Open mike 29/09/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 29th, 2013 - 180 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 right up to the mike…

180 comments on “Open mike 29/09/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Steve 1.1
      29 September 2013 at 8:32 am

      As I commented yesterday, the tide is turning and there are many reef-fish who do not want to end up on the wrong side of history.

      Looks like Rodney is having a “bob each way”.

      • Linz 1.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 3:31 pm

        I agree. I’m sure I heard that extra large reef-fish, Duncan Garner, say to Kris Faafoi this morning on The Nation, “I look forward to your sucess!”

    • Anne 1.2
      29 September 2013 at 10:20 am

      I think it’s praise North. Not praise for his politics of course but praise for Cunliffe’s style and the strong belief he has in himself. I think he sees a bit of himself in Cunliffe . Both speak their minds regardless of the consequences, and they’re not afraid to be a bit mongrel if they think the occasion is deserving of it. Neither suffer fools gladly – something they both have in common with Helen Clark. 🙂

  2. Steve 2
    29 September 2013 at 8:13 am

    As the Nats see the writing on the wall expect the screaming mantra from the right that Labour/Greens will be a “far-left” governement to get ever louder. Shonkey has already used this label many times – it’s a cheap trick, without substance, to scare the voter.

    To neutralise this the left should be taking ownership of the language. Cunliffe and the left could say something along the lines of

    If by “far left” you mean a government that would implement a living wage for all, maintain ownership of our assets, create a fairer tax system and support a world-class public health and education system etc. etc….. then we will indeed be all of those things.

    I call that a decent, progressive, social democratic government. The current government is none of those things but this is what we will be and what this country desperately needs

    Each time the “far-left” lable is used simply roll out the above or similar and it will show up Shonkey’s increasingly desperate “name-calling” for what it is.

    I’m sure there will be standardistas out there with some snappier language that neutalises that “far-left” label. Any ideas?

    • karol 2.1
      29 September 2013 at 8:23 am

      Well today Colin Espiner referred to the latest polls in lab-Green favour labeling it as a possible centre eft government. Following that he refers to Key’s attempt to discredit a potential minority “far left” Labour government, using quote marks around the term. he goes on to discount the “minority” government argument and makes no comment on the <i."far left" tag.

      I thing Key’s smear attempt is already looking like empty rhetoric.

      • The Al1en 2.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 10:13 am

        Yes, the line from Key that NZ wouldn’t tolerate the party with the least seats forming a government is a desperate attempt to set tone.
        The country overwhelmingly voted to keep mmp, and I’m sure accept that the game is now left v right.

        • Dumrse 2.1.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 11:57 am

          Both comments may be very valid but let’s make sure we know it’s not just left V’s right, it’s far left and centre right. Despite the dribble above, you are going to need to get used to it.

          • The Al1en 2.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 12:03 pm

            Even though I disagree with the nat party spin about far left, from the center outwards in both directions it’s left v right.
            It’s all encompassing, but they’re the voting blocks in NZ under mmp.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1.2
            29 September 2013 at 12:04 pm

            Human rights abuses? Check.
            Enacting legislation that is fundamentally at odds with the rule of law? Check.
            Anti worker legislation? Check.
            Dubious “medical” interventions. Check.
            Sale of legislation? Check.

            “Centre right” governments don’t do any of the above. Right wing trash where conservatives used to be.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.3
            29 September 2013 at 12:42 pm

            This government is radical-right not centre-right. This is clearly coming through now with the desperate sales of assets against all rational economic thought and against what the country wants.

            • Ed 2.1.1.1.3.1
              29 September 2013 at 5:05 pm

              The Nats have never been centre. Farrar used to refer approvingly to this:
              http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
              (and claimed he was in the region of +10, – 4), but that has disappeared from his site as it diverged from official spin.
              (There graph for Australia 2013 is telling as well – Labour there is similar to United Future here according to their chart.)

          • North 2.1.1.1.4
            29 September 2013 at 12:56 pm

            As are you DumbArse to the exponentially vivid and resonant caricature of a PM having to “play away” in search of adulation. Not forgetting that in doing so he’s looking increasingly naff. “Mr 62%…….” doesn’t cut it anymore. What’s worse, the vaunted cargo has ended up in the hands of a very few in the cult who defame and blame those who believed but missed out.

            Never mind DumbArse…….Judge Judy’s looking for a cheer team. You can top up with Kool Aid there.

      • North 2.1.2
        29 September 2013 at 11:52 am

        As ShonKey Python’s star wanes the pejorative soundbite “far left” depends for legs on –

        1. Explanation of its meaning, failing which,

        2. Uncritical acceptance based on extant trust.

        Well, (1) explaining is losing (apparently), and (2) “smile and wave” no longer wins trust.

        For my part I actually love hearing ShonKey Python use it. If he continues with it he risks falling victim to the superbly intelligible real life based responses suggested by Steve @ 2 above.

        Both Cunliffe and Norman are eminently capable of delivering those responses, and better. What would ShonKey Python have left ? Fawning at Balmoral and making like the big boy at the UN ? Not good enough. Both episodes run so close to embarrassing.

        “and wave……..goodbye” seems apposite.

    • marsman 2.2
      29 September 2013 at 12:06 pm

      ‘The Roaring Mouse’ might be a good label to fling at ShonKey.

    • srylands 2.3
      29 September 2013 at 9:33 pm

      It would be a far left government. The current Government is a left wing government. So with the policies announced by Silent T and the Red Melons, what else can we call it?

      If you want to maintain more NZ ownership of assets start saving more. Labour Green policies will do the opposite.

      We have a world class and fair, highly progressive tax system. It is the envy of the world.

      Given our GDP we have a world class health system.

      Our education system is great for 80% of kids. For the other 20% it is a problem. What is your solution? Don’t say “spend more money” The 5th Labour Government did that for zero – thats right – zero return.

      If you have anything else on your list let me know.

      • Pasupial 2.3.1
        29 September 2013 at 11:36 pm

        Srylands

        I guess compared to Abott’s crew, even the present Key government does seem left wing (not only woman, but maaris too!).

        Just don’t say “we”; you don’t live here, you don’t know us.

  3. karol 3
    29 September 2013 at 8:18 am

    Flicking through the Sunday Star times on Press Display:

    Op Ed section: PPTA respond to Colin Espiner on Charter Schools.

    Espiner meanwhile, weighs up the fact that Labour is now back in the fight, though things can always turn against them.

    He frames his analysis saying that bad things often happen when PMs are out of the country, and while Key was overseas being called a colonial clot, throwing up, speaking to the UN etc, voters back home had more mundane things on their minds, like low wages, cost of housing, lack of decent jobs, and Americas Cup.

    Andrea Vance has an article headlined “Interference over river smells bad” – But she then proceeds to explain why this is not a big problem for old Nick who, while having a dodgy record, has just been a bit over enthusiastic.

    • David H 3.1
      29 September 2013 at 9:51 am

      “But she then proceeds to explain why this is not a big problem for old Nick who, while having a dodgy record, has just been a bit over enthusiastic.”

      What, is Andrea collecting photo’s from more than one old fool on the Treasury benches??

  4. AsleepWhileWalking 4
    29 September 2013 at 9:03 am

    Funded Family Care released yesterday

    “In its announcement the Government makes much of the fact that it consulted with experts to craft this policy. The feedback we provided was ignored, and the result is the Funded Family Care payment is a dog’s breakfast. It’s not nice, it’s not right, and it won’t work,”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1309/S00304/governments-new-family-carer-payment-flawed-and-unfair.htm

    • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1
      29 September 2013 at 9:29 am

      Hmmm….
      Reading through the scheme is like watching money flow down a drain – into the pockets of gate-keepers, and held back from the very people for whom the scheme is meant to exist. I see a lot of job creation for anyone but the person who is after the funding; it is a maddening read.

      I’ll give them this much: They do, at one point, acknowledge how complex and extensive the scheme is:

      “The requirements of the FFC arrangement are quite extensive and complex and understanding the obligations and responsibilities of being an employer in this arrangement can be quite daunting.”

      Yah think..?? [Head-desk.]

      http://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/whats-so-very-very-wrong-with-funded-family-care/

      • miravox 4.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 9:58 am

        “understanding the obligations and responsibilities of being an employer in this arrangement can be quite daunting.”

        But they make the employer the disabled person, not the health provider, which is what I assume would happen with an unrelated carer.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/9214236/Wankerish_Ryall doesn’t get what disabled means

        Health Minister Tony Ryall said the Funded Family Care notice published today sets out the eligibility criteria and conditions for how disabled adults were to be allocated their share of $92 million in Government funding to employ family carers, who will be paid $13.75 an hour to look after them.

        “The notice clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of the disabled person, the family member providing care, Needs Assessment and Service Coordination (NASC) organisations and the Ministry of Health,” Ryall said…

        … “If disabled people would like a family member to be their paid carer, they should read the notice and accompanying operational policy on the ministry website, and then contact their local NASC to be assessed.’’

        If disabled people would ‘like’ to be cared for by a family member?
        All disabled people are fully aware of their ‘roles and responsibilities’?
        All disabled people can read a notice and operational policy?
        All disabled people can contact pick up a phone / log on to the internet / get down the road to contact their local NASC?

        So if disabled people can’t do one or more of these things they cannot be assessed? Why does Mr Ryall think they’re being cared for? Lifestyle choice?

        Carers, who can help disabled people do some of these things, or do them for them, are once again invisible to NAct in this press release.

        Surely the contracting arrangement should be between the carer and the government through the health system, not between the dis/abled family members?

        • Foreign Waka 4.1.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 7:32 pm

          The maddening thing is that many disabled people also have medical needs that a person at $13.75 per hour is at a 99% likely hood not trained to recognize.
          Now, there is something every family with a disabled person should take note off: In case of negligence, physical or medically they should sue the government for negligence of care by intention (as the new legislation clearly is if one follows the outline).

          Tort:
          Negligence
          The key elements of negligence

          Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid reasonably foreseeable damage to people or property. There are four elements:

          The defendant must owe the plaintiff a duty of care.
          The defendant must have breached this duty of care.
          The plaintiff must have suffered damage that was caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.
          The damage suffered must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

          Breaching the duty of care

          In a negligence case, the test for whether the defendant breached a duty of care is whether the defendant did something or failed to do something that a “reasonable person” would not have done or omitted to do.

          The degree of care required depends on the circumstances. It varies according to the degree of risk involved, the consequences of the breach, and the standard of care that the defendant has undertaken to exercise

          I belief this applies in the way the legislation is outlined.

    • Rogue Trooper 4.2
      29 September 2013 at 11:31 am

      making Funded Family Care more difficult to access for family than NASC’s and their affiliated care providers.

  5. stever 5
    29 September 2013 at 9:27 am

    Wow…a knowledgable and brave man here

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/28/time-end-war-drugs-uk-police-chief

    Let’s hope the courage spreads to some senior NZ police officers….they must surely know what he’s saying is true, from their own experiences.

    • Tim 5.1
      29 September 2013 at 10:01 am

      @Stever. Completely! Until ‘P’ came along – I’ve always believed that decriminalosation was the way to go – with the amount of money spent on enforcement redirected into rehab.
      ‘P’ presented a different problem with brain fries, paranoia and violence along with it.
      Having mulled it over, decriminalisation and adequate rehab is definately the way to go – even with ‘P’. The ‘war on drugs’ is never going to be won without finding a way to cempletely take the value out of ‘illicit drugs.
      They spend tens of thousands (or used to) putting bloody helicopters in the air to spot and destroy crops FFS!. Enough to pay a few counsellors salaries anyway.
      I’m not suggesting ‘loss leader smack’ in the local supermarket, but finding ways of addicts being able to access safe supplies and without resorting to criminal activity to fund their habits seems like its worth investigating at the very least.

      • bad12 5.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 11:03 am

        The thing with ‘P’ is it’s highly addictive nature, right up there in terms of addiction with Heroin and Tobacco,

        The violence was removed from Heroin use to a large extent by the Methadone Program as much of that violence was associated with the lengths those addicted would go to to find the resources to feed their addiction,

        My view is that the ‘P’ addiction should be addressed by the same means and in my dreams i see us as a country catching up with the state of Colorado in the US which has flouted Federal Law and enacted the legalization of marijuana and as yet i have not read of any overt anti-societal effects from them having done so…

        • Tim 5.1.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 11:13 am

          There are still a few problems – even WITH the Methadone Programme.
          It just seems to me that every step taken with outlawing ‘illicit drugs’ has actually worsened the problems.
          We banned the Chinese from Opium. Next we had heroin …. so they class ‘A’d’ it and went to extreme lengths to prevent importation (somewhat successfully). Up popped ‘Homebake’ – far worse than the heroin it replaced. Then up popped ‘P’.
          The Methadone Programme does its best – but its under-resourced and there is an element that stuffs it up for the genuine as you may be aware = that’s aside from expecting it to be a solution to ‘P’ addicts. You’ll probably know that there are a number who rely on ‘diversion’ of at least a portion of their daily dose in order to survive financially.
          Oh, and there’s sometimes another problem with the programme in that it’s sometime run by power-trippers and those treating patients like kids. Admittedly they face constant conning, but unfortunately all patients then have to face the same treatment.
          Rehab programmes haven’t been anywhere NEAR adequate in this country for quite some time. There always seems to be enough money though for enforcement …. relatively speaking anyway – and it’s NOT working.
          Having had a brother that more than dabbled for most of his life – its hard not to think what could have been – under a different regime

          • bad12 5.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 11:33 am

            Yeah of course there are problems with the ‘Done program’, the biggest would seem to be the assumption that people can be weaned off the Heroin addiction by them being put on the program and then having them weaned off of even that,

            Back in the 70’s i knew of doctors and lawyers who enjoyed their Heroin but of course they could afford the product so their addictions were not obvious,

            Rehab might work but i have never met a Heroin user that has done so and completely kicked their use so it would seem that the best means of society to ;treat’ those with addictions is to provide them with a suitable maintainance dose of whatever they are addicted to at cost…

            • Tim 5.1.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2013 at 11:57 am

              we may have known the same doctors and lawyers bad – one or two now in very prominent positions. I find it somewhat amusing at times the judgmental attitudes towards my brother in their stereotyping – right up until they become aware that his first contact with it all was as a border at Christ’s College.
              It is way past time though that this whole ‘war on drugs’ was re-evaluated – it ain’t bloody working! – and nor will it – even if we just look at recent history.

            • phillip ure 5.1.1.1.1.2
              29 September 2013 at 1:22 pm

              @ bad..

              “..i have never met a Heroin user that has done so and completely kicked their use..”

              ..(ahem..!..)

              phillip ure..

              • Rhinocrates …
                29 September 2013 at 1:46 pm

                i have never met a Heroin user that has done so and completely kicked their use

                I have. More than one. I’ll say no more (to avoid mentioning individuals), except that it is a terrible drug, but heroin addicts, like alcoholics, can turn their lives completely around.

            • Murray Olsen 5.1.1.1.1.3
              29 September 2013 at 7:16 pm

              I know several ex heroin addicts who completely stopped. I used narcotics for 18 years and stopped in 1997. It is possible, but the legal bullshit surrounding drugs makes it far harder than it needs to be.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.2
          29 September 2013 at 11:19 am

          In fact, many states in the USA have taken steps to decriminalise or partially decriminalise marijuana. Marijuana for medical use is permitted in several states, for example, as is personal possession of up to 1 oz.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States#State

          • Rogue Trooper 5.1.1.2.1
            29 September 2013 at 11:38 am

            when you take a sledgehammer to a nutty problem, fragments is all you are left with.

          • vto 5.1.1.2.2
            29 September 2013 at 11:40 am

            in the not too distant past in our fair lands marijuana was legal and alcohol was illegal.

            did they have it right then or are we superiors and have it right now?

            • marsman 5.1.1.2.2.1
              29 September 2013 at 12:13 pm

              It seems that our Police Force is still adamant that sellers of marijuana must be locked up and the public given a lecture via the MSM by the Dick leading the witch-hunt about the ‘evils’ of the drug, as happened in Wellington not so long ago.

          • North 5.1.1.2.3
            29 September 2013 at 1:17 pm

            Closer to home – South Australia – simple minimal amount possession/use of cannabis – nothing stiffer than an infringement notice more or less. That was certainly the case 10-15 years ago.

            Also recall years ago hearing a retiring senior drug squad detective stoutly maintaining that controlled legal supply of heroin to those afflicted would do away overnight with 60% of the violent standovers and convenience store robberies in the Kings Cross area. Someone might have links. Here’s one related –

            http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40070.html

      • The Murphey 5.1.2
        29 September 2013 at 11:43 am

        Q: What impact does being able to manufacture “P” locally have on the drug industry in NZ?

        A:________

        Q: What impact might there be on “P” use with other variations of higher quality narcotics safely readily available?

        A:_________

        Q: What is the influence of the pharma/alcohol industries in preventing decriminalization?

        A:__________

        Q: What is the level of involvement of the police and “other public figures” in the organised crime behind the NZ “P Problem” ?

        A:__________

  6. Tim 6
    29 September 2013 at 9:51 am

    Bugger! I was hoping that by not putting my clocks forward, I’d wake up and discover I’d missed Q+A.

    • Anne 6.1
      29 September 2013 at 11:51 am

      I note that Red Alert has yet to acknowledge there is a new leader of the Labour Party – two weeks after the fact.

      Clare Curran is currently running a “Right to know” list of posts concentrating on OIA requests to selected ministers. There may be some good material in them, but blowed if I’m going to wade through the myriad of stuff and judging by the lack of comments no-one else is either.

      I guess she’s using the site to re-establish her relevance. If she’s had an epiphany moment we’ll know soon enough.

      • QoT 6.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 1:28 pm

        In fact, Red Alert has had no posts from anyone BUT Curran since the leadership debate.

        And the lack of comments just highlights one of the reasons she was always a terrible ICT/Open Government spokesperson – if you’re not in the blogosphere you won’t comment anyway, if you are you don’t want her to dox your info and threaten you with party censure.

    • phillip ure 6.2
      29 September 2013 at 1:56 pm

      @ q&a…it was dire..as was the nation..

      ..hard to believe..i know..but a new nadir reached..by both..

      http://whoar.co.nz/2013/ed-qa-a-mini-review-i-could-bang-on-and-on-but-i-wont/

      “..ed:..i could bang on about how wood and mutch doing a weekly roundup remind me so much of a shopping-channel presentation..

      ..i cd bang on about the blatant product-placement from edwards-the-younger..(i mean..why doesn’t he just hang a fucken ‘for-sale’ sign around his kneck..

      ..i could bang on about how distasteful it is that an ex-act mp..and now a paid pimp/lobbyist for big-pharma..

      ..is deemed to be a panelist whose word should be listened to..

      ..i cd bang on about how wood and mutch on john key sound like they are selling/promoting the latest kitchen-whizz gadget..their enthusiasms are both bubbling and relentless..

      ..i cd note how the third panelist..the editor of metro..spent the whole time looking like he was thinking..

      ..’w.t.f. am i doing here..?..with these hideous people..?’.”

      (cont..)

      phillip ure..

  7. Rogue Trooper 7
    29 September 2013 at 11:44 am

    Restaurant Brands : KFC “We’re really pleased 😉 we’ve been able to reach an agreement with Unite Union to reinstate these roles” Tui with those tenderloins?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11131722

  8. Morrissey 8
    29 September 2013 at 11:56 am

    I worked all week for free?!
    The horrifying, true story of $0 paychecks

    Coming our way soon, courtesy of ACT and the National Party. If we’re st000-pid enough to reinstall them next year….
    http://www.salon.com/2013/09/27/i_worked_all_week_for_free_the_horrifying_true_story_of_0_paychecks/

    • srylands 8.1
      29 September 2013 at 12:11 pm

      So if the current government is returned we will have criminal gangs breaking employment law and threatening people with deportation?

    • Dumrse 8.2
      29 September 2013 at 12:13 pm

      I read it twice and still failed to see which Govt or political party was failing to pay the workers. All I could see was a “Mister Clean Laundry and Cleaning Services” was obviously a dodgy employer. The more you stretch it the more likely it is to whack your arse when it breaks.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.2.1
        29 September 2013 at 12:24 pm

        That isn’t how it works. The money from the illegal enterprise – in this case slave labour but it could just as easily be drug money or human trafficking – gets paid to a trust, let’s call it the Waitemata Trust, which then funnels money to a political party, let’s call it The National Party, and then the corrupt politicians enact legislation to order.

        If the money can be laundered through a casino first, well then, even better.

  9. bad12 9
    29 September 2013 at 12:01 pm

    One for ‘the Alien anti-smoking Nazi’, just for the hell of it on a slow Sunday,

    YES, i agree with you 1/2 of those who use tobacco products will die of some form of Cancer or Heart disease,

    However, such figures are in actual fact actual Bullshit, as 1/2 of those who do not and have never smoked will also die of Heart Disease or some form of Cancer,

    40% of deaths annually in New Zealand are caused by heart disease,

    http://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/know-the-facts/statistics

    29.4% of deaths annually in New Zealand are caused by cancers,

    http://www.cancernz.org.nz/divisions/auckland/about/cancer-statistics

    The total for deaths in both categories is 69.4% of deaths annually, take out the 20% of tobacco users from the statistics and pray tell me what got the other 49.4% NOT smoking perhaps,

    SO, repeatedly saying that 50% of those who use tobacco products will die of cancer or heart disease while true becomes totally FALSE when you then attach the use of tobacco products to those deaths completely disregarding the FACTS that 49.4% of those who do not use tobacco products will also die of those same diseases…

    • srylands 9.1
      29 September 2013 at 12:14 pm

      Yes you are right. So what? You can’t use a washing machine, you live in a State house (laughing over the back fence), but you are a stats guru. Congrats. Don’t tell me you are a smoker too?

      • bad12 9.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 12:24 pm

        Right SSLands, we have established the fact that you don’t want to buy me, as per new National Party policy a brand spanking NEW washing machine,

        That leaves you only my brand spanking NEW, as per new National Party policy, Fridge/Freezer to cough up for,

        I am totally chuffed that YOU are going to be paying for this new appliance for me as dictated by Paula and Bill from Dipton,

        Ha ha ha, excuse my mirth, but can you advise whether you will be paying for the agreed appliance to have left-ward or right-ish opening doors, Ha ha ha…

        • The Al1en 9.1.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 1:01 pm

          “I am totally chuffed that YOU are going to be paying for this new appliance for me”

          Aren’t whiteware purchases still an advance on benefits and thus repayable?
          If so, you’ll still be paying out of your weekly allowance, even at just five or ten dollars a week, just not getting charged interest.

          And I chose not to have a washing machine for environmental reasons and go to the laundrette down the road instead.

          • bad12 9.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 3:06 pm

            The closing paragraph of this little gem of a comment from you is why i suspect you to be suffering from some form of congenital brain dysfunction,

            Well the whole comment actually more or less proves there is something majorly wrong deep inside you nut,

            What possible enviromental gain can there be by doing your washing at the laundromat down the street,

            Think a little deeper about your comment on who pays for such whiteware should i take up the National Governments offer of ‘new’ whiteware for beneficiaries, if you take into consideration SSLands previous comments of Him being one of the few actual taxpayers in the economy you might possibly develop some small understanding of why i continue to ‘tease’ it over the subject, on more than one level…

            • The Al1en 9.1.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2013 at 3:21 pm

              “The closing paragraph of this little gem of a comment from you is why i suspect you to be suffering from some form of congenital brain dysfunction”

              Consequently, your reply had me thinking the same thing, except I was inclined to use what a dullard or dimbo.

              “What possible enviromental gain can there be by doing your washing at the laundromat down the street”

              You mean like the real and material associated cost of manufacture and delivery of one less appliance to me etc, and by using and thus keeping in business a community facility that by remaining open stops hundreds of other people who don’t own machines from doing so or washing their clothes in a river.
              I’m gonna call dullard 🙂

              “you might possibly develop some small understanding”

              Boasting about being a dole leech isn’t wise, even on a left wing site, even if to piss off right wingers.
              If I were you I’d show some humility and not bring it up again, but then you may have a lot less pride than most, so do what you will.

              • bad12 …
                29 September 2013 at 3:45 pm

                Yes, exactly what i picked you for, a right wing loony masquerading as a lefty,

                Your classic ”boasting about being a dole leech” tells us all that you think those on the dole,(not me), are just leeches,

                You keep outing yourself as a wing-nut of SSLands caliber the more you comment despite your denials…

                • srylands …
                  29 September 2013 at 3:51 pm

                  OK so you are on the dole, live in a state house (laughing over the back fence), you smoke, you don’t (or can’t) use a washing machine. So your only hope for survival is to cheer for Silent-T and pray for other peoples money to come your way.

                  You have no credibility.

                  • Rhinocrates …
                    29 September 2013 at 4:00 pm

                    Honestly, one can’t make this up. Like Ouroboros, the snake that eats itself, srylands is the tory who presents the most extreme parody of tory ignorance, making satire redundant.

                    “Silent-t” Hee hee, he said “vagina”! Giggle, snicker, snort! Poo, wees, bottoms! Ha ha!

                    And he uses the word “credibility”!

                  • bad12 …
                    29 September 2013 at 4:30 pm

                    Pray for your money to come my way SSLands, no praying involved ha ha…

                • The Al1en …
                  29 September 2013 at 3:54 pm

                  “Yes, exactly what i picked you for, a right wing loony masquerading as a lefty”

                  Yeah, nah, as the natives say. 😉

                  “Think a little deeper about your comment on who pays for such whiteware should i take up the National Governments offer of ‘new’ whiteware for beneficiaries, if you take into consideration SSLands previous comments of Him being one of the few actual taxpayers in the economy you might possibly develop some small understanding of why i continue to ‘tease’ it over the subject, on more than one level
”

                  ps
                  But the answer about the washing machine, laundrette and environmental concerns, was that okay? ‘Cause you seemed to have ignored it and just gone into insult mode… Again 😆

                  Now take care, mate, and remember you can’t fu*k with a fu*ker without getting a little fu*ed up.

                  :wave:

                  • bad12 …
                    29 September 2013 at 4:24 pm

                    A small brained chimp such as you giving every appearance of being does not to any extent ‘f**k me up’,

                    There is tho a danger that as i laugh at your denial of the simple fact that 50% of those who do not smoke will die of cancers and heart disease i take another puff,

                    Man laughing at you and smoking are definitely bad for my health…

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 4:38 pm

                      You know I’m bang on the money, you just won’t ever bring yourself to admit it. Just think of those kids in poverty you’re willfully stealing from with every puff. I know I couldn’t do it, what with having a conscience and all.

                      From here on, I predict you’ll just get very personal and much more abusive than you already are at every turn, so save the readers (those poor readers) the effort and either ignore my comments from now on, or let it all out in one super fu*k you post and get it off your chest (no pun intended) (well, maybe a bit) once and for all. 😉

                • srylands …
                  29 September 2013 at 4:02 pm

                  “previous comments of Him being one of the few actual taxpayers in the economy”

                  and what the hell is this capitalised “Him” thing you always do? It is fucked up.

                  • bad12 …
                    29 September 2013 at 4:13 pm

                    You don’t like ‘Him’, ok ok no need to shout, from now on you pus filled scab on the rump of society i will refer to you as ‘IT’,

                    Seriously tho SSLands, whats it like to run round thinking all beneficiaries are bludgers and voting National to ‘fix em’ only to have Paula and Bill from Dipton come up with a brand new plan to buy beneficiaries brand spanking new white ware,

                    Lolz go Paula way to spend SSLands tax dollars and give IT even more brain damage…

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 4:22 pm

                      I’m not sure having to borrow more to purchase a new appliance is beneficial for all when quality second hand goods are available at cheaper prices, but if you’re not bothered about having a fiver deducted each week from your allowance for a much longer period, then all good.
                      I would prefer to be more in control of my finances and not be forced into a higher level of debt. Some families will struggle severely because of this forced policy.

                    • bad12 …
                      29 September 2013 at 4:43 pm

                      You really are that THICK aren’t you Alien, you give the appearance of having half a brain but in reality deep down you are simply THICK,

                      i have already told you that i am using the new National Government policy that beneficiaries will now buy new white ware through WINZ as a small stick with which to poke the equally as THICK as you SSLands,

                      For your information, i have a perfectly good fridge/freezer and washing machine, they were ‘bought’ through WINZ under the old scheme 7 years ago and i see no need to replace them,

                      At the time i purchased the 2nd hand appliances through WINZ i repayed 13 dollars a week in total, as yet i havn’t met anyone that has bought through WINZ new appliances so i do not know the repayment costs but should imagine they would be pretty similar,

                      Christ i cannot imagine what it is like in the empty cavern of your dead head, i almost feel sorry for you…

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 4:50 pm

                      “You really are that THICK aren’t you Alien,”

                      No!

                      “i have already told you that i am using the new National Government policy that beneficiaries will now buy new white ware through WINZ as a small stick with which to poke the equally as THICK as you SSLands,”

                      And I have already said you should be boasting about being a dole leech.
                      Where’s your issue, seeing that’s what you’re doing, by admission, even if just to bait a right winger?

                      Seriously, given how you’ve been laid bare, you need a better line of attack than mental, brain ache and thicko, but I know you won’t get ‘it’, so I just 😆

          • Dumrse 9.1.1.1.2
            29 September 2013 at 4:13 pm

            “And I chose not to have a washing machine for environmental reasons and go to the laundrette down the road instead”
            That’s fucking different eh! Laundrettes don’t use the environment.

            • The Al1en 9.1.1.1.2.1
              29 September 2013 at 4:17 pm

              “You mean like the real and material associated cost of manufacture and delivery of one less appliance to me etc, and by using and thus keeping in business a community facility that by remaining open stops hundreds of other people who don’t own machines from doing so or washing their clothes in a river.”

              Just like people who don’t own cars but use busses and trains.
              For you I will call fu*k nugget. 😆

              • Dumrse …
                29 September 2013 at 5:56 pm

                You only had one answer, confirm do laundrettes use the environment or not. EOFS.

                • The Al1en …
                  29 September 2013 at 6:01 pm

                  Of course they do, nugget, but much much less so than making an extra 300 washing machines would for the people that use the laundry, so like people taking busses and trains is more beneficial to environment than owning or running their own cars, so is using a laundrette.

                  What bit didn’t you understand?

            • bad12 9.1.1.1.2.2
              29 September 2013 at 4:20 pm

              Lolz that heroic actor says it saves hundreds of people washing their clothes in the river, shouldn’t be too hard on it, there seems something very amiss upstairs with that one…

              • The Al1en …
                29 September 2013 at 4:23 pm

                It basic common sense, and you don’t get it, so I must be the mental 😆

                Me personally not owning a washer has a real environmental saving in materials and associated costs.

                Patronising a laundrette keeps it open, which if closed would mean all the people who use it wouldn’t be able to, and unless they washed their clothes in the river, many would get their own appliances, adding to the overall environmental costing.

                And you claim you’re a greenie 😆

                • bad12 …
                  29 September 2013 at 4:46 pm

                  And for those who live miles away from the nearest laundromat, drive there or catch the bus, really green that,

                  And you claim to have a brain…

                  • The Al1en …
                    29 September 2013 at 4:54 pm

                    I usually walk, because if you remember I wrote it was only down the road, but like your non point over smoker/non smoker deaths, those that drive there will still have their cars, yet now they’d have washing machines as well, with all the environmental costs incurred along the way to manufacture and get them inside their homes.

                    😆 :bad12: 😆

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2013 at 10:08 pm

                      You usually walk? So direct fuel costs are replaced by shoe leather and heart-rate boosting (a less efficient carbon engine, that).

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 10:53 pm

                      “You usually walk? So direct fuel costs are replaced by shoe leather and heart-rate boosting (a less efficient carbon engine, that).”

                      How lame was that?
                      Bet you wish you’d got to the delete button before the time ran out 😆

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:08 pm

                      The human body’s a chemical motor attached to legs instead of wheels. That’s why your heart rate increases when you exercise.
                      Ever wonder where an awful lot of fertilizer comes from?

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:12 pm

                      “The human body’s a chemical motor attached to legs instead of wheels. That’s why your heart rate increases when you exercise.”

                      And you’re on an adult’ish’ website for grown ups, posting that my walking is a bad thing for the environment, or something, when smoking isn’t a bad thing despite all the money needed to treat smokers 😆 😆 😆

                      I haven’t got the patience other posters have for sh*t like that, but really do see the humour.
                      As dark as the tar in the lungs of the stupid.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:22 pm

                      What about all the money spent keeping non-smokers alive?

                      Have fun spending my pension if I die early. Call it my gift to society.

                      Edit: it’s not the issues we care about that define us (look at sithlands claiming they try to increase welfare for people). It’s whether we choose to stop analysing the problem if the answers begin to displease us.

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:40 pm

                      “What about all the money spent keeping non-smokers alive?”

                      You mean the ones who don’t play 50/50 with their lives, that have to struggle to get adequate healthcare through lack of funding? Got so much time for those poor fu*kers, it puts backers of smokers to shame.

                      “Have fun spending my pension if I die early. Call it my gift to society.”

                      As you say, no knowing if you wouldn’t have died early anyway, but I’m hoping you’d go quick, not only for the financial savings over and above possible pension payments, but because it’s a horrible way to go and a sad waste of human life.
                      The real gift, if you’ve procreated, will be, that your offspring are a tad more intelligent when it comes to self preservation v short term high.
                      Fingers and toes crossed for all concerned.

                      “Edit: it’s not the issues we care about that define us (look at sithlands claiming they try to increase welfare for people). It’s whether we choose to stop analysing the problem if the answers begin to displease us.”

                      I’m not sure even you know what that means, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for a change.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 September 2013 at 12:00 am

                      “What about all the money spent keeping non-smokers alive?”

                      You mean the ones who don’t play 50/50 with their lives, that have to struggle to get adequate healthcare through lack of funding? Got so much time for those poor fu*kers, it puts backers of smokers to shame.

                      If more of ’em smoked, by your logic there’s be more money for healthcare, what with the pension savings and all. Selfish bastards.

                      “Have fun spending my pension if I die early. Call it my gift to society.”

                      As you say, no knowing if you wouldn’t have died early anyway, but I’m hoping you’d go quick, not only for the financial savings over and above possible pension payments, but because it’s a horrible way to go and a sad waste of human life.

                      So is dementia.

                      The real gift, if you’ve procreated, will be, that your offspring are a tad more intelligent when it comes to self preservation v short term high.
                      Fingers and toes crossed for all concerned.

                      Quality vs quantity. I don’t judge nonsmokers, but they love to judge me.

    • The Al1en 9.2
      29 September 2013 at 12:56 pm

      “saying that 50% of those who use tobacco products will die of cancer or heart disease while true becomes totally FALSE” 😆

      Doesn’t affect the argument if non smokers die of cancer, heart disease and strokes, because if the money spent on treating smokers, and the cost to the country above and beyond the revenue garnered from the tobacco industry, wasn’t wasted on deliberate, slow suicide and was spent elsewhere, child poverty in NZ could be eradicated in an instant.

      You can call me a nazi all you like, mate, even though I’m on record stating I don’t care if you (or anyone else) smoke, but as a tax paying smoker you’d still be an $800m+ burden on society, as a grow your own non tax payer, double dipping with free health care to boot, you’re a leech, a hypocrite and an enemy of the poor.

      It really is this simple. Your free will to smoke costs others their lives through inadequate funding in the health service and keeps kiwi families, our kiwi children in poverty.
      If you can puff on a ciggie while knowing this, then words much stronger than wilfully ignorant and nazi spring to my mind.

      • bad12 9.2.1
        29 September 2013 at 2:38 pm

        Yes good boy/girl Alien, dance upon the head of that pin for me, what i particularly liked in yesterday’s ranting from you was your grand piece of National Socialism where the naughty smokers dropping off the mortal coil early were skipping out early on being productive little robots,

        You obviously tho have a head of a thickness unbeknown to humans until this point in their history,

        If no-one ever picked up a cigarette in their lives the statistics say that 69.4% of them will still be killed every year by Heart disease or Cancers full stop,

        Of course in the real world people do use tobacco products but seeing as the same amount of them would have contracted and died of those cancers and heart diseases whether they used or not there is in fact no extra cost over and above what the 49.4% of non-tobacco users who also die by exactly the same route cost the health budget and economy,

        Simply put you Alien, have the same chances as a non-smoker of contracting and dying of heart disease or cancer as i, a smoker do,no more no less,the cost of any treatment and any further cost to the economy would be the same if we both got snuffed by that route,

        The difference, those using tobacco products pay a far higher % of tax than you do…

        • srylands 9.2.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 2:59 pm

          Smoking these days is a reliable marker for low education levels, welfare dependency, State house tenants, and general stupidity. As an employer I refuse to employ smokers. Also try getting a date.

          With you it is all becoming clearer.

          • bad12 9.2.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 3:23 pm

            As an employer, what a joke, you spend your day as the flunky to a little firm of tax lawyers counting other peoples money,

            Getting a date??? lolz how old are you 90 or something,

            Now back to the new fridge/freezer you are buying me courtesy of the new rules from your dear old National Party,

            Silver or white??? and you still havn’t chosen the left or right handed door opening, speed it up you slow lazy sod, i have a WINZ appointment in the morning…

            • srylands 9.2.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2013 at 3:54 pm

              “i have a WINZ appointment in the morning
”

              That says it all really.

              • bad12 …
                29 September 2013 at 4:56 pm

                Lolz, speechless, SSland’s drivel is slowly choked off to a dribble by the small fact that it is the National Party that ‘IT’ voted for that is supplying beneficiaries brand new fridges and washing machines courtesy of poor old SSLand’s tax dollars,

                Lolz, the Chinese manufacturers are producing nice single cab utes for the bargain basement price of 17 grand each, i have been busily lobbying Bill from Dipton to put them on the Bene’s shopping list as well…

                • srylands …
                  29 September 2013 at 5:44 pm

                  More typical left rudeness. It is “srylands” not “SSlands” – and again more left vileness by referring to people as inanimate objects. Stalinist. Your behaviour and general manners are just shocking. Sadly for a large rabble of ill educated state housing tenants this is what New Zealand has come down to. Smoking, rude parasites. Plus they vote 🙁 🙁

                  I can assure you that any lobbying you did on Bill would go straight in the trash.

                  Horrible horrible man. You smoke, pay no tax, get a free house. It is scandalous. Typifies everything that is wrong with the country. Oh, the humanity.

                  • North …
                    29 September 2013 at 7:55 pm

                    Really takes the cake for Srylands to invoke humanity.

                    • srylands …
                      29 September 2013 at 8:36 pm

                      I have devoted my life to formulating policies to increase welfare, especially for the poor. I am insulted that you can state something so obviously wrong and disparaging.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2013 at 9:10 pm

                      dude, we neither know nor care who you think you are in real life.

                      Pretty much everything you propose here would end up increasing poverty and hardship were it applied, probably because you have no idea about the economy of people in NZ. If that’s what you propose in real life, quite frankly your self-description is delusional.

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    29 September 2013 at 8:17 pm

                    “I can assure you that any lobbying you did on Bill would go straight in the trash.”

                    Now we know. You are a minimum wage temp in Double Dipton’s office. That explains everything. As for the name, SSlands seems appropriate, even though you would probably have never passed the physical. SAlands with the fat Ernst Rohm is probably more appropriate, but you might think it was a reference to your AWB comrades.

                    • srylands …
                      29 September 2013 at 8:37 pm

                      Who the hell is Double Dipton?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 September 2013 at 8:39 pm

                      You should spend a bit of time in NZ some time, Shitlands. Then you might learn a bit about our politics here.

                    • miravox …
                      29 September 2013 at 10:39 pm

                      “You are a minimum wage temp in Double Dipton’s office”
                      She/d have to live in NZ to work in Double Dipton’s office

                      “Who the hell is Double Dipton?”
                      Lolz lots… so s/he’s hasn’t lived in New Zealand, or paid attention since at least 2008.

                      So, what kicked off this re-education programme, srylands? Are you being forced to go home in the near future for the super, or something?

                  • bad12 …
                    29 September 2013 at 10:52 pm

                    SSLANDS, you forgot the free fridge/freezer courtesy of the National Party you vote for,

                    Lolz that must really screw your little pea brain something terrible…

                  • miravox …
                    30 September 2013 at 1:02 am

                    “More typical left rudeness. It is “srylands” not “SSlands”

                    The cheek of the person calling Cunliffe a vagina.

                    More typical hypocrisy from the vile.

          • North 9.2.1.1.2
            30 September 2013 at 12:02 am

            Srylands – I take it you completely reject Big Tobacco’s spurious shit about inalienable property rights as they fight plain packaging of tobacco products ?

            Why do I assume so ? On the basis of your own words dear Srylands. Smokers must be discouraged. Any measure calculated to discourage them and concomitants, viz. “low education levels, welfare dependency, State house tenants, and general stupidity” must of course be encouraged. Even property rights must give way to this imperative.

            Dear Srylands, if you do not positively support plain packaging and to hell with Big Tobacco then your own words make you the john who uses the prostitute then witheringly abuses her as a slut.

            “As an employer…….”. Hahaha. I suspect your reality is that of the pathological delusionist locked downstairs in an Upstairs Downstairs Edwardian nightmare. Your incessant shrieking calculated to release you, to expunge your primal shame and your conviction of personal inadequacy.

            But I only suspect as to that sorry state. I do however know, I just know you’re not the full quid. Again, on the basis of your own fool words Srylands.

        • The Al1en 9.2.1.2
          29 September 2013 at 3:01 pm

          I’ve called you out, as a smoker who doesn’t pay taxes, for what you are. No wonder you’re getting aggro, given how you like playing the left wing, voice of the common man hero on here.
          What’s quite clear is that you will sacrifice others for your own gain. Last time I looked that wasn’t really a socialist trait. Shame on you, ‘comrade’.

          Cost directly attributed to smoking in NZ $1.75b
          All that cash could and should be spent on the needy and much more deserving, which it currently isn’t because of people like you.
          Left wing smokers who go on about their principles, I shit ’em. 😉 😆

          Fact remains it “doesn’t affect the argument if non smokers die of cancer, heart disease and strokes, because if the money spent on treating smokers, and the cost to the country above and beyond the revenue garnered from the tobacco industry, wasn’t wasted on deliberate, slow suicide and was spent elsewhere, child poverty in NZ could be eradicated in an instant.”

          • bad12 9.2.1.2.1
            29 September 2013 at 3:38 pm

            Aah the anti smoking Nazi bites back, your first paragraph, got any proof of this ‘playing the hero’ seems your congenital brain damage is worsening the more you comment,

            Oh and your costs, what a load of shit, dreamed up as propaganda by your fellow ‘anti-smoking nazis over at smokefree, what they call esitmates, your false claims are then that taxation of tobacco doesn’t cover these ‘estimates’ of costs which from you is even stupider as you are operating off of 2006 figures,(like the retard you are),

            You cannot escape the facts, they are in the statistics i provided in comment 9, it is irrelevant whether a person smokes or not 50% of those who smoke will die of heart disease and cancers, and 50% of those who DO NOT smoke will also die of cancers and heart disease…

            • The Al1en 9.2.1.2.1.1
              29 September 2013 at 3:49 pm

              You’re the broken record that keeps on spinning.

              I’ve laid out my case, my opposition, if you like, to your apparent selfishness, greed, pig ignorance.
              Sure, you may get a few fellow smokers back your stance, and lets face it, that can be one of the only reason why you’re continuing the insult assault – To reclaim social standing after being exposed as a bit of a left wing fraud. If it were a popularity contest I’d be fu*ked before I started, but it’s not, it’s about fact, so I’m happy to let it stand in the archives and let others judge for themselves.

              :wave:

              • bad12 …
                29 September 2013 at 4:07 pm

                So says the Alien who calls the unemployed ”Leeches on the dole”…

                • The Al1en …
                  29 September 2013 at 4:15 pm

                  😆

                  That’s just your twisted interpretation. What I said was YOU shouldn’t boast about being a dole leech, even on a left wing site, even if to piss off right wingers.

                  Absolutely nothing about the unemployed, in general, implied or otherwise. I have been on a benefit, and am always in total solidarity with those who through no fault of their own can’t find work.

                  Disingenuous of you, but not totally unexpected given your history 🙂

            • srylands 9.2.1.2.1.2
              29 September 2013 at 4:00 pm

              Smokers stink, are more likely than non smokers to be uneducated and left wing, to be unemployed and live in state houses. The only good thing about smoking is that it is a reliable marker for people to avoid. Seriously, smokers should not be permitted to vote unless they pay at least $50,000 in income tax annually. Stupid unemployed smokers are such a drain on society they should have zero say in deciding on who governs us.

              • bad12 …
                29 September 2013 at 4:10 pm

                SSLands never mind whatever’s eating in to what little remains of your sanity, it’s of no real interest to me and possibly anyone else what wing-nuts like you ‘think’,

                Concentrate for a moment, the fridge/freezer you are buying me, silver or white???…

              • leftriteleft …
                29 September 2013 at 5:21 pm

                But! Those smokers (and I’m not one ) pay more taxes than you do.
                Here’s an example :-: Stop all smoking, drinking (alcohol) and driving your car :-: for one week and this country is crippled.
                If they want to smoke, that’s there choice.

          • srylands 9.2.1.2.2
            29 September 2013 at 9:47 pm

            “You should spend a bit of time in NZ some time, Shitlands. Then you might learn a bit about our politics here.”

            “Our” politics?

            Who made you guardian? You know nothing about New Zealand politics, or policies to promote prosperity.

            • srylands 9.2.1.2.2.1
              29 September 2013 at 9:48 pm

              and it is “srylands”. More typical vile rudeness from you too. No manners at all.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 September 2013 at 10:02 pm

                You’re a foreigner tasked with making pretences at right wing mumbo jumbo, but lack a Kiwi background to make it even vaguely realistic.

                I hope they don’t pay you real money for doing this, because you’re really shit at it. Hence your name “Shitlands”.

                BTW have you figured out who “Double Dipton” is yet?

              • North …
                30 September 2013 at 12:37 am

                Oh fuck Srylands…….abuse and defame all and sundry…….and stuff those snotty little bastards who should never’ve been born………the kids of the undeserving poor……..all that’s fine……..but please please…….no manners at all……….no no……..that’s just disgusting !

                You really are not the full quid saddo Srylands !

      • Adele 9.2.2
        29 September 2013 at 5:49 pm

        Tēnā koe, The Al1en

        It really is this simple. Your free will to smoke costs others their lives through inadequate funding in the health service and keeps kiwi families, our kiwi children in poverty.

        I haven’t read such sanctimonious sermonising since being thrown out of Catholic School. The only reason poverty and child poverty exists in this country is because of government policy and not because smokers exist.

        Smokers are no more a burden on the health system than the elderly, or children, or the obese, or rugby players. We all collectively pay for a health system that delivers to us the treatment that we require – when we require it. Your type of reasoning is judgemental and discriminatory and worthy of Paula Bennett herself – and she is no friend to the poor.

        • The Al1en 9.2.2.1
          29 September 2013 at 6:16 pm

          “Smokers are no more a burden on the health system than the elderly, or children, or the obese, or rugby players. ”

          Like old people can chose not to be old 😆
          Check those figures, love. I didn’t make them up.

          “The only reason poverty and child poverty exists in this country is because of government policy and not because smokers exist.”

          And if there were extra millions in the kitty not being spent on self inflicted diseases, then the job becomes even easier, and much harder for nat governments to say they can’t afford it.

          Do you smoke? Or is it just a bit of a sympathy bark?

          • McFlock 9.2.2.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 6:40 pm

            And if there were extra millions in the kitty not being spent on self inflicted diseases, then the job becomes even easier, and much harder for nat governments to say they can’t afford it.

            You fundamentally misunderstand the nats. They’d cut taxes even lower to maintain the deficit and TINA argument.

            • The Al1en 9.2.2.1.1.1
              29 September 2013 at 6:53 pm

              Perhaps so, but tell me DS, sorry DC wouldn’t like to have an extra $850m to do something about the issue.

              • McFlock …
                29 September 2013 at 7:02 pm

                He’ll get it out of the pensions he won’t need to pay each year.

                • The Al1en …
                  29 September 2013 at 7:05 pm

                  No, that’s not what the figures say, especially for the late middle aged smokers that don’t die for a while . Details on the site in the links above. 😉

                  • The Al1en …
                    29 September 2013 at 7:18 pm

                    Although I could be confused about the last bit, ’cause all the numbers inflame my retardation inducing brain aching genetic noggin disorder. 😆

                  • McFlock …
                    29 September 2013 at 7:21 pm

                    Which links?

                  • McFlock …
                    29 September 2013 at 8:40 pm

                    Oh, it was math you pulled out of your arse here.
                    Bunk for the reasons I stated above.

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 10:34 pm

                      The links are in yesterdays open mike.
                      The only bunk is your agenda, dismissing a logical point based argument.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2013 at 10:52 pm

                      ah, so “links above” means “posted sometime previously, and that’s my pretence at evidence”.

                      The fact is that you figure only adds up if we assume all non-smokers die quickly with no palliative care or assisted living, and if we refuse to count unpaid pensions. And that’s just to come close. More ASH lies, as far as I’m concerned.

                      EDIT: Oh shit – you weren’t referring to the link to here, were you:

                      The tangible costs of smoking to New Zealand in 2005 were around NZ$1.7 billion, or about 1.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product. This includes costs incurred because of lost production due to early death, lost production due to smoking-caused illness, and smoking-related health-care costs.

                      Yep, the assumption that non-smokers don’t get sick, and ignoring pension payments saved. And no sources to back it up. What a load of shit.

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:02 pm

                      “ah, so “links above” means “posted sometime previously, and that’s my pretence at evidence”.”

                      If that’s how you chose to interpret, but it could just as easily be ‘I posted them this morning in the other thread and since I haven’t revisited it since, and made lots of replies here in todays topic, incorrectly assumed they were in this thread by mistake’
                      I wouldn’t sweat over it. It’s not like I’ve been caught out telling lies or even being passive aggressive or anything 😉

                      “The fact is that you figure only adds up if we assume all non-smokers die quickly with no palliative care or assisted living, and if we refuse to count unpaid pensions. And that’s just to come close. More ASH lies, as far as I’m concerned.”

                      It wasn’t ash I don’t think, but longer illnesses would only mean smokers can’t work and contribute tax and receive more health care and treatments, so I don’t know if that backs up your point or not. 🙂

                      “EDIT: Oh shit – you weren’t referring to the link to here, were you:”

                      There’s a whole heap of them, that is one, yes.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:20 pm

                      I wouldn’t sweat over it. It’s not like I’ve been caught out telling lies or even being passive aggressive or anything 😉

                      That makes two of us, then. Some days I think some people confuse “passive aggressive” with “open contempt”, but don’t want to say so outright.

                      but longer illnesses would only mean smokers can’t work and contribute tax and receive more health care and treatments, so I don’t know if that backs up your point or not. 🙂

                      Length of illness would affect treatment costs, but the “can’t work” only affects those of working age. The real stumbling block is the pensions – assuming that one in two smokers don’t collect 12 or 15 years of pensions, there’s your claimed loss right there.

                      There’s a whole heap of them, that is one, yes.)

                      An oft-repeated number without a source is still without a source. Care to argue that pensions don’t count in the calculation? Or the suggestion that failing to account for non-smokers’ care is questionable math?

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:31 pm

                      “That makes two of us, then. Some days I think some people confuse “passive aggressive” with “open contempt”, but don’t want to say so outright.”

                      No worries here, mate, ’cause you probably already know I think you’re mostly full of sh*t and how I’m not afraid to post what I think for fear of upsetting cliques.
                      Peer pressure also causes heart disease, probably. 😆

                      “Length of illness would affect treatment costs, but the “can’t work” only affects those of working age. The real stumbling block is the pensions – assuming that one in two smokers don’t collect 12 or 15 years of pensions, there’s your claimed loss right there.”

                      The clever bods have done the math and they say the cost to NZ through smoking is $1.75b. If you can link otherwise, go ahead and we’ll battle by accredited proxy, but until then it’s just your theory about retirement age v no doubt peer reviewed documents.
                      At this time I have to remind you about arse pulling facts and figures 😉

                      “An oft-repeated number without a source is still without a source”

                      The documents I’ve linked to have sources at the bottom of the pages. From memory they include – Ministry of Health and World Health Organization among others.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2013 at 11:48 pm

                      Yep, I’m not exactly worked up about the issue, just kicking shit about. You say the links to costs have references, I can’t see them though. I suspect that what’s happened is that someone spitballed a guesstimate and it’s done the circuit ever since.

                      By your own arguments, the $1.7bil doesn’t include the $800-1bil in excise paid back, so it’s at best gross costs, not net incl revenue and savings. So unless you can drag up the source document, rather than a parrot, it still looks to me like smoking is, economically-speaking, a public service.

                    • The Al1en …
                      30 September 2013 at 12:12 am

                      “So unless you can drag up the source document, rather than a parrot, it still looks to me like smoking is, economically-speaking, a public service.”

                      Nope, I’m going to bed because I’ve got work tomorrow.

                      I’m happy with my side of the debate and can’t see any credible argument put forward in opposition. My term of phrase has sometimes been provocative, but then not half as bad, and certainly much less insulting and nasty in tone as that directed my way. Some people it would seem have little comprehension of the arguments involved, some people do, but don’t want to accept it for what it means to their world view. That sadly is part of life, and is a reason why smokers, despite all the evidence, still cling on to their packets and pouches.

                      I’m not going to check this topic again, so if there’s any last words needed to be said by anyone, don’t post them here, I won’t see them. It will be a hollow victory, pyrrhic if you will. Best save it ’til next time you see me post elsewhere and spam an insult or barb my way. I’ll know what it’s about.

                      Love, as always, even to the haters 😆

                    • McFlock …
                      30 September 2013 at 12:15 am

                      oh shit, it’s deadlight savings monday tomorrow, too. Night all 🙂

          • Adele 9.2.2.1.2
            29 September 2013 at 7:35 pm

            Tēna koe, Al1en

            I have never smoked but that is beside the point. I come from a health background having worked many years both in tertiary and community based services.

            Statistics can throw up all sorts or justifications to discriminate against people. I could pull statistics out of my non-obese arse to equally justify my stance. The greatest burden on the health system into the future is an aging population with its corresponding health requirements. We spend more money on aged care in comparison to childcare and it is not a health cost that is controllable under present policies. Superannuation is also a massive burden to the Welfare System.

            But rather than follow your example and place a burden of shame onto the elderly for living well past their use by date, I would say, that as a country we have a duty of care to provide for all New Zealanders in their time of health need, regardless of how old, how fat, how sporty, how disabled, or how wheezy they might be.

            The alternative is a health system that provides for no one as the economic argument is systemically used to deny more people access based on lifestyle choices – to have babies, to not have babies, to drink, to not drink, to play sport, to not play sport. Then again, a health system without clients / consumers / patients is very efficient economically.

            An economic justification does not necessarily infer the right argument. Child poverty exists in this country because of successive Government policies. Child poverty disproportionally impacts on Māori and Pasifika children and until Governments come to a true understanding behind that realisation than poverty will continue in this country.

            • The Al1en 9.2.2.1.2.1
              29 September 2013 at 10:44 pm

              Yeah yeah, already said we should care for smokers because we care, even for the divs who slowly kill themselves going against all medical advice because of their belligerence and weak wills.

              Of course child poverty exists because of policy, and I’ve not argued that. What is it that makes some of you guys and gals see something written and think that must be the only reason or cause a person has to offer?
              I’m not arguing that smoking cause poverty, well, unless in those households where kids go hungry but the adults puff away where it is indeed a factor, but do think money not spent on smoker illness could and would be better spent elsewhere. Where is the contention with that?
              After NZ is smoke free, which it will be sooner rather than later, the country will be much better off not just health wise, but financially. Can’t come soon enough.

              • Not Another Sheep …
                30 September 2013 at 3:15 am

                “After NZ is smoke free, which it will be sooner rather than later, the country will be much better off not just health wise, but financially. Can’t come soon enough.”

                2012 to 2013. $1.2 billion (1.197) aged care costs for residential care and home based care ( Cost of giving elderly daily assistance and accommodation.) Of this $269 million on home support services ($48 million more than in 2008/09) and DHBs purchased over 10 million hours of home support.
                Currently 32,000 residents in aged residential care at a cost of $928 million for 2012/2013 year.

                Dementia ( age related senility affecting most- smoker or non-smoker) -$44 million in Budget 2011 and $40 million in Budget 2012. And over the next four years another $12 million to be added. Budget 2013 included $1.2 million for dementia-related training for health care workers and $2 million for dementia awareness programmes and to help primary care professionals detect dementia early. NZ Aged Care Association conference 2013. J. Goodhew
                The $1.2 billion excludes the medical health care costs for aged, ‘disability’ subsidies of the aged and for those at home, added to the cost is their full pension entitlement along with the relevant subsidies/ supplements to an individual’s entitlements from WINZ e.gs. lawn mowing, accommodation supplement for those in rentals or mortgaged, dental costs, hardship grants. Projected is also that given there will be increasing numbers of elderly able to live at home, these at home assistance/subsidy costs will rise significantly-

                So given the “boom” babies are starting to impact on State costs for being aged, take this last year’s annual costing of $ 1.2 billion for daily in home assistance and residential care alone what will the projections be for State costs in 20 years ? ( Include the % of 650,000 current smokers who give up under Smokefree targets).

                Two thirds of NZ adults are obese- health costs (medical alone) are analysed in 2012 as being between 2% to nearly 8% of NZ’s total State health spending. The health care costs included spending on GP visits, drugs, hospital care, laboratory tests, allied health care (such as podiatrists) and aged residential care. The percentage of the health $$$ spending is variable because of the range of health issues, medical conditions potentially aligned to obesity. E.g. costs of premature babies in NICU units as research unfolds how some premature births are being attributable to obesity.

                Directly related to obesity Medical care in 2006 was estimated at $624 million. Loss of productivity is estimated at up to $250 million per annum.( Current figures to come as research unfolds more diseases related to obesity). Figures of costs do not include other costs such as Disability and Sickness Benefit for the reasons of obesity.
                More recently estimated in NZ, costs for medical care are 4.4 % of total health budget for obesity. -Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Professor Boyd Swinburn. Dec 2012.
                All cancers ( smokers and non-smokers) 2% of health spending. Diagnosing and treating cancer is set to increase more than 20 per cent by 2021. (technology and medicine, screening developments). Breast cancer, colorectal cancer and cancers of the lymph and blood, including leukaemia in that order costing the most from the health dollars for cancer. “Population growth and aging are the main reasons that the cost of cancer treatment is increasing” (http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/the-price-of-cancer MOH)

                So if you don’t smoke( smoking rates are declining) and don’t become obese( obesity rates increasing), and not a mortal casualty of alcohol related deaths and nothing else but old age gets you ( over 65 and demographic population increasing of over 85 year olds),you too can be a puritan who sermonizes smokers from your electric lazyboy until your last breath is drawn (fresh breath of course and if age related senility lets you..) and by 2031 cost the State shit loads out of the health budget.

                And woe is us….. whilst we are languishing in our aged care homes sucking on the health dollar instead of a cigarette for pleasure (because there’s F*all else other than pureed dinners and talking to aliens) there will still be poor children!

                • Not Another Sheep …
                  30 September 2013 at 3:40 am

                  P.S. Oh….And whilst I finish this night on stay over with the 95 year old mother-in-law and carry out her medical and body cares, ( lost productivity from my job this year with her and also from death of non-smoking sister from breast cancer at aged 49) your ” Can’t come soon enough!” is in my mind, so very SMUG.

                  “Have whatever the F* your fun is people while you can, being very old will come soon enough!”

          • Foreign Waka 9.2.2.1.3
            29 September 2013 at 7:54 pm

            Hi TA, I neither smoke nor drink but have to say that in NZ the rate of smoking is negligible whereas the rate of drunkenness and hard drug taking (p etc) is at an enormous proportion. It is widely understood that the effects of too much alcohol will be presented in an insurmountable health bill. But that’s OK, cos its part of the culture, isn’t it? So for those who have a dozed stubbies every day in front of the TV with some take outs heavy on salt and fat its all good!
            And as an employer I would be more worried of the unseen effects of the drink and drugs on the brain 8 hours later being in action at my business then a worker relieving their stress with a cigarette.

            • The Al1en 9.2.2.1.3.1
              29 September 2013 at 10:48 pm

              The social cost of drink must be huge. I’m happy to side with you in your crusade against problem drinkers. The numbers must be huge by comparison to smokers. You should post them for all to see.

              edit. You have, further down the page. Good onya. Shocking numbers, aye.

              “But that’s OK, cos its part of the culture, isn’t it?”

              Is that rhetorical or directed at me? I say no, it’s not okay, but going by some attitudes here, I wouldn’t vouch for everyone.

              • Foreign Waka …
                30 September 2013 at 7:17 pm

                My comments are rhetorical as these phrases are so often used for all sorts of scenarios where one know it has nothing to do with culture.
                All the workplaces/businesses I have seen and worked in and on have had a far greater issue with drinks and drugs then smokers. When the finger hovers over the keyboard and the head hurts for hours, drugs cloud the judgement and ooppss …yes, that was close, only the toe this time etc…absentism, mood swings, aggressive behavior and so forth…I think unproductive is the word.

      • McFlock 9.2.3
        29 September 2013 at 6:38 pm

        Doesn’t affect the argument if non smokers die of cancer, heart disease and strokes, because if the money spent on treating smokers, and the cost to the country above and beyond the revenue garnered from the tobacco industry, wasn’t wasted on deliberate, slow suicide and was spent elsewhere, child poverty in NZ could be eradicated in an instant.

        What a load of crap. If a non-smoker gets heart disease, it costs the same to treat as a smoker with heart disease. And if they don’t get cancer or heart disease, they’ll get something else that will eventually kill them – alzheimers, or something. Treatment costs are neutral, they’re just brought forward for half of smokers. Many of those years are pension years with lower mobility and higher care costs. So really, even if a smoker pays no excise tax, they probably on average save the country money.

        By your logic, smokers are heroes who risk their lives to end child poverty.

        You might not have “made up” those figures, but somebody did with selective economics. Quite frankly, it’s that sort of shit that keeps some people smoking out of general bloody-mindedness – if you get lied to, patronised, and ostracised, some people just say “fuck you, too” and dig in their heels.

        • The Al1en 9.2.3.1
          29 September 2013 at 7:03 pm

          If someone smokes out of bloody mindedness, they deserve all they get, but shouldn’t really expect the taxpayer to cover their idiocy. Even more so if they don’t pay tax on tobacco.

          Don’t care you don’t agree. Most rational folk will see that the huge amount of money spent treating smokers would then be able to be spent elsewhere on people who don’t deliberately chose a 50/50 pathway to needing expensive care and treatment. Even hone gets it.

          I would much rather the money was spent on kids shoes, warm homes, healthy food, adult education and things like obesity programs in carl jnr catchment areas.
          If you can’t see the benefit of smokefree NZ and spending up elsewhere, what more can can I say?

          • McFlock 9.2.3.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 7:23 pm

            Most rational folk will realise that most people will require years of treatment and palliative care before they die. Smokers are by no means exceptional in that regard.

    • Chooky 9.3
      29 September 2013 at 2:21 pm

      @ bad 12 …you are allowed to have a smoke

      ( my Grandfather smoked all his life and enjoyed it ….and died at 84 with a cigarette out in the snow….his heart gave up…smoking probably killed his heart …but what the hell…there are worse things eg get drunk and drive…take P)

      We should be taxing the cigarette companies for health care

      • The Al1en 9.3.1
        29 September 2013 at 2:37 pm

        “@ bad 12 
you are allowed to have a smoke”

        Sure he is, and nobody has said otherwise.

        “We should be taxing the cigarette companies for health care”

        We could, but on approximately $1.6 billion per year retail spending, tax revenue to the treasury is some $850m, and the cost of smoking is put at $1.75b, more than double the amount.

        It would be easier to get ignorant, selfish fu*ks to stop altogether rather than get tobacco companies to pay $100m more than they actually sell.

        “there are worse things eg get drunk and drive
take P)”

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10517995

        “Hardcore drugs P, cocaine and Ecstasy gave New Zealand a bill of about $546 million for social costs in one financial year.
        They are a big part of the total $1.3 billion that drug use cost the country in 2005 and 2006.”

        Surprisingly still nearly half a billion less than for smoking, so I guess not much worse at all. 😉

        • The Al1en 9.3.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 2:51 pm

          “Surprisingly still nearly half a billion less than for smoking, so I guess not much worse at all.”

          Though the end figure for smoking might not be over one year like the hard drugs is quoted, so bear that in mind that it’s just a rough comparison, but still, the cost of smoking is extremely high.

          • Foreign Waka 9.3.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 8:08 pm

            The social cost has not been accounted for, the women who are abused, the children murdered, the after hour medical service at a stretch beyond belief on weekends etc… But hey, who wants to hear the truth when the half truth is so comforting.

            http://www.alcohol.org.nz/research-resources/nz-statistics/alcohol-facts

            Social costs

            A 2009 study, applying a methodology endorsed by the World Health Organization, estimated harmful alcohol use cost New Zealand $4.9 billion in 2005/06 (Berl 2009). However, previous estimates have ranged from $735 million to $16.1 billion (Law Commission, 2009, p168).

            • The Al1en 9.3.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2013 at 10:52 pm

              “The social cost has not been accounted for”

              Again I don’t know if that’s a response to me. If it is, I don’t know why ’cause I’ve not said or written anything like that.

              “But hey, who wants to hear the truth when the half truth is so comforting.”

              You should never keep quiet if you have something worth saying. Go for it.

      • bad12 9.3.2
        29 September 2013 at 2:41 pm

        Lolz Chooky, i plan on it, and 84 seems a pretty decent age to live to…

        • Chooky 9.3.2.1
          29 September 2013 at 3:01 pm

          @bad 12 ….True story to lift the morale of Smokers:

          A young girl following a mountain track by herself , went off the edge and fell down a waterfall at Arthur’s Pass …luckily for her she fell onto a very narrow ledge half-way down….but there was no way up or down …except death ….and hardly any room to move…but she managed to survive and stay calm until a helicopter was able to reach her next day. Her rescuers where very impressed with her survival and her coolness…

          When asked how she kept her nerve , she said something like this : “Well I know smoking is not good for you…. and I know it is supposed to shorten your life…..But in my case it saved my life! ….because I just got out a packet of cigarettes and smoked them slowly and tried to concentrate on the view and think of other things ”

          When I pointed this out to my brother who smokes ( and we all give him a hard time for this) …he immediately said “What brand does she smoke?”

  10. Rogue Trooper 10
    29 September 2013 at 12:06 pm

    New LVR Regs ; cuts out 8000 first-home buyers, or, 15-20% of the market.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11130710
    -save more money
    -buy a more affordable home
    -move to a more affordable region.

    • srylands 10.1
      29 September 2013 at 12:15 pm

      “-move to a more affordable region.”

      and sign up for a welfare check.

      • Rogue Trooper 10.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 12:20 pm

        -invest in the regional economies

      • North 10.1.2
        29 September 2013 at 1:42 pm

        Srylands @ 10.1 – what’s it like being debilitatingly frightened of the world and all its people not comprising the 1% ?

        Crazymaking ?

      • Janice 10.1.3
        29 September 2013 at 3:28 pm

        I moved to a more affordable town some years ago after a relationship breakup and only owning half a house. When I went in to SW to sign on, the 13 year old behind a desk looked at me aghast when I said that I moved into the district and bought a house. She said “Who told you that it was OK to buy a house”. She didn’t like my reply that I didn’t know I had to have her permission.

        • Rhinocrates 10.1.3.1
          29 September 2013 at 3:48 pm

          I’ve had “interesting” experiences with WINZ. The most competent and compassionate have been middle-aged Maori and Pasifika women who’ve obviously seen real life. They haven’t always given me what I wanted, but they were good, knew their job and acted professionally. The worst have been the adolescent pimple farms, knowing that their job now was to both deny benefits and get people off the lists so that the statistics looked good and above all, eager to kiss Bennett’s butt.

          What’s wrong with the young these days? They aren’t rebels, they’re frightened arse-kissers.

          Of course, that’s what the NACTs want everyone to be.

  12. amirite 12
    29 September 2013 at 3:17 pm

    And Hooters is still ranting, but when you read this:

    ‘Green/Labour is now well ahead of National in the polls, with the left-wing combination now on a combined 50% and National struggling on 39%, according to a secret but widely leaked UMR poll. That means the election is Mr Cunliffe’s to lose. One of the most likely ways he will lose it is if he continues to exaggerate his own background, contributions and talents. Others can and do get away with it. Likely prime ministers can’t.’

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/david-bites-back-ck-146481#nzpol

    …you can see the reason for the huge butthurt.

    • Rhinocrates 12.1
      29 September 2013 at 3:40 pm

      Yep, Hoots is hilarious, isn’t he? He’s like a five year old child who thought he was the biggest bully in the playground and then met someone bigger, so he’s still pretending without actually challenging.

    • Sosoo 12.2
      29 September 2013 at 4:09 pm

      The swivel-eyed loon cannot accept that other people assign a looser meaning “helped with the formation of Fonterra” than he does.

  13. Not Another Sheep 13
    29 September 2013 at 4:29 pm

    Is the desperado (Sell my Grandmother If I Have to) English, now selling off Landcorp in pieces to meet his Surplus budget? Was Landcorp on the asset sale plan of National?

    Landcorp Farming Limited is offering Ngapouri Station for sale. http://www.realestate.co.nz/2127067

  14. Tim 14
    29 September 2013 at 5:35 pm

    @ Rhino – the worst were ekshly PB’s offspring during her slutting days. Now (as DC so aptly puts it – she’s pulled up the ladder) … you know the rest. Her best defense will be something along the lines of ‘party loyalty’.
    Might be 2014, might be 2017 – but there goes an uber-ugly specimen that’ll be pushing shit uphill before too long.

    But yes …. protest, difference in any form – other than the trendy in vogue – became very unfashionable for a while there. Thank Christ the tide is turning. It’s EKSHLY an unstoppable force. I used to wonder why the uni students whose essay attempts I used to mark weren’t that engaged. Answer: pretty much came down to DEBT and the desire to have a few boxes ticked.

    Neo-liberalism – the ideology you have when you can’t think of anything else!

    I’m keeping secret my solution to the Sky TV monopoly (for example) – having just done some dish installation and a ‘blind scan’ – but it would sure as hell wipe out their monopoly in OFS.
    Quite simply though … legally and otherwise …. surely anything that originates in unencrypted format was intended for wide viewing/listenership and wasn’t designed for middlemen to come along and clip the ticket.
    (shhhhhh! )

    Let ’em all wallow in the realisation they cudda shudda wudda – and that’s even BEFORE we even start doing what’s done elsewhere (such as pay TV being levied to support PSB)

    But one example

  15. Ugly Truth 15
    29 September 2013 at 10:43 pm

    Government Report Offers More Evidence Cannabis is a Wonder Drug for Cancer and Good Health

    “One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.” They continue; “Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis. One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death.”

    http://www.riseearth.com/2013/09/government-report-offers-more-evidence.html

  16. just saying 16
    29 September 2013 at 10:49 pm

    http://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_higher_than_our_grandparents.html

    For Draco, if he’s still up. Our own Jim Flynn. The political message starts about two thirds in.

    • McFlock 16.1
      29 September 2013 at 11:01 pm

      A good man. And smart – I thought I’d work ahead so read The Republic in the summer holidays before doing his Pols 101 paper, that was amazed that we’d allegedly read the same book. Although I used the same copy in the course, I must have been reading the “Baby’s First Political Philosophy” supplement at the back all summer 🙂

    • Pasupial 16.2
      29 September 2013 at 11:46 pm

      I watched that myself last night. Wish I’d heard him talk in person, but have only read him previously. Those TED talks are quite inspirational, if somewhat compulsive viewing.

  17. xtasy 17
    30 September 2013 at 4:47 am

    After decades in exile and dictatorship, some people have courage and go home, and ILLAPU are one of the best, most original, most loyal ones to their country. So how many “Kiwis” ever were forced into “exile” to “fight”? You guys are mostly too busy fighting each other but FIGHT for progress and the lesser in your country. WAKE UP and take a bloody stand, thanks, I will fight, and I have been in your shit police cells and worse, where the hell are you, KIWIS? Any GUTS???