 at 7:48 am

    Should be a big entertaining day at Parliament today.

    • observer 3.1
      25 November 2021 at 7:56 am

      National MP Simon O'Connor said today: "One thing clear to me is that Judith Collins must resign."

      It's clear to Simon? hahahahahahaha … 5 million people already worked it out long ago, and now the Brains Trust who think they should be running the country have finally latched on.

      Unbelievable.

  4. Ross 4
    25 November 2021 at 8:03 am

    At least one Employment Court judge understands when an employer is being unreasonable.

    [165] Good faith is a developing concept. Its scope is informed by particular circumstances. The Act focuses on maintaining and preserving employment relationships, rather than terminating them. It is arguable that in circumstances such as the COVID-19 context, where a “no jab, no job” outcome is under consideration, there is an active obligation on the employer to constructively consider and consult on alternatives where there is an objectively justifiable reason not to be vaccinated.47

    [166] In summary, I find that it is arguable that, in light of the process points discussed, the steps taken by AIAL were not those a fair and reasonable employer could have taken.

    https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/EMPC-356-2021-WXN-v-Auckland-International-Airport-Ltd-jud-231121.pdf

  5. vto 5
    25 November 2021 at 8:15 am

    why are we going to let tourists back in?

    best thing about the pandemic has been the decimation of tourism (apologies to those biz operators affected of course)

    they bring no net benefit, only net loss

    nobody wants them back other than tourism operators

    an inanity of humanity

  6. Maurice 6
    25 November 2021 at 8:24 am

    More poetry becoming applicable:

    The Second Coming

    by William Butler Yeats

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Our Parliament has failed us spectacularly as the Speaker castigates his own Party and an opposition party eviscerates itself … all late at night …. all under "urgency"

    This is how low our beloved country has fallen.

  7. Molly 7
    25 November 2021 at 9:03 am

    One hour interview with Kathleen Stock – for those who want to find out more, about her views.

    • Molly 7.1
      25 November 2021 at 9:56 am

      To understand the concerted campaign, you can see visit the website used to co-ordinate and maintain the harassment: Antiterf Sussex.

      You can read the whole manifesto focused on Stock that gave police concerns. Bolding as original.

      Transphobes like Stock are anti-feminist, anti-queer and anti-intellectual, they are harmful and dangerous to trans people. They’re spiteful bootlickers, with Stock alone spitting out years worth of tweets, articles and organizing that make her distaste for our existence abundantly clear.

      But guess what?

      We are not up for debate. We cannot be reasoned out of existence. And we will not let people try to.

      They camouflage their transphobia in academic language, in fake feminism, in "reasonable concerns", and then we suffer the real material consequences of it.

      University of Sussex have continued to employ Stock whilst her rhetoric has contributed to the dire state of unsafety for trans people in this colonial shit-hole, whilst she profits from transphobia, and whilst students here have been resigned to stomach the influence and impact of her transphobia. This university is actively enabling and encouraging her transphobia by not firing her, which whilst not surprising, has continued for far too long.

      We’ve fucking had enough.

      We are an anonymous, unaffiliated group of queer, trans and non-binary students who will not allow our community to be slandered and harmed by someone who’s salary comes from our pockets. If you care for our community like we do, spread the word, get people angry, angry enough to do something about it.

      Our demand is simple: fire Kathleen Stock. Until then, you’ll see us around.

      • Rosemary McDonald 7.1.1
        25 November 2021 at 5:44 pm

        I always enjoy the Triggernometry guys' informal wee chats. It is so important to spend actual time speaking with a person…to get to the heart of where they're coming from. This one's an extra good effort.

      • Shanreagh 7.1.2
        25 November 2021 at 10:47 pm

        Good grief.

        To me their very anonymity enables them to cross many lines where reasonableness and a knowledge of who they actually were may have been a more potent way of approaching things. Instead they focus their anonymity on someone who has no similar shield available to them. In other words there is no inbuilt holding back because others may know who they are ie a sense that they have to live now and in the future in their community. .

    • Shanreagh 7.2
      25 November 2021 at 10:52 pm

      One point that I might have not grasped correctly is this – are the UK legislators 'walking back' the legislation or proposed legislation relating to changing the birth documents on the basis of feeling or averring. I got this from a reference that one of the guys said that Stonewall may not be as influential with the policy people in Govt as they once were. Is this correct?

      • Molly 7.2.1
        27 November 2021 at 11:05 am

        Many government departments were receiving advice from Stonewall about HR policies and diversity. Some were paying for workshops, others were paying to be part of the diversity champions scheme, and the equality index (where Stonewall rated companies for their actions regarding diversity. Feedback or correspondence between companies and Stonewall was confidential and not to be disseminated.

        Therefore NHS and the Scottish government received "advice" on how to improve their ratings by doing such things as removing words such as women and replacing with gender neutral language.

        As this advice was confidential, and the involvement in the schemes was across the board, the influence was very effective and efficient, striking members of the public as pervasive and seemingly coming out of nowhere.

        Some government departments and institutions may have withdrawn from the scheme, but the structures put in place (eg. Workplace Diversity Champion positions and groups) will remain, and still may hold tremendous influence.

        The political zeitgeist also remains. You only have to look at this video from Family First regarding the select committee to understand how difficult it will be to have a proper conversation about resolving unintended issues from legislative change here in NZ. (I know….. Bob McKroskie?)

  8. Tricledrown 8
    25 November 2021 at 9:04 am

    The guardian a scary New Covid variant B1.1.529 found in Botswanna and South Africa ,also in a returning traveller from South Africa to Hong Kong.This variant is able to avoid the bodies defence mechanisms.

    Keeping MIQ in place is a must just opening our borders could be a disaster!

  9. Rosemary McDonald 9
    25 November 2021 at 9:20 am

    Quite frankly, who gives an single solitary shit if Bridges at some point did the blokey thing and offended a female colleague? This is politics, it is by it's very nature dirty and uncouth and, well, political. I don't know about anyone else but his, and any other politician's, shameful behaviour is unsurprising and barely worth a mention when there are more important things we ought to be paying attention to.

    What is more important is just why his boss chose that particular moment in time to haul out that stale wee turd and fling it.

    Not that you'd know it from a quick perusal of this morning's headlines in MSN and the two supposedly lefty blogsites but a very important piece of legislation was rammed through the House under urgency yesterday that even had The Speaker of the House up in arms.

    Mallard suggested the Government could have taken a day for each of the bill’s three readings, and included a shortened select committee process to hear public submissions in between.

    He said the Government, which announced its plans for a “traffic light system” in October, should have made public its policy decision, legal drafting instructions and early drafts of the bill.

    He also criticised MPs outside the Government, who sit on select committees, for not seeking a committee inquiry into the prospective law.

    This is not the first time I have been personally affected by a rushed through piece of legislation that came on the back of many years of legal wranglings and a concerted effort by Ministry of Health bureaucrats to portray family carers of disabled New Zealanders with very high support needs (that were often unfunded by the Ministry anyway because they required RN level that they refused to fund in the home).

    The Ministry of Health bureaucrats lied. They repeatedly demonstrated that they had an extraordinarily poor grasp of the reality of life with a significant disability and in their arrogance dismissed and indeed denigrated those of us who did…and still do.

    Unlike our personal legislative little shit pile the one passed last night does still allow for folks to take their objections to the Courts…but as one legal experts says…

    “But the point is filing an action in the High Court is not cheap. One of the problems that the applicants have had so far in these [vaccine mandate] cases – and I'm not someone who would like them to succeed, I have to admit – but one of the problems they've had is getting the evidence together, or how do they really contest, realistically contest, the weight of the Ministry of Health?

    “The courts have shown that they're very deferential at the moment to the Ministry of Health's calculus and I think for good reasons. What does a High Court judge know about vaccination? They're just going to say, 'Well it looks good', and they have been saying that.

    “Actually, this is a really significant intrusion on some people who object to the vaccination. They have the choice of either getting a substance they don't like put [in their] bodies, or they basically will be socially excluded.”

    For a wee while there there was some Opposition in the House about this…but Judith's little shit-fling seems to have put paid to that.

    Funny that. Politics, eh? Great spectator sport, bring popcorn. Just don't ever, ever give any thought to those who find themselves affected by this.

    • Molly 9.1
      25 November 2021 at 10:42 am

      Funny that. Politics, eh? Great spectator sport, bring popcorn. Just don't ever, ever give any thought to those who find themselves affected by this.

      Agree, Rosemary.

      Those that primarily look at politics as a team sport or entertainment seem to be those most likely insulated against the impact of badly constructed legislation. For them it's point scoring, for those affected it is often life-changing (usually detrimentally).

      I appreciate your reminders to think deeply and look wider in these discussions.

  10. Ad 10
    25 November 2021 at 9:36 am

    Roberston is going to massively expand social welfare, paying 80% of the income of people laid off.

    Government finalises massive expansion of social safety net, funded by 1-2 per cent tax hike – NZ Herald

    This will be one of the largest expansions of our total national safety net since the formation of ACC.

    We are going to get a tax increase of 1-2% to pay for it.

    He may well have taken 1.5 political terms to do it, but Roberston is delivering to core Labour values. He's my favourite NZ politician over two terms.

    • Molly 10.1
      25 November 2021 at 10:50 am

      Two-tier benefit system, differentiating between the deserving and undeserving beneficiaries?

      No surprises there from Grant Robertson.

      Unlike you, I don't think he deserves accolades. (Can’t read article to see details. Will hold back censure until it comes out in full, but previous Robertson quotes on this were concerning in terms of division of those in financial stress.)

    • Sabine 10.2
      25 November 2021 at 10:57 am

      nah,

      he is going to pay some people 80% of their last income as unemployment benefit.

      The rest that does not fall in this group of super duper lucky good unemployed people as identified by Grant Robertson get the usual starvation rate and a food parcel if they find a charity that still has some to give out.

  11. Puckish Rogue 11
    25 November 2021 at 10:52 am

    *Trigger warning, sh**ting on msm again*

    So theres been a lot of talk about the Kyle Rittenhouse court case and I'm not going to rehash whats already been said and done because, well its already been said and done

    Instead I want to point out more evidence of bias from the MSM because there seems to be more questioning of the narrative of the MSM when they put out stories and hopefully this will continue

    One of the stranger things that came out of the case was the 'what if the races were reversed'

    Firstly because CNN and others played the race card up themselves, ie when talking about Kyle they always mentioned that he was white and that he shot Black Lives Matter activists and that led to quite a few people here and in the USA to believing that Kyle had shot black people.

    Does anyone think if Jacob Blake was white he would have got the same treatment:

    When Jacob Blake was shot (not killed) he had Joe Biden call him up, he had protests (later riots) start up in his name and 'Prosecutors also announced that Blake would not face any new charges and they dropped previous sexual assault and trespassing charges against Blake in exchange for him pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, for which he was then sentenced to two years of probation.'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake

    So I don't think in this instance race was the determining factor, it is political ideology that would determine the outcome

    Remember also that Kyle was also described in the MSM, variously, as white supremacist, a murderer, a terriorist, in the KKK, you name it

    Joe Biden even linked him to White supremacism and even after the verdict and the evidence has been seen people on the left are still vilifying him and saying things that the trial refuted.

    Hell Facebook banned people supporting Kyle and gofundme wouldn't allow him to use their site to fund raise for his own defence, innocent until proven?

    So lets look at Darrell Brooks, the man that allegedly killed 6 (so far) people and injured over 60 and see what the MSM are saying about him, if you can find the articles, and to make it more interesting count the articles featuring Kyle Rittenhouse and the articles featuring Darrell Brookes

    CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Times, NBC News, CBC News, New York Times etc

    If Darrell Brooks was white would there be more coverage or less (could hardly be less), if Darrell Brooks was white would the media say he was white, if Darrell Brookes was white would CNN describe him a 'parade crash suspect' or something else

    Yes Fox News is biased, absolutely and so is every other MSM news outlet, they're not just getting it wrong.

    They are deliberately lying to us, they are telling us what to think.

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

    • RedLogix 11.1
      25 November 2021 at 11:04 am

      Yes. I checked out CNN's front page last night – not a single mention of the Brookes story. Scrubbed clean.

      You have to listen to what people don't say to start understanding their private thoughts.

    • Blazer 11.2
      25 November 2021 at 11:04 am

      How much juice can you squeeze out of this …Orange!

      • RedLogix 11.2.1
        25 November 2021 at 11:08 am

        Or in your case – what people don't want to hear.

      • Puckish Rogue 11.2.2
        25 November 2021 at 11:10 am

        The MSM is driving race hatred in the USA, what happens in the USA eventually happens here

        The media used to, more or less, tell us what happened and we decided how we felt about it, now the MSM decides what to show us and how we think about it

      • Robert Guyton 11.2.3
        25 November 2021 at 12:55 pm

        Ha!

    • Pete 11.3
      25 November 2021 at 11:10 am

      Are you saying that all MSM news outlets are deliberately lying to us and telling us what to think because they said Rittenhouse shot Black Lives Matter activists and some people believed from that he had shot black people?

      • Puckish Rogue 11.3.1
        25 November 2021 at 11:22 am
        • Close

        'Are you saying that all MSM news outlets are deliberately lying to us and telling us what to think'

        – Is what I'm saying

        'because they said Rittenhouse shot Black Lives Matter activists and some people believed from that he had shot black people?'

        – I can't list all of the lies the MSM said but heres some about this case:

        1. Kyle did not take a rifle over state lines
        2. Kyle works in Kenosha
        3. Kyle has family in Kenosha
        4. He did not carry an assault rifle
        5. He was legally carrying a legal firearm.
        6. The crowd turned on Kyle when he put out a fire
        7. The child sodomiser and domestic abuser was armed with a chain, threatened Kyles life, chased after Kyle and tried to take his rifle away before Kyle defended himself
        8. The child sodomiser and domestic abuser also quite liberally used the N word
        9. The multiple domestic abuser attacked Kyle and hit him with the skateboard, twice, before Kyle defended himself
        10. The last guy Kyle shot had an illegal pistol, had a felony charge of drunk in charge of a weapon and Kyle only shot him when he raised and aimed the pistol at Kyle.

        Thats just this case, how about the Covington kids, Hands up don't shoot, Ferguson, the Steele dossier, Hunter Biden, Christine Blasey Ford/Tara Reade

        How many other examples do you need before you start to think that maybe theres an agenda, that maybe the MSM arn't you the whole story or even if what they're saying has any veracity to it all

        • RedLogix 11.3.1.1
          25 November 2021 at 12:05 pm

          All solid factual points.

          None of this means the other team doesn't play it's own games as well – but the only way to stop this madness is to stop rewarding the media for their lies.

          • Puckish Rogue 11.3.1.1.1
            25 November 2021 at 12:09 pm

            Yeah 100%, I don't want people to watch only Fox or Sky News Australia but just don't accept without question what someone is trying to sell you, sorry I mean trying to tell you

            Probably why I'm spending more and more time on youtube because guys like this: https://www.youtube.com/c/RekietaLaw/videos were absolutely killing it

            • RedLogix 11.3.1.1.1.1
              25 November 2021 at 12:22 pm

              BTW – commiserations. You played it well.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                25 November 2021 at 12:25 pm

                No no its all part of the very, long plan…a really, really very long plan.

                • RedLogix …
                  25 November 2021 at 12:34 pm

                  I'll look forward to it. laugh

                • CAnker the pig fucker …
                  25 November 2021 at 10:19 pm

                  I agree PR you played it well about JC. I know how you must be feeling as I felt the same way when David Cunliffe went……

                  Your contribution on this site is very valuable. I haven't looked at the video stuff of Karl Rittenhouse, because I don't really follow things in the US. But I trust what you write and believe that it was likely a media narrative that lead most people including myself to believe he was guilty (that was at superficial glance). You have obviously. followed and presented good evidence.

                  Keep posting PR

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    25 November 2021 at 10:26 pm

                    Well thank you.

                    I do think the way the media manipulates people is a bad thing and if the least I can do is point it out then thats what I'll do

                    Cheers

        • Pete 11.3.1.2
          25 November 2021 at 4:28 pm

          Quite simply, if in the media it said Rittenhouse shot Black Lives Matter activists and from that some people believed he had shot black people, that is down to the people and their imaginations not the media.

          Should the media have said "Rittenhouse shot Black Lives Matter activists" and then described the ethnicity of the dead?

          "Gun fired in South Auckland" in our media should be followed by the ethnicity of the victims and the alleged or arrested perpetrators? "Accountant arrested in $11m fraud case" the same?

          • Puckish Rogue 11.3.1.2.1
            25 November 2021 at 4:46 pm

            Kyles ethnicity was all over the media 'Kyle Rittenhouse, who is white, is accused of' to make it quite clear the ethnicity of the accused yet they then don't mention the ethnicity of the men he shot

            Why not

            Why not make it clear the ethnicity of the men that were shot or did they want to hide it for as long as they could

            • Pete 11.3.1.2.1.1
              25 November 2021 at 5:13 pm

              I responded to you saying that they (the media) deliberately lied to us and told us what to think because the ethnicity of the dead wasn't stated.

              I'm struggling to see how the media can tell us how to think by not saying something.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                25 November 2021 at 10:18 pm

                By stating the ethnicity of Kyle but not stating the ethnicity of the people he defended himself against and emphasizing that they were Black Lives Matter activists/protestors instead of calling them just protestors/activists or, more accurately, rioters it made people assume Kyle three black people

                Considering the amount of people that thought Kyle had indeed shot only black people it worked.

        • weston 11.3.1.3
          25 November 2021 at 6:19 pm

          What was the rifle KR used then pr out of curiosity ?

          • Puckish Rogue 11.3.1.3.1
            25 November 2021 at 6:23 pm

            He did not use an assault rifle, an assault rifle is a specific thing.

            He used an AR-15 type rifle which looks like an assault rifle but isn't an assault rifle

            • weston 11.3.1.3.1.1
              25 November 2021 at 6:41 pm

              yeah i assumed it was an AR15 but if thats not an assault rifle whats the difference ?

              • Puckish Rogue …
                25 November 2021 at 6:52 pm

                Essentially an AR-15 type rifle can only be fired in semi-auto mode whereas an assault rifle can be fired in either semi-auto or full auto mode

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

                • weston …
                  25 November 2021 at 9:08 pm

                  Thanks i guess i couldve worked that out myself if i,d thought about it !

                  incidently did you ever meet arthur tayler ?

                • McFlock …
                  25 November 2021 at 9:30 pm

                  Unless, of course, your AR15 has a bump-stock, a variety of trigger adaptations to reset the firing process while maintaining trigger pressure, or some other device to let it shoot hundreds of rounds a minute while claiming it's "semi auto".

                  The difference is solely in the legal semantics of manufacturers who want to sell rapid-fire weapons to whomever wants one.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    25 November 2021 at 10:11 pm

                    Did Kyle do any of those things to his rifle?

                    Don't bother answering, no he didn't.

                    He also didn’t attach a grenade launcher or shot gun to his rifle either

                    Its also not that difficult to bump fire a weapon without a bump stock (google it) but I'm sure you knew that already.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 November 2021 at 10:37 pm

                      Wouldn't adding a grenade launcher make it a destructive device and require a tax stamp?

                      Regardless of what the specific configuration of his weapon was, the distinction between "assault rifle" and "AR15" is trivial and contrived. You're clutching at too many pearls, there.

                    • Puckish Rogue []
                      25 November 2021 at 10:47 pm

                      You do know I didn't come up with the classification of what an assault rifle is or isn't

                      But OK for the sake of argument let's say Kyle was carrying an assault rifle (we'll make it legal for him to carry it)

                      What difference does it make to the case?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 November 2021 at 11:03 pm

                      Somehow you seem to think that the distinction between what some people think of as an "assault rifle" and what is not an "assault rifle" is written in stone. If people can "bump fire" an "AR15" without any alteration as you suggest, there's no difference.

                      I'm pretty sure you're aware that the case had a verdict in, so we're left with matters of opinion. Are you worried that people might have a bad opinion of Rittenhouse if he took an "assault rifle", but not an "AR15"?

                    • Puckish Rogue []
                      25 November 2021 at 11:06 pm

                      I've answered your questions, you answer mine for a change.

                      What difference would it make to the case?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 November 2021 at 11:36 pm

                      As far as I know, none.

                      One reason I'm somewhat bemused as to why the distinction is so important to you.

                    • Puckish Rogue []
                      26 November 2021 at 6:12 am

                      Because the distinction is accurate, legally defined and the truth.

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry

                      Why do you not accept this?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 2:59 pm

                      "legally defined"

                      Then why did you provide the wikipedia link, rather than the legal definition?

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:08 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry

                      Why do you not accept this?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:12 pm

                      You asserted that "assault rifle" is legally defined and therefore somehow relevant to the case.

                      I haven't found that definition. Please enlighten me.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:29 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry.

                      Why do you not accept this?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:40 pm

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry.

                      That is the assertion of fact based upon an alleged legal definition of "assault rifle" that you have not provided. Which is why I do not accept that assertion.

                      "Machine gun", fine. "Assault weapon", sure.

                      But for someone het up on the semantic difference between an "AR15" and an "assault rifle", you wouldn't be conflating "assault rifle" with the legally-defined "assault weapon" (in contradiction to the last paragraph in your "assault rifle" wikipedia link), would you?

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:47 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry.

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry.

                      Why do you not accept this?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:50 pm

                      Why do you not accept this?

                      Because you are making it up.

                      I mean, if you weren’t you’d be supplying the legislative links rather than cut and pasting your unsupported assertions.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:54 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry.

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry.

                      Why do you not accept this?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:57 pm

                      Because your assertions of fact are as unsubstantiated as they are pedantic and irrelevant.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 3:59 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry.

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry.

                      Why do you not accept this ?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:00 pm

                      Because repeating baseless assertions doesn't make them true.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:02 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry.

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry .

                      Why do you not accept this?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:02 pm

                      Because someone who cares about the informal but apparently-legally-meaningless distinction between "assault rifle" and "ar15" should also be aware of the distinction between "assault rifle" and the actual-in-real-life-in-USA-legally-defined "assault weapon".

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:03 pm

                      because a baseless assertion made by someone with the maturity of a three year old really needs some manner of link to legislative sources to be credible.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:04 pm

                      because your third assertion is apparently incorrect.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:05 pm

                      Because you're wrong.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:08 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry .

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry .

                      Why do you not accept this ?

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:12 pm

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle .

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry .

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry .

                      Why do you not accept this ?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:16 pm

                      Because you're wrong.

                      You're still two behind.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:45 pm

                      Given that even the judge admitted to his inability to decide exactly what the law might have meant in this case; I'm calling an end to this unproductive exchange.

                      However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law. He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He added that he failed to understand how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal.

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/14/was-rittenhouses-possession-of-the-ar-15-unlawful/

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      26 November 2021 at 4:49 pm

                      (Claiming the last word)

                      Kyle carried an AR-15 type rifle.

                      An AR-15 type rifle is legal for Kyle to carry.

                      An assault rifle would have been illegal for Kyle to carry, because an assault rifle is deemed to be a machine gun

                      Why do you not accept this ?

                      [RL: If you didn’t see my mod note above – fair enough. But none of the moderators here have any toleration for playing games. Consider deleting this comment.]

  14. Ffloyd 14
    25 November 2021 at 12:40 pm

    If Luxon gets appointed to LOO will Key be the Puppetmaster. I see he is lurking around again.

    • Anne 14.1
      25 November 2021 at 12:47 pm

      …will Key be the Puppetmaster.

      Key's back at the wheel? Luxon will do as he's told while his training wheels are still strapped to him. He will be let loose bit by bit and Key will sink back into anonymity.

      It may not happen straight away but it will happen.

      Edit: So Mark Mitchell is in the race. Had a feeling that was going to happen. They might go with him in the meantime while Luxon continues to learn the ropes.

  15. CAnker the pig fucker 15
    25 November 2021 at 1:04 pm

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/127084165/spotlight-criticised-for-ignorant-and-disrespectful-ocd-christmas-items

    really?

    Mr Robinson needs to be promoting good evidence based treatment for people with OCD. Helping professionals to get trained properly in these treatments. Like happens in the UK, but not here so much.

  16. McFlock 16
    25 November 2021 at 1:47 pm

    Hmm. so one of the busiest border crossings in the world has been closed for 18 months?

    But I thought really busy transit points couldn't be closed to control covid, and that's why places like the UK were covid clusterfucks? guess not.