Open mike 31/01/2011

72 comments on “Open mike 31/01/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. kriswgtn 1

   31 January 2011 at 7:22 am

   Bradford confirms Leftist party talk

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4598641/Bradford-confirms-Leftist-party-talk
2. Pete 2

   31 January 2011 at 7:40 am

   A Bradford led party may fill the vacuum left by Bill and Ben, but would be very unlikely to threaten 5%. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking floating around but no one seems prepared to actually get the ball rolling. One problem is there may be several who would like to lead it, and I don’t know if they would join if they couldn’t, and Bradford is in this category.

   They seem to be hoping Harawira will drop his MP ambitions and hand them an electorate seat on a plate, acknowledgement that that is probably the only chance a left of left party would have of getting into parliament. Trouble is, Hone would probably want to lead it too.

   Maybe they could have a party with three joint leaders and one up the Greens. And it could drag Greens below 5%.
   • ZeeBop 2.1

     31 January 2011 at 8:16 am

     Yes, it could very well cause voters who support the green to switch because they are given a real leftwing alternative. Green to lose parliamentary representation and a Hone led left wing party would get into power. Sux to be a green. So
     as green voter I’ll have to weight up the Green parties record, the degree it has assisted in keeping the Lab/Nat control of the executive and its ???real successes??? Also haven’t the Greens won the argument anyway, with even National trying vainly to put a green foot forward. Maybe the Greens have lost their chance, they have served a useful kicking ball for the media to distract us from progress.
     • Oscar 2.1.1

       31 January 2011 at 11:35 am

       Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if Hone stands as an independent in TTT, it doesn’t mean that a new left party will have additional MPs in Parliament. Indeed, Hone will be the sole member.
       My understanding as to why, is that Maori seats don’t get the same advantage as general seats e.g. Epsom/Act.
       Even if Hone won 75% of the electorate vote in TTT, he won’t be able to take in any other MPs for a new party. He’ll have to run on a general seat for that to happen, and it’d be a cold day in hell before those latte sipping ex Aucklanders in Kerikeri allow Hone to be their electorate MP.
       • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1

         31 January 2011 at 12:06 pm

         Eh? You seem all muddled here. First you say that if Hone runs as an independent, he won’t be able to get any other members into parliament – well duh, that’s what being “independent” means.

         If Hone joined/created a left-wing party and ran as a member of that party in TTT and won the electorate seat, he’d bring in other MPs up to the proportion provided them by the party vote without having to reach the 5% threshold. The maori electorates aren’t any different from any other electorates in this regard (that would make them 2nd-class electorates after all, which would defeat the entire purpose of their existence).
         • Oscar 2.1.1.1.1

           31 January 2011 at 10:30 pm

           Sorry, I meant independent from Maori Party.

           If Hone joined a new left party, and ran as a member for the new party in TTT, and assuming the left party ran in both Maori and General seats, your assumption is wrong. If Hone won the Maori seat, it doesn’t entitle him to bring in ANY additional MPs at all, regardless of how high the party vote is in Maori Seats.

           If the Party vote was <1% in general seats, it still wouldn't apply as there's no cross over between general and maori party votes.

           Even if Maori votes in Maori Seats for a new party were say 4% in total, Hone wouldn't bring any additional MPs as Maori Seats are only for electorate MPs.

           So really, Maori seats are second class, especially when different rules apply to them.
   • Carol 2.2

     31 January 2011 at 9:24 am

     Given the timing of this statement by Bradford, and the vagueness of her comments about a new party, I’d say it is a statement designed to show the Harawira disciplinary panel that he has other options: ie it’s a kind of threat to the Maori Party as to what might happen if they expel Harawira. He has options that could cause problems for the Maori Party.
   • millsy 2.3

     31 January 2011 at 10:04 am

     To be quite honest, does a Left Party really want to be relying on Hawawira’s ego?
     • KJT 2.3.1

       31 January 2011 at 11:02 am

       I am not sure that Hariwera’s racism and Sue Bradford’s contempt for the wishes of most people if they dare to disagree with her are good ingredients for a left wing party. They may back fire and send more people to voting NACT.
       • KJT 2.3.1.1

         31 January 2011 at 11:45 am

         Matt McCarten would have the support of a lot of people though.
       • Lanthanide 2.3.1.2

         31 January 2011 at 12:07 pm

         I don’t think people who would otherwise vote Labour or Green would suddenly vote NACT to prevent a new left-wing party from forming a coalition in which the new party had 4 seats at best. That makes no sense.

         They might vote NZ First instead, though.
         • KJT 2.3.1.2.1

           31 January 2011 at 12:23 pm

           One of the reasons Labour lost the last election is the nasty dictatorial streak that became apparent in politicians in the Left on the third term. National ones have it as well, of course, but they have public relations consultants advising them to keep it firmly hidden.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.3

         31 January 2011 at 12:40 pm

         Was that the wishes as defined by a leading question designed to get the wrong answer?
         • KJT 2.3.1.3.1

           31 January 2011 at 12:56 pm

           I think most people were intelligent enough to know what they were voting for.

           It shows the strength of peoples commitment to democracy when they say on their blog that the “public were just too thick to get it”. “How dare they disagree with me, they must all be child beaters”.

           Along with many people who found the new law ambiguous and leaving too much to Police discretion, which on other things the left find problematic.

           And for the record I do not beat my children and I consider McCloskey just as obherent as the other extreme.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.3.1.1

             31 January 2011 at 5:59 pm

             Then why was it that ~50% of the populace supported the law change and yet 85% still voted “no” on the referendum. Hell, I almost ticked “no” and I knew going in that I was going to vote “yes” because the question was twisted.

             The question was designed to get you to vote “no” as an emotive response rather than a rational one and that’s what most people did.
             • KJT …

               31 January 2011 at 6:10 pm

               Most people are not that dumb.

               You are showing the same contempt for normal people that Bradford and Key do.

               Where did you get 50% of anything from. The only relevant poll was the referendum?
               • KJT …

                 31 January 2011 at 6:24 pm

                 Besides it does not invalidate the argument for real democracy because we agree or do not agree with one particular referendum.
               • prism …

                 31 January 2011 at 9:16 pm

                 Hey I think I’m a normal person but I felt that the referendum was worded strangely. Perhaps I’m not normal, now there is a blow to my psyche.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 31 January 2011 at 9:47 pm

                 The 50% came from a newspaper poll on the issue and the referendum wasn’t a valid poll due to the question being a biased and leading question.
                 • KJT …

                   1 February 2011 at 9:23 am

                   Which the public was to thick to understand. Yeah right!

                   Polling about the same time as the referendum was not far off the referendum results.

                   I was very surprised at the time that so many of the chattering left supported a law change that gave police more power to hassle poor and/or working class, brown people without any real likely effect on child abuse. That was already illegal. Anyone serious about child abuse knows that more support for families and a higher income would do much more, but that would cost money. Unlike empty political gestures.
                   Why do you support the Tory style of passing laws against something without addressing the real causes.
3. The Voice of Reason 3

   31 January 2011 at 7:42 am

   Labour hits the sweet spot with the call to mondayise the two remaining holidays:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10703110
   • Herodotus 3.1

     31 January 2011 at 11:30 am

     Another case of Lab being closed minded, and unwilling to work outside the box.
     We already have potentially 6 days (55%)that can be/are converted to a Monday, and only 1 that is Friday. So why are those who work on a Monday being gifted more days off and those who work Fri still left in the dark. The traditional Mon-Fri scenario has gone, many work split weeks. So by adding another 2 days to this ther can be the case of Monday workers having 8 days off in a year and those who work Fri and not Mondays 1, fair do you think?
     Some would say that it is Pollys looking after No1, as Parliamanet does not sit on a Friday 😉
     • Oscar 3.1.1

       31 January 2011 at 11:36 am

       And Parliament doesn’t sit on Monday either. So what’s your point?
       • Herodotus 3.1.1.1

         31 January 2011 at 12:18 pm

         But there are caucaus meetings held, and most MP’s (if not all do parliamentary work on Mondays), so that those who work Fridays are out of their consciousness regarding decisions that pollys make. My point was that why should a weekend holiday be observed on Monday, why not have a few on Friday?
         The trad Mon-Fri working week has long gone, yet some of the outcomes that we get out of Wellington think that (as there are still many govt dept, banks and lawyers) that this is still applicable to the rest of us. Perhaps yet another case of being out of touch with those outside the beltway?
     • Lanthanide 3.1.2

       31 January 2011 at 12:10 pm

       I’ve said this repeatedly, as well. These two holidays should be Friday-ised, both to give people who work standard Tuesday-Saturday weeks holidays they’d miss out on, as well as to signify that these two holidays have special significance compared to the other holidays that are Monday-ised.

       I’d like to see any valid arguments against this, apart from “Moday-ising is easier from a law point of view because we already do it” but IMO that really is a minor point in it’s favour.
       • Carol 3.1.2.1

         31 January 2011 at 1:03 pm

         I like the idea of Friday-ising the holidays. It makes some recognition of weekend workers, and acknowledges that most of the fulltime ones are on a Tuesday to Saturday schedule.
     • The Voice of Reason 3.1.3

       31 January 2011 at 12:26 pm

       Hasn’t Parliament sat in urgency on some Fridays (and weekends) this term?

       I’m with lanthanide on this one. Having a couple of Friday hols would be a good thing and it might be more palatable for the RSA if the Anzac ‘holiday ‘ flowed straight into the actual day of rememberance when it falls on a Saturday on the seven year cycle. Not that I think the RSA’s position carries much weight anyway.
   • big bruv 3.2

     31 January 2011 at 9:53 pm

     Voice,

     What you really mean is Labour have stumbled onto something that finally resonates with the public.

     It is good policy, pity they do not really believe it or they would have introduced it during their nine years in power.
     • The Voice of Reason 3.2.1

       31 January 2011 at 10:08 pm

       Tsmithfield used that line today and the talking haircut John Campbell used it on his show tonight. I think you first used it a couple of days ago, Bruv. Why don’t you sue their arses for the theft of intellectual property and use the damages to pay your debt?

       Oh, and of course I use ‘intellectual’ in the legal sense. Lets not reach for the stars just yet, eh.
4. ZeeBop 4

   31 January 2011 at 8:05 am

   How a country taxes its citizens gives you its future. ACT wants a Haiti tax system. National/Labour wants (and gets) pre-US-new-deal tax system (long unemployment queue would be in evidence now had not they flown to the new california – OZ).

   But it goes deeper than that, it does not only change our future but who we are. We are cheapskates when we reward manipulation of finance at the expense of nation building, people. When we lock down profits to secure foreign investments we kill local capitalism in NZ, the bigger our small companies grow the more they hit a wall and cannot grow bigger here because the market signals have been taken down – its how all financial trickery, the only way to grow is overseas, and that brings a competitive disadvantage that only relocating to the new market can solve.

   When retailers see consumers money as opportunity to play markets rather than be better retailers of better products to better consumers its easy to argue for less money in consumers wallets cutting our consumers and lowering the tax cuts on the manager class and businesses!

   Most starkly it shows up in our human rights protections when (like our retailers) we ask ourselves which box do they fall into, what can I gain from them bugger how it effects them, what is their role for me, to me, rather than walking in the shoes of customers, walking in the shoes of victims of human rights abuses, just like the new TV show where CEOs walk in the shoes of their own empoyees to discover what its like.

   When we motivate the end result to be financial we don’t have to walk in the shoes of anyone, just money footprints, when we create this schism between organic and speculation that is our lack of a capital gains tax, then our whole society readjusts to the meme and applies it throughout. You don’t need to have really made a profit, you don’t really have be an expert, you don’t really need to protect human rights, you just need to assume you are because you have already have money, or are being asked an expert question, are in a position of protecting human rights, and then you are never going to be wrong, that the fear of being wrong doesn’t matter, because what matters is financial not people.

   And well in the last thirty years whose really made a loss? The old mistake of resting on ones laurals, because the world was so easy to make profits, to make wealth, thanks to cheap high dense energy and loose finance. Those days are going, and the culture of indifference to the plight of others are over. Because we need others now, we need them not only to grow enough food with dwindling oil supplies, but we need then to do it well and not cause downstrean environmental problems, we knew government could throw money at the problem in the past to buy more oil and to cover the clean up but that is no longer the case.

   So we need to dismantle the old financial tool, the capital gains farming (the pre-new deal taxation system of Lab and Nats) that provide NZ with the means to turn cheap oil into cheap easy profits for the few and send armies of young kiwis exporting themselves, and holding back our businesses from organic growing themselves in a real competitive market in NZ, and actual life a human rights culture rather than the tick off the box human rights we have now.
   Under-employment, mismatch employment, poverty capitalism, ineffective human rights protection (you don’t need to protect those who are hurting when the hurting are on the next flight to OZ). Yeah, they should do a study of why kiwis left NZ to fly in real economies, was it economic, lack of growth, lack of accountability in the governing regime?
   Or bots of all them.
5. banter 5

   31 January 2011 at 8:52 am

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/67362/green-groups-criticise-environmental-announcements

   Nick Smith on Radio NZ this morning says homes are the biggest contributors to pollution, not industry. Interesting.
   • Janice 5.1

     31 January 2011 at 9:12 am

     Simon Mercep sat back and allowed Nick Smith to make a party political broadcast on this “interview”. Will someone please tell him his job is to ask questions not to let the pollies go off at the mouth. He did the same with Blinglish the other morning.
     • jcuknz 5.1.1

       31 January 2011 at 10:14 am

       Obviously Nick Smith is correct because what industry do we have left in New Zealand? The major problem is that the replacement of our housing stock is a mind boggling exercise, particularly because of the shortage of industry in the country to help with the replacement and finance through wages for people to pay for better housing..
   • Lanthanide 5.2

     31 January 2011 at 10:12 am

     No, homes are not the “biggest contributors to pollution”.

     They are the biggest contributors to smog on cold days during winter, which is the problem that they’re trying to tackle. And that is obviously true – the smog is coming from open fires and old wood burners and also from general traffic, more so than anything industry is doing (because face it, we don’t have much industry in NZ).
     • jcuknz 5.2.1

       31 January 2011 at 10:19 am

       The way it goes, briefly, is that with an energy efficient home one doesn’t need the infrastructure to keep it habitable and the pollution that providing that infrastructure causes. But then think of the pollution replacing our housing stock would cause. Smog is a very minor part of the situation,
   • KJT 5.3

     31 January 2011 at 10:50 am

     I doubt that is true having seen some of the figures for air pollution from Marsden Point alone. Vehicles are also a big contributor.
     Huntly power station is the largest point source of air pollution in Hamilton.

     It is also very easy to spot the correlation between water pollution and industry such as Dairying and paper production.
     • Lanthanide 5.3.1

       31 January 2011 at 12:14 pm

       “It is also very easy to spot the correlation between water pollution and industry such as Dairying and paper production.”
       Of course, but they’re not talking about general pollution, they’re talking about air pollution, and reducing the number of high pollution days to a maximum of 1 per year, whereas some areas currently have 40-50 days per year, most of which are occurring on cold winters days.

       I don’t deny that general pollution is caused more by industry, but that’s not what they’re talking about.
6. randal 6

   31 January 2011 at 11:04 am

   has national looted the entire state treasury yet or has has johnkey told his bloodsucking mates they have to wait a bit.
7. ianmac 7

   31 January 2011 at 11:09 am

   I wonder if the strategic plan is for Key to release plans for partial privatisation and let the outrage boil away for a while.
   But after a few months the population gets used to the idea. “After all they are doing something to deal with our huge debt left by Labour aren’t they.”
   Then after a few months the people start saying it will be OK.
   And vote accordingly?
   Another cunning plan Baldrick?
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     31 January 2011 at 12:16 pm

     That seems to be what they’re hoping for. But I think the initial public reaction has probably taken them a bit by surprise.

     If it can be made more generally known that the plan is a sure-fire money loser, due to the interest rates at play (5.5% to borrow vs 7.6% dividend return on assets) and the fact this is only a ‘problem’ because of National’s massive tax cuts for the rich, I think this issue will end up being a big drag on National. Unfortunately Labour aren’t providing a very compelling platform at the moment either, so we may end up with a low voter turnout and National squeaking through anyway.
     • KJT 7.1.1

       31 January 2011 at 12:25 pm

       Why is Labour so quiet. Have they got corporate doners advocating privatisation also?
       • Jum 7.1.1.1

         1 February 2011 at 12:02 am

         Yes, it’s time Labour made a stand on:

         No to any TPPA deal.
         No to any fancy float/partial privatisation/ppp crap. There are far better alternatives. David Cunliffe is capable of finding them.
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   31 January 2011 at 11:18 am

   Egypt updates;

   “10.04pm Associated Press reports that as many as 19 private jets carrying the families of wealthy Egyptian and Arab businessmen have flown out of Cairo airport. Dozens of Egypt’s business elite are said to have mainly headed for Dubai.

   8.31pm: Shots sound like they are coming from the east of the city, Peter Beaumont says. Tracer rounds from heavy calibre weapons suggest they are military. Bursts from the direction of the airport and Heliopolis – where the presidential palace is located. Tanks seen moving fast eastwards.

   8.17pm: Peter Beaumont in Cairo reports hearing bursts of gunfire from several directions, sounds coming from somewhere far beyond Tahrir Square.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/jan/30/egypt-protests-live-updates
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     31 January 2011 at 12:19 pm

     Interesting, the 10.04pm entry has now changed to this:

     10.04pm Amr Shalakany, a law professor at the American University in Cairo, has written a piece for Comment is Free:

     This is a sweet, sweet revolution; it is peaceful. Tell everyone we are peaceful.
     • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1

       31 January 2011 at 12:35 pm

       That is weird. I guess it’s due to the nature of highly politicised breaking stories, there will be plenty of rumour mongering and propaganda flying around so news agencies will forego verification for speed ( for the page hits) and edit later as needed…

       It’s always worth bearing in mind that with big events like this, and say terrorist attacks or what have you, the initial news reports tend to be the least accurate. Which can feed confusion later as people search for ‘what they were saying at the time’ quotes to verify whatever their preffered narrative might be.
     • Carol 8.1.2

       31 January 2011 at 1:01 pm

       Well Frank Bunce has recently flown out of Cairo. He reports it’s a pretty chaotic “shoving match”. Maybe someone saw some planes flying out with a rich Egyptian or two included, and made some over-extravagant assumptions, which have now been corrected.

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/4597812/Frank-Bunce-Egypt-was-madness
   • Vicky32 8.2

     31 January 2011 at 6:40 pm

     Yet another disaster area in the Middle East! How awful…
     Deb
     • Carol 8.2.1

       31 January 2011 at 6:54 pm

       Yes, and at least partly the result of the pressure to change the socialist policies to neoliberal ones that caused vast income inequalities – largely the doing of the US government & corporates, supported by the IMF, UK government etc.
9. Anthony C 9

   31 January 2011 at 1:49 pm

   Waiting to see if there is an anti-Len Brown NZ Herald article tomorrow, there has pretty much been one each day for the last couple of weeks.

   The Herald could make it a little less obvious….
10. KJT 10

    31 January 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Yet again the Herald has cut the guts out of one of my Emails to make it less scathing on the Government. They should be taken to task about the constant censorship.
    • Jum 10.1

      1 February 2011 at 12:04 am

      Start your own paper, KJT.
      • KJT 10.1.1

        2 February 2011 at 10:06 am

        I wish.

        2 Days. 4 not published. 2 Heavily edited even though they were very short.
        One lot of letters wrapped up in a journalists summary. I wonder why? Many were very critical of NACT. That has been almost totally lost in the summary.

        Not unexpected though as Journalists now feel their job is to interpret not report.
11. ianmac 11

    31 January 2011 at 4:47 pm

    I wrote a letter to our paper quoting Key on Breakfast (See Trevor) who said NZ has a Govt Debt about 20% of GST compared with Japan 200%. I wrote about being puzzled that if our Govt Debt is so low, how come that Key said that it is one of the reasons for privatising?
    So far the Editorial PA has written back saying they will find out. Be interesting to see what gets published KJT.
12. big bruv 12

    31 January 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Any comment from the left about this disgusting poster being seen around parts of Auckland?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/01/politics_of_hate.html#comment-791868
    • The Voice of Reason 12.1

      31 January 2011 at 9:28 pm

      Yep. They’re teenagers. They’ll grow up eventually and probably get jobs and learn to pay their way in the world. Dya reckon you ever will?
    • Rosy 12.2

      31 January 2011 at 9:30 pm

      That’s pretty bad. What the U.S. does, NZ follows.
      • The Voice of Reason 12.2.1

        31 January 2011 at 9:56 pm

        Which bit is bad, Rosy? The arming of the police or the poster?

        They are teenagers, by the way. There’s a photo of them at a Unite protest on one of the righty sites. They clearly didn’t think it through, but that’s about as far as it goes on the menace to society front. Young people, huh?! Put ’em in the army. That’d sort ’em out.
        • Rosy 12.2.1.1

          31 January 2011 at 10:08 pm

          Both. I’m not a fan of arming the police, or of Judith Collins. But just because they are teens doesn’t make this poster all right, and yes, they are teens and will probably grow out of it, but it doesn’t mean I have to like a poster of a bullet hole in someones head. Now if they had’ve used actual examples of how arming the police has resulted in unnecessary deaths I’d have no problem with there protest. E.g. A picture of a bullet in the Scottish man in London, shot because he was carrying a table leg and had an ‘Irish’ accent, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3974461.stm
          or the Brazilian shot on the tube because police thought he was a terrorist
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm would make the point.
          They’re teens, they’d have no problem googling something up.

          There was a huge discussion on how mock targets did/didn’t influence the Tuscon shooting. I’m of the opinion that they did.
          • The Voice of Reason 12.2.1.1.1

            31 January 2011 at 10:21 pm

            No question that the environment has an influence. I think the difference, for what it’s worth, is that in the States gun culture and gun availability make the threat very real. These guys are not in that league. They’re dumb, not dangerous.
            • rosy 12.2.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2011 at 11:36 pm

              Agree it was a pretty dumb thing to do. However a learnning experience for good activists to take the heat for the furore this might create.

              A photo of them at a unite protest? not with that poster, I hope. The righties will be gleeful of getting a narrative that [wrongly] associates the left with ‘hatred’. I can hear them now…
              • rosy …

                1 February 2011 at 12:20 am

                EDIT: associates the left with ‘hatred’ (in the Tea Party usage)
    • millsy 12.3

      31 January 2011 at 10:40 pm

      Quite frankly, I think Judith Collins, is for lack of a better term, a really nasty bitch herself, and sometime you gotta fight fire with fire.
      • big bruv 12.3.1

        1 February 2011 at 8:21 am

        “Quite frankly, I think Judith Collins, is for lack of a better term, a really nasty bitch herself, and sometime you gotta fight fire with fire.”

        You let this sort of comment slide here Iprent?

        I can just imagine the outrage if that comment was made about a Labour MP.

        [lprent: Yes – it is the nature of political debate. I only tend to moderate them when they diverge from opinion into statements of fact (for obvious reasons) or they descend into pointless namecalling or trolling. But that kind of comment is made here all of the time about Labour MP’s, Green MP’s, NZ First ex-MP’s, Act MP’s as well as National MP’s.
        For instance – just taking a quick sample on a couple of names (and without bothering to hunt for the egarious examples):
        You on Goff and Peters.
        You on Cullen
        You on Keith Locke
        However, I’m perfectly happy to set up a policy to apply to you to prevent you from taking this distressing political tack if you wish. ]
        
        • big bruv 12.3.1.1

          1 February 2011 at 9:42 am

          Iprent

          That is an outstanding example of the shocking double standards you let slide here at the sewer.

          The comment about Collins is calling for her to be shot, however you are happy to allow it and even go as far as bending over backwards in a pathetic attempt to justify the comment.

          Nowhere did I call for Clark, Cullen or Locke to be shot.

          I am amazed that you think calling for the death of an opponent is part of political debate, I repeat, had I made the comment about Clark or Goff you would have banned me in a heartbeat.

          You people really are the lowest form of life.

          [r0b: Just in case anyone is thinking of taking bruv’s vomit seriously, two minutes on Google turns up his attitude to shooting:

          “Actually when you come to think about it, it may just be cheaper to shoot socialists on sight.”

          “This piece of shit should be shot.”

          “That is fine with me MT just as long as I can shoot the little pricks when they decide to toss bricks through my front window.”

          “…the only thing they should be sending is guns and tanks to take out the likes of Mugabe and Saddam.”

          “The cops shot a gang member dead…..does anybody really care about that?”

          And so on. Bruv is only here because he needs the attention.]

          [lprent: 🙂 big bruv has some appalling double standards… ]
          • Colonial Viper 12.3.1.1.1

            1 February 2011 at 9:59 am

            You people really are the lowest form of life.

            But you love hanging out and frolicking with us? Are you saying that we are the muck and you are the pig? Oink.
          • Rosy 12.3.1.1.2

            1 February 2011 at 9:59 am

            Don’t get carried away… nowhere did anyone call for Collins to be shot. The poster said ‘go shoot yourself’ I imagine in reference to the police being armed shooting other people. Stupid, not evil.
        • Inventory2 12.3.1.2

          1 February 2011 at 10:49 am

          So lprent – the intro to this thread says

          The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

          Are you saying that

          Quite frankly, I think Judith Collins, is for lack of a better term, a really nasty bitch herself, and sometime you gotta fight fire with fire.

          fits your “usual good behaviour rules”? If you are (and you seem to be condoning the comment in your response to big bruv), might I respectfully suggest that you are out of step with what most reasonable people from all points of the political compass might regard as “good behaviour”.

          [lprent: Did you read my answer to big bruv? Did you read the few examples I pointed out to him of what we do tolerate in his behavior here? Those were merely the first ones I spotted in a similar vein of offense (in my opinion*). It’d be easy to find more.

          I’m aware that you personally try not to stoop to that level, but many from the various sides of the debate do. But we had to draw the line somewhere about what we would moderate. Where that is drawn is a balance between freedom of speech, having readable discussion on the site, and having to do too much work to moderate the comments onsite. Readers are free to comment about the statement you’re offended by – just as they do for other foolish statements. But it doesn’t fall into my guidelines about what I’ll moderate out.

          I’m uninterested in pursuing conversation on the topic because in effect you’re wanting to set the moderating guidelines. I will ban people for doing that – that is in the about and policy.

          * which counts for far more than yours…]
          • r0b 12.3.1.2.1

            1 February 2011 at 10:58 am

            That’s the best you can do? Someone says “fight fire with fire” – which means what exactly, fight bad propaganda with bad propaganda? – and this is your killer quote for how evil the left are?

            Meanwhile bruv and his ilk are openly calling for people to be shot every other day over at Kiwiblog.

            Please, do yourself a favour and get a life.
            • higherstandard 12.3.1.2.1.1

              1 February 2011 at 11:19 am

              Get a life ?

              r0b a post about a couple of comments by Key on radiosport runs to almost 300 hundred comments while a good post by you on Tim Flannery’s book gets 15 – face it people are drawn to the banal and irrelevant.

              Unfortunately during the run up to the election I expect the posters and commenters will continue to concentrate more on the irrelevant, partisan and pure stupid.
              • r0b …

                1 February 2011 at 11:29 am

                Human nature is a mixed bag isn’t it HS. But you got to work with it, not against it.
    • Jum 12.4

      1 February 2011 at 12:26 am

      bb, I watched how you righties treated Helen Clark and every other woman in New Zealand who wasn’t in the twinset and pearls brigade.

      You want a fascist state which Collins, JKeyll, your mate from insensible sentencing have been pushing; this is what you can expect in your new prison state.

      Don’t get all uppity just because a rightie gets a poster aimed at her. You can thank people like Ian Wishart and his vicious attacks on Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson and the rightwing media, hate-filled radio talkback and Garner-pusfilled hate-speak against Goff and anyone who wants a NZ for the people, not for the profiteers, for what’s happening now.

      Still it always fascinates me that it’s the women that everyone goes for. I loathe Judith Collins. She’s dug her own poster picture because of the way she behaves towards anyone who does not like her fascist neo-conservative policies, encouraged of course by JKeyll and Hide/Douglas. I’ve seen her in Parliament; I’ve dealt with her at election meetings. She’s a nasty piece of work, but no, a shot between the eyes doesn’t do it for me. She’ll self destruct before too long anyway. Once JKeyll’s finished using her against the vulnerable.
13. big bruv 13

    1 February 2011 at 8:26 am

    “You can thank people like Ian Wishart and his vicious attacks on Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson and the rightwing media”

    Wishart is a religious nutter so anything he says is always going to be treated with caution by me, however, what he had to say about Clark and Wilson was not vicious, it was the truth.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS