Open mike 30/10/09

26 comments on “Open mike 30/10/09 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. logie97 1

   30 October 2009 at 6:04 am

   When we see the perk buster out walking with his girlfriend are we seeing a new angle on a C(h)rome Dome.
2. So Bored 2

   30 October 2009 at 7:13 am

   “…..60 percent of the electorate of New Zealand, you stand accused and have been found guilty of aiding and abetting the election of Rodney Hide. For this crime you will be handed the following sentence. You will all (except for 2% of you who will recieve it) hand over all of your publicly owned assetts, and pay in perpetuity (to the 2%) excessive charges for their use. May God have mercy on your souls”.
3. Adrian 3

   30 October 2009 at 7:22 am

   $25,000 for a pelvic affiliate to go on holiday! You go Rodney, bust those perks!
   • gitmo 3.1

     30 October 2009 at 7:48 am

     More troughing . what a surprise
4. travellerev 4

   30 October 2009 at 7:40 am

   LOL
5. travellerev 5

   30 October 2009 at 8:02 am

   If you are confused with the news that we are sitting on a superannuation time bomb, we will have a personal debt of over $ 400.000.- ($ 2 trillion) per Kiwi in the year 2050 if we keep borrowing like we are today and the news that interest rates will go up for mortgages next year while last week you were told that we were the first ones to climb out of the world wide recession and we were going to rake it in with our new free trade agreement with Malaysia perhaps you might want to watch this video on how money is created again and follow up with this one as to what will happen next.

   Perhaps it makes more sense now as the Money Masters are pulling out all the stops to bankrupt the worlds currencies so they can implement a global currency and with it global control.

   It was after all a Rothchild who said, “Give me the right to print money and I care not who makes the laws.”

   And while you educate yourself keep in mind that John Key was a Wall street banker when the Glass Steagall act was repealed opening the doors to the biggest scam of all times and remember that at the time he was hand picked by the Federal Reserve of New York to serve on a advisory committee of only four people or was he perhaps hand picked to be instructed how to go about being that nice “smiling assassin” Prime Minister of New Zealand?
   • prism 5.1

     30 October 2009 at 10:45 am

     travellerev what an interesting post with useful links to get background on this problem. The financial system is being manipulated and so is our understanding of it and our country’s financial policies. I think we are on a treadmill being ordered to work longer and harder and all the time profits are being leaked away to overseas investors or staying here as future debt. Our manufacturing for self-sufficiency in many goods has gone, our export returns undermined by the exchange rate being the plaything of overseas short-term investors. Looming over this are the double-faced ‘good’ governments like the USA, shaping our economy with their experts’ advice and doing the opposite in their own economies. Looking at the USA it is notable how many financial crises they have had and still are unstable and unwilling to properly regulate themselves for sound probity of financial dealings and then they blame the collapse on government wanting to widen the mortgage market to include lower income people.
6. kaplan 6

   30 October 2009 at 8:34 am

   Michael Laws as a proponent of eugenics… I suppose it was inevitable he would go there eventually:
   Sterilise underclass to stop child abuse – Michael Laws
   • kaplan 6.1

     30 October 2009 at 8:45 am

     Adding to this…
     Why is it that Michael Laws seem so hell bent on being continually divisive? Is it really that he is just so media hungry that he will say anything for attention or is he actively trying to create anger and hatred?
     • marty mars 6.1.1

       30 October 2009 at 8:54 am

       he is asking for help albeit in a disfunctional, trashing about like a child, kind of way. Who is there to help him? Not me – but i do feel his pain.

       song for mike – monster side by addict
     • So Bored 6.1.2

       30 October 2009 at 3:41 pm

       My version of eugenics would start with Mr Laws, followed closely by Wodders and then the rest of the electorate which voted in NACT. Which amply demonstrates my point, where ever you start with eugenics you dont end.

       Best not to start, eugenics historic record includes Hitler who merely took over an existing (and by then) accepted mainstream theory and took it to further lethal conclusions.
7. Chen 7

   30 October 2009 at 9:21 am

   Talk to some family lawyers or social workers who see first hand how bad some parents are.

   As Steven Pinker wrote in the NY Times earlier this year, behavioural traits are significantly heritable and even if they weren’t, these kids being raised by terrible parents will end up like them.

   Laws’ suggestion is sensible to stop abuse at the very least people should be offered incentives by WINZ to people to use contraception.

   Otherwise you get a future demographic disaster as these kids end up in crime & leading dysfunctional lives. People who hold utopian views about the perfectibility of some parents need to spend some time seeing the abuse.
   • Pascal's bookie 7.1

     30 October 2009 at 9:44 am

     So how do we save ourselves from Law’s kids then?
   • prism 7.2

     30 October 2009 at 10:30 am

     I think that there is merit in Michael Laws idea. It seems a bit ‘out there’ but think about it – many of us have had sterilisations because we want to limit our families. I think that adults who have had at least one child and are egregious criminals or have been extremely neglectful parents, should be offered $1000 and free operations and care to have the sterilisation, and that it be at their choice not enforced by the state. It would be a reasonable policy to limit the kind of harmful child raising that is becoming endemic in sub-classes of New Zealanders. Eugenics is not an issue here. We have too many tragic and vicious attacks on children, and these tragic individuals tend to grow into adults continuing warped lives.
8. Chen 8

   30 October 2009 at 10:05 am

   I think people have a very utopian and unrealistic view of how much you can change or improve some parents.

   Laws is not suggesting mandatory sterilization as was ordered by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, or supported by various early 20th century figures like Planned Parenting’s Margaret Sanger & George Bernhard Shaw. He is suggesting incentives.

   Really I don’t see why there shouldn’t be some reciprocal obligation on those accepting welfare to use contraception. Most people have to anyway to afford to get by.
9. prism 9

   30 October 2009 at 10:13 am

   There have been some double-edged comments around politics lately. The latest, with the Parliamentary Services saying that security staff holding a short strike left the building ‘insecure’. I think that insecurity in the staff because of lessening of their conditions of employment was the actual issue! Keeping the redundancy provisions unchanged at a time of frozen wage rates would be a reasonable way to halt these two insecurities.
   Gerry Brownlee recently talked about possible “sensitive” mining in national parks. Has that man got a sensitive bone in his body?
10. kaplan 10

    30 October 2009 at 10:22 am

    I think some people have a very simplistic and erroneous view on how to ‘fix’ the world around them.

    If the problem is unwanted pregnancies then rather than bribing young people to undertake an irreversible step to prevent them how about taking that $10,000 per person that ML is keen to hand out and providing free contraception and improved education, not just to potential parents but the parents of pre-teens as well.

    Who is going to deal with the longterm mental health of a person that takes a sterilization option at 18, just so they can have unprotected sex, and then has to live with the fact that they can never have children? Actually who sets the age? I mean what parents is he talking about here? 16/15 year old parents.. are we really advocating sterilizing 15 year olds? Where does the $10,000 go… to them or their parents?

    You know… the more you look at this the more obvious it becomes that it is just an unthought out piece of orchestrated… ‘Look At Me’.

    Someone tell the Nat’s to hurry up and put the ‘H’ in so laws has something else to keep him busy.
11. Lee 11

    30 October 2009 at 10:51 am

    [Large quote deleted]
    
    http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/search_index.php?page=detail_news&news_id=79394

    [lprent: Lazy idiot.
    Link or comment. Put PR releases elsewhere.
    Quotes should be there to illustrate your points, not just copied pasted here. ]
12. the pinkpostman 12

    30 October 2009 at 2:47 pm

    The rules regarding takinga spouse on parliamentary trips says
    partner. Now I can understand that ,and although I think the rules need to be reviewed I have no augument with that,
    But surely Rodney’s little girl does not come into that catergory .
    She;s 20yrs old ! Just how long has he known her ? Surely a partner means a long time live in. However perhaps we have received the wrong message .Maybe its his granddaughter .
    • felix 12.1

      31 October 2009 at 2:24 pm

      She’s 31. Still quite a feat for an elderly midget though.
13. prism 13

    30 October 2009 at 3:25 pm

    pinkpostman – How does Hide pull a 20 year old? Lessons to be learned here. Is it being slightly tanned all the time, being certain he’s right which inspires confidence, the yellow blazer? He talks about needing to be together to assist an enduring relationship and how he needs support. That seems a frequent call for most of us, but we don’t have government coffers to assist us preserve our family ties.
    • So Bored 13.1

      30 October 2009 at 3:44 pm

      Pheremones, visual myopia (odd in a squash player) or that all time chick puller POWER
      • Bill 13.1.1

        30 October 2009 at 3:49 pm

        Such cynicism chappies!

        Have you never seen the courtship dance of wee canaries? Truly splendid and somewhat irresistible.
14. Lee 14

    30 October 2009 at 3:59 pm

    “[lprent: Lazy idiot.
    Link or comment. Put PR releases elsewhere.
    Quotes should be there to illustrate your points, not just copied pasted here.”

    Charming, I guess abusing people should be the first approach to enforcing the guidelines. Why the hostility? Do you talk to people like this in person?

    [lprent: Not usually. But I’m not here as a ‘person’. On this site I’m a sysop and moderator. Read the policy. We find it preferable (ie less work for us) to stomp hard at the bounds so people remember to amend their behaviour. Either ask or behave badly if you want a further demonstration of moderator activity… ]
15. Quoth the Raven 15

    30 October 2009 at 4:13 pm

    No right turn shows us again why Labour doesn’t care about human rights and cannot be trusted. And where’s Trevor Mallard’s explanation of why Labour voted against our civil liberties again with the Bodily samples amendment bill?
16. Pascal's bookie 16

    30 October 2009 at 4:51 pm

    Tidy up people, we’ve got guests coming. Who knew?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS