Prwoperty rwights!

130 comments on “Prwoperty rwights! ”

• Comments are now closed

1. QoT 1

   13 May 2013 at 7:38 pm

   I love how when Opposition parties make clear public statements about policy options, it’s “sabotage”. When it’s Farrar’s mates flogging off the people’s infrastructure because they really suck at creating actual wealth and “need” more profitable things to invest it, it’s “good financial management” or whatever words to that effect.
   • karol 1.1

     13 May 2013 at 7:47 pm

     Yes. NAct supporters are usually aggressively attacking the opposition parties for (in their view) having no policies.

     The full on moves to corporate dictatorship exposed by this dirty Sky City deal, have got me very angry. This is what corporate dictatorship looks like.
     • Enough is Enough 1.1.1

       14 May 2013 at 11:39 am

       Warning:

       Please refrain from reading any further down this thread.

       It descends into something far worse than the sewer.

       Ps not a response to you Karol, just getting this in near the top
       • Tom Gould 1.1.1.1

         14 May 2013 at 3:16 pm

         Frankly, I’m tired of Farrar turning up in the media as some sort of independent commentator when he is clearly an arch-Tory and is paid by the Tories. Credibility zero. Integrity zero. Hypocrisy max.
         • Rodel 1.1.1.1.1

           14 May 2013 at 11:07 pm

           It does surprise and disappoint me that RNZ and others present him this way. Surely they know who he works for.
   • ghostrider888 1.2

     14 May 2013 at 12:01 pm

     “we” were discussing last evening how all the corporate forces came to bear on the NZPower proposal; pretty blatent “opposition”
2. The Al1en 2

   13 May 2013 at 7:59 pm

   “Over at Kiwiblog David Farrar’s having a big cry about the Greens”

   That’s because he takes the coin from his masters purse and earns it word for word for word.
   His type are the first to run.
   • Tim 2.1

     13 May 2013 at 8:40 pm

     “His type are the first to run.”

     Is that a typo? I’d have said his Hype are the first to run.

     They’re all having a fucking big cry about the Greens – if only because they realise they’ve probably overdone the goodwill the Lektrit has given them, and probably even overspent their political capital. (Pardon the offensive terminology)

     I’m really hoping they (the Keystone Coppers, the MSM, the Farrars, the absolute lot of ’em) stick to their respective agendas: The – MSM (where growing numbers are finding it hard to take them seriously); The National Party (and affiliates) – where its becoming increasingly obvious to a growing number of the ‘all’ that they are basically self-serving (not unlike previous oppositions however – but never underestimate the desire of a Lektrit to throw the buggers out when they realise there’s a same shit-different stink at play); Nenny Statism; a long overdue realisation by Sleepy Hobbits that one faction stands for ‘corporate welfare’, whereas the other stands for ‘Social/Public/Voting-People/Mum-in Dead Vestas/JoeAvridge Welfare. (I.e. those that actually HAVE a vote – we’re not yet at the stage where corporations and the limited liability get a vote in the nature of a person – but I’m sure it woudn’t be that far off on Planet Koi).
     I’m not saying we (Hobbits awake, Koiwois, et al) but NAct are quite obviously running scared.
     IT’s a bugger dear ole Aaron has gone – I wonder whether he’s ekshly got the balls to go ferral.

     There’s all this fear and loathing going on by those trying to (for example) justify the Sky deal – and most other shonkey shit the money trader has had a hand in.

     Joyce, Key, and ALL his minions can scream foul as much as they like. They can even try their best to lock future democratically elected governments in to regimes that attempt to ensure their will.

     Any new gubbamint, and one with balls, duly elected, and with a mandate has various means to unravel the likes of Key’s ideological imperative.
     It could be done (abiding by whatever ‘deals they strike’) – unless the beneficiaries of such deals are prepared to forgo any semblance of being within democratically elected sovereign territory.

     (Hint – one simple way is via a Sovereign Nation-State’s right to raise taxes – something someone elsewhere on this site has alluded to). IT could also be done in a way that the defenders of democratic principles couldn’t possibly object to its implementation.

     What side do you want to be on Mr Key?
     (Awe, yea, but Nah, I’m comfortable going forward).

     My only concern is that the current opposition ‘leadership’ (and I use that word with reservation), doesn’t have the balls or readiness to implement the necessary at short notice – as was the case when Muldoon was about to fall. I sincerely hope they have a plan – logistical and strategic.
   • Paul 2.2

     13 May 2013 at 9:24 pm

     Maybe if the Greens win, people like Farrar and will decide to leave New Zealand and inflict their odious world views on others.
     • The Al1en 2.2.1

       13 May 2013 at 9:30 pm

       Mention the word ‘inquiry’ a few times and I’d almost guarantee it
     • Draco T Bastard 2.2.2

       13 May 2013 at 9:49 pm

       We can always hope.
   • Ennui 2.3

     13 May 2013 at 10:04 pm

     Let me tell you, Cassius, you yourself are much condemned to have an itching palm, To sell and mart your offices for gold to undeservers.
3. vto 3

   13 May 2013 at 8:17 pm

   Farrar’s point on this is the ultimate in hypocrisy….. and uselessness…..

   This far right government is legislating to overturn not just a contract of an earlier government but an entire law, The Gambling Whatsitsname Act 2003.

   And yep, the right’s entire philosophy around business and investment has been proved impotent. Example, having to give the NZX people a government-owned business so they having something worthwhile to invest in. Pathetic pussies.

   I mean, if the business world was as good as government in creating wealth it would have created its own electricity companies. They’ve had 30 years or more to do so. The bloody “assets” (i.e. the dams) are all valued up in these things so no cry about having to build such a big thing. (exactly like the dairy industry – also on the tit of government)

   But they haven’t. New Zealand business has not created any of the serious wealth on the NZX, they just leach off it. Leach off the government, like big sookie cry babies who need nanny government to hold their widdle hand.

   They are by any measure more bludging than the biggest beneficiary in the land.

   Bwoody bwudging business sqwealing my pwoperty wights, my pwroperty wights, they bwoody make me thick.
   • Tim 3.1

     13 May 2013 at 8:50 pm

     I’m glad you characterise this bugger’s muddle that’s called a government as “far right”.

     Everywhere, it’s referred to as ‘centre right’, yet if you actually look at the incremental (but very consistent) changes, it’d be the closest thing to a fascist government I’ve ever come across in 50 years.
     • karol 3.1.1

       13 May 2013 at 8:56 pm

       Yep.
     • Myrlock 3.1.2

       13 May 2013 at 9:13 pm

       The closest thing to fascist government i have ever come across.
     • Paul 3.1.3

       13 May 2013 at 9:25 pm

       The people defining it as centre right as extreme right.
     • SpaceMonkey 3.1.4

       14 May 2013 at 12:42 pm

       Agreed!
       • Tim 3.1.4.1

         14 May 2013 at 1:30 pm

         Many on here (the last time I made the comment that this gubbamint was the closest thing to fascism I’ve ever seen) disagreed, arguing that the Nationalist element was missing.
         What I reckon they fail to realise is that there IS an ultra-nationalism at play. That nationalism is simply “corporate nationalism” – or “the Corporate Nation”. Funny (strange funny) really in that its disciples are usually those that object to the concepts of a Maori Nation, or The Nation of Islam – collective affinities and cultures that can exist within geographic spaces – often legally defined entities called States. I often despair about the Middle East situation and what is described as a 2 state solution. What they really mean is a 2 nation solution with (or without) a single state.
         Even more depressing is that, just like the last wave of fascism, citizenry failed to wake up till well after it had bitten them in the bum.
         Apathy is the Corporate Nation’s greatest friend.
         • ghostrider888 3.1.4.1.1

           14 May 2013 at 1:45 pm

           Softly, softly
     • Populuxe1 3.1.5

       14 May 2013 at 1:47 pm

       Why? Were you in a coma for the Muldoon years? No, the current crop of Nats, wheile many loathesome things, aren’t Far Right, not by any stretch of the imagination. The American Democrats are Far RIght compared to National (even with ACT in tow).
   • Murray Olsen 3.2

     13 May 2013 at 8:55 pm

     Can’t argue with such cogently expressed sentiment.
4. Anne 4

   13 May 2013 at 8:19 pm

   Love your title IB. Says it all. He’s always reminded me of a spoilt brat.
5. Alanz 5

   13 May 2013 at 8:21 pm

   I’m waiting for the other David, apparently the leader of a major opposition party, to speak out.
   • Anne 5.1

     13 May 2013 at 8:35 pm

     He’s waiting to see the fine print.
     • prism 5.1.1

       14 May 2013 at 12:50 pm

       DS is waiting for the film. Or else he is looking through the bible for an apposite quote to match Ennui’s.
6. Wayne 6

   13 May 2013 at 8:26 pm

   Irish Bill,

   Legislating against a specific agreement, without compensation (as opposed to say increasing taxes, increasing social provision, implementing Power Co, expanding KiwiSaver or a host of similar things) is not a centre position. It is a far left position. Actually quite similar to Venezuela or Argentina.

   And I might add I thought that the comparison of Power Co to North Korea was not tenable. It seemed to me to be a quite conventional social democratic position and would not really surprise other nations like us, or the capital markets. It would be simply priced in, as indeed it was.

   I guess that is why Labour has not immediately endorsed the Greens view. They will know the risk to New Zealand’s reputation.
   • vto 6.1

     13 May 2013 at 8:29 pm

     “Legislating against a specific agreement, without compensation (as opposed to say increasing taxes, increasing social provision, implementing Power Co, expanding KiwiSaver or a host of similar things) is not a centre position. It is a far left position. Actually quite similar to Venezuela or Argentina.”

     So by your brainless logic, legislating FOR a specific agreement is actually a far right position, which is exactly what people have been saying about this government for a long time. That it is like a Chile or a USA.

     ffs
     • Ed 6.1.1

       13 May 2013 at 10:59 pm

       I think the Labour Party and the Greens are playing this one very well. Some needed to hear that the deal will be dealt to – others need to hear that this will not be done in a way that costs us a lot of money – or just as valuable in terms of reputation risk. As others have pointed out, there are other ways of achieving the objective, but there is no point in talking them through before the current deal is clearer and cannot be changed. Even a foreshortened parliamentary process will give opportunities for the stupidity of this policy to be clearly spelled out.
     • Populuxe1 6.1.2

       14 May 2013 at 1:53 pm

       It’s no more absurd than characterising Fonterra as a socialist collective.
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1

         14 May 2013 at 8:36 pm

         it’s a capitalist suppliers collective. And a very effective, profitable one.
       • vto 6.1.2.2

         15 May 2013 at 12:27 am

         .

         it’s a collective pop, that’s the point about fonterra

         it is obviously worth replicating over all the new zealand landscape, not just the farming landscape
   • karol 6.2

     13 May 2013 at 8:41 pm

     “the risk to New Zealand’s reputation” with whom?

     I can’t say I’m proud to be in a country that does such a dirty deal, enabling money laundering, and not creating anything productive or useful to the majority of Kiwis, while leeching off some of the most vulnerable.

     Would only that this government would put so much effort into building the affordable housing that so many low income Kiwis need now?

     I can’t tell you how disgusted I am with this deal.

     Not proud to be an Aucklander right now, either.
     • thatguynz 6.2.1

       14 May 2013 at 12:18 pm

       +1 Hear hear. I gave up being a proud New Zealander in a political or economic sense quite some time ago. Our government was subjugated and nobody seemed to give a damn (and the vast majority still don’t).. If anyone believes that they serve us, the people then I have an igloo to sell you in Hawaii..

       What “representative democracy” had turned into in New Zealand is an unadulterated disgrace and quite frankly is simply disgusting.
       • Grantoc 6.2.1.1

         14 May 2013 at 11:32 pm

         Your sanctimonious hysteria is laughable.

         If you really believe that “representative democracy ….. is an unadulterated disgrace and quite frankly disgusting” in NZ etc etc ; there is a solution – you could go and find your Green/Socialist paradise elsewhere.

         Maybe North Korea fits the bill? They even call themselves the Democratic Republic of North Korea. Tailor made for you.
         • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1

           14 May 2013 at 11:49 pm

           You speak of sanctimonious hysteria in your first paragraph.

           And finish with North Korea in your last.

           The irony (stupidity) I can’t decide which.
         • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2.1.1.2

           14 May 2013 at 11:59 pm

           Grantoc, you tinpot wanker, where do you get off telling NZ citizens to leave the country? What a piece of trash.
           • Grantoc 6.2.1.1.2.1

             15 May 2013 at 9:24 am

             Well, you are living proof my point Knucklehead.

             No rational well argued counter argument from you. Simply a hysterical torrent of abuse when a point of view is expressed that you disagree with.

             How can you be taken seriously?

             Cheers

             [lprent: Perhaps if you’d made an effort and made an “rational well argued” argument that was more than the ravings of a complete fuckwit irrelevantly raving about North Korea, you’d actually get a counter argument. At present I have you pegged as a simple flame troll. Read the policy and consider that you just got your second warning.

             And please stop waving your dick around – that is something you could do on Whaleoil with the other people whose brain resides in a shrivelled pale blue phallus. ]
             • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

               15 May 2013 at 10:31 am

               To merit a counter-argument you’d need to have made an argument in the first place, instead of telling people to leave the country like some sort of frustrated meter maid.

               I’m quite happy with the way my comment expresses my contempt for you, thanks.
   • IrishBill 6.3

     13 May 2013 at 8:44 pm

     Legislating against a specific agreement, without compensation (as opposed to say increasing taxes, increasing social provision, implementing Power Co, expanding KiwiSaver or a host of similar things) is not a centre position. It is a far left position. Actually quite similar to Venezuela or Argentina.

     And that, Wayne, is the exactly the argument we’ve heard from the right again and again. The problem is, you can’t have a centrist social democratic mixed economy when everything has been locked into a neoliberal paradigm by a series of contractual arrangements. Unless you bust those arrangements.

     Like David, you’re suffering from a failure of imagination – just because you believe in the ultimate sanctity of contract doesn’t make it a natural fact. Indeed, you should have considered the long-term implications of your actions when you (and other right-wing governments) tried to use that notion to lock in unpopular and divisive economic policies.

     I guess that is why Labour has not immediately endorsed the Greens view. They will know the risk to New Zealand’s reputation.

     OMG. Are you saying we might slip from being the second best country in the world to do business in to the 10th??? That we might find it a tiny bit harder to borrow money to fuel our housing bubble??? And all we’d get in return is some economic sovereignty and a more egalitarian society??? Well bugger me, maybe you’re right. Or maybe you’re just invoking the might of international capital to keep your legacy of economic disparity intact. You know, like I said you would.
   • Pascal's bookie 6.4

     13 May 2013 at 8:56 pm

     Wayne, what seems to me to be different about this deal is that one side of it is regulatory.

     Joyce was on the radio comparing it to other contracts governments enter into, like road building, or what-have-you, but that strikes me as being different in terms of the nature of the deal.

     The government has been quite clear about the benefit of this deal being that the crown isn’t having to pony up any dosh, which just highlights how different it is to a road construction.

     Instead this deal is around the regulatory environment in which the casino expects to operate in for the thick end of half a century. It does seem problematic to me that the government is cutting a deal which, on the face of it, just exempts a company from whatever an elected government might choose to do.

     The pokies is the least of it. What if the cashless systems are used for money laundering, as they are in many other places? We will have to compensate SkyCity, who has already had issues with the, ahem, seedier parts of the economy, if we want to clean it up?

     The icing on the cake was seeing the casino boss on the TV talking about how difficult it is to deal with regulatory risk. Almost as if running a casino involves a bit of a gamble.

     Another point is that this deal pays for the convention centre via externalities. If the centre is not economic for the owner, but would be beneficial for the city, then the way to fund it should either be through a tax or ratepayer subsidy, or via finding out who the beneficiaries are of the economic growth and targeting them via a levy of some sort. This is not only clearly a case of government picking winners, but of hidden transfers.

     At the end of the day, we have gambling regulations for reasons. If those reasons are shit, then we should get rid of the regs. But if we do not want to get rid of the regulations because we think they actually serve a good purpose, then this deal is can only be seen as a corruption of those regulations in order to give wealth to selected individuals.

     In which case the risk of that corruption being messed with by a future government is a risk the casino has taken on with its eyes wide open. If they can’t afford to lose, they shouldnae fucking gamble.
   • ghostrider888 6.5

     14 May 2013 at 12:19 pm

     it’s NZPower, get off the Mapp.
7. Ugly Truth 7

   13 May 2013 at 8:30 pm

   “I’m the Queen and I can do what I bloody well like!” ~ Blackadder

   The old adage that the king can do no wrong means that if the king does do wrong then he is no longer rightfully the king, and no duty exists to obey him.

   “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” ~ Thomas Jefferson.
8. Dv 8

   13 May 2013 at 8:38 pm

   Property rights was the argument used by the slavers against abolishing slavery!!!
9. Brett Dale 9

   13 May 2013 at 8:58 pm

   Making fun of someone with a speech impediment.

   Real Classy guys.
   • IrishBill 9.1

     13 May 2013 at 9:01 pm

     He’s got a speech impediment? I can’t say I’d noticed that – I was simply aping the tory-boy stereotype to underscore his petulance. I think you’re letting your political correctness get a wee bit carried away there, Brett.
     • Daveo 9.1.1

       13 May 2013 at 9:08 pm

       INCWEASTHE?!
     • Brett Dale 9.1.2

       13 May 2013 at 9:11 pm

       He was born with it, as a child, your making fun of it? What’s next, make fun of a kid with classes, because he doesnt support your ideology? make fun of a fat kid?

       Cheap shots will get you nowhere.
       • IrishBill 9.1.2.1

         13 May 2013 at 9:16 pm

         There’s a certain type of rightie who seems incapable of getting the right end of the stick. Burt’s another. I think of you two as the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of the Standard. Stoppard’s R&G, not Shakespeare’s.
         • Brett Dale 9.1.2.1.1

           13 May 2013 at 9:25 pm

           If a right wing website made fun of someone’s speech impediment you would be up in arms. I also don’t get your reference. So your just blabbing to yourself.
           • IrishBill 9.1.2.1.1.1

             13 May 2013 at 9:34 pm

             It may come as a shock to you, Brett, but I’m not all PC like you are. Which is why I can point out that the reason you don’t get my reference is because you’re thick.
             • Brett Dale …

               13 May 2013 at 11:14 pm

               If you have to explain it, its clearly not funny or clever.
               • geoff …

                 13 May 2013 at 11:19 pm

                 If only ya mum had been a bit further off the ground when she dropped you on your head, Brett…
               • felix …

                 13 May 2013 at 11:32 pm

                 Then you’ll be delighted to learn that Irish doesn’t have to explain it, won’t you Brett?
               • Clockie …

                 14 May 2013 at 12:32 am

                 If you were a bit more clever he wouldn’t have to explain it. Better still, if you had any intellectual fire in your belly (also known as curiosity) you’d go and look up the reference. Why not. It’s easy. A few key strokes away. Why stay ignorant all your life?
       • felix 9.1.2.2

         13 May 2013 at 9:49 pm

         “What’s next, make fun of a kid with classes, because he doesnt support your ideology? make fun of a fat kid?”

         That’s just Farrar again, the tubby little speccy tory fuck.

         And Bwett, putting on a toffee-nosed tory-boy accent isn’t making fun of anyone’s impediment, unless you think being a toffee-nosed tory-boy is an impediment. Which I happen to think it is in many ways but I’m surprised to see you agree.
         • The Al1en 9.1.2.2.1

           13 May 2013 at 9:55 pm

           “That’s just Farrar again, the tubby little speccy tory fuck.”

           My quote of the day 😆
           • ghostrider888 9.1.2.2.1.1

             14 May 2013 at 12:11 pm

             Don’t let the sun go down, You and I, Long Away, on Philadelphia freedom; London, Paris, Rome…tonights the longest night!
         • Brett Dale 9.1.2.2.2

           13 May 2013 at 11:15 pm

           Felix:

           Im pro choice, pro gay marriage, anti war, believe in climate change, how am i right wing?
           • felix 9.1.2.2.2.1

             13 May 2013 at 11:30 pm

             I don’t know, Brett. Maybe that’s why I didn’t say anything of the sort.
           • Clockie 9.1.2.2.2.2

             13 May 2013 at 11:32 pm

             You reckon that’s all there is to it Brett? Nothing else? Sure you can’t think of something else that makes up the difference between “right”and “left”??

             Clue: The things you’ve mentioned have to do with personal liberty and well being. They have very little to do with what the individual owes society in return, or what members of society owe each other. There’s a famous phrase, how does it go? Perhaps you can help me out here..
             • Brett Dale …

               13 May 2013 at 11:41 pm

               Thats what she said???
               • Clockie …

                 13 May 2013 at 11:57 pm

                 As I thought, a deep and reflective thinker.

                 Honestly Brett, I can’t figure out why you bother. You’re clearly proud of being intellectually lazy and I doubt if you’ve developed an intimate relationship with very many books for grown ups. What do you get out of spouting facile rubbish when even you know that’s all it is. Has it occurred to you that you may have a malnourished brain buried deep in there somewhere and it’s really unfair not to feed it something now and again.
                 • Brett Dale …

                   14 May 2013 at 12:29 pm

                   I just call up name calling and bullying.
               • Populuxe1 …

                 14 May 2013 at 1:57 pm

                 Give up, Brett – they’re stuck on a vertical model of socialism that went out with Marx and class consciousness.
         • Grantoc 9.1.2.2.3

           14 May 2013 at 11:39 pm

           The abusive intolerance and bigotry of the so called liberal left is sometimes breathtaking in its hypocracy – as extremely well demonstrated by you felix

           Actually your statement demonstrates the kind of thinking one would more typically associate with facist Germany.

           [lprent: Another day, and another fool projecting their prejudices on how others should act. Plus proving Godwin right yet again. What is the betting that he will also prove to be another fuckwit obsessed by the sexual practices of others.

           After all reading what individuals actually say and responding to them is obviously too difficult for a dipshit like Grantoc when it is so much easier to not think and to wander down the well worn paths of simple minded stupid bigotry. And I can see why. Writing in the Grantoc style sneering at myths with pompous blustering is so so much easier than dealing with actual reality.

           Anyone care to take bets on how soon this fool hits a policy problem. ]
           • Colonial Viper 9.1.2.2.3.1

             14 May 2013 at 11:47 pm

             Meh don’t take the moral high ground unless you deserve it mate. And WTF do you know about “fascist Germany” Mr Godwin?
     • Tim 9.1.3

       14 May 2013 at 3:38 am

       My daughter-in-law tells me he does, and apparently it used to be so bad as to totally prevent speech. So while he’s to be admired for overcoming that impediment, it’s a shame its not put to better use.

       Ah…. I see Karol’s cracked it at 9.4 below
   • vto 9.2

     13 May 2013 at 9:10 pm

     he is not acting as a someone in this setting mr dale he is acting as a puppet, a stooged stool, a paid mouthpiece working strenuously to do such things as;

     increase the number of gamblers in the country

     decrease the kiwi ownership of assets

     cut wage levels and workers conditions

     refuse increased maternity leave, all while at the same time………

     handing out $400million to dairy farmers

     dumping on democracy to hand out consents to dairy farmers

     handing out $1,700,000,000 to scf investors

     give himself taxcuts

     … on it goes….

     so he is not ‘someone’ in this context, he is part of an entity actively working / conspiring to make substantial change to people’s lives.
     i think the gloves generally come off when peoples lives are threatened like that.
     • Brett Dale 9.2.1

       13 May 2013 at 11:16 pm

       Well go after, what he is doing, why take cheap shots?
     • Tim 9.2.2

       14 May 2013 at 3:42 am

       It’s also a shame he doesn’t appear to be so concerned about the ‘property rights’ of those being displaced, and under-compensated as the result of things such as RoNS on the Kapiti Coast (and presumably elsewhere). Somehow I guess he’d argue a greater good in such cases. I wish he’d try that on in this case.
   • joe90 9.3

     13 May 2013 at 9:11 pm

     Speech impediment my arse – roundy boy’s simpering whine would do justice to a Dwaine B.Tinsley character.
     • Brett Dale 9.3.1

       13 May 2013 at 9:28 pm

       name calling huh? Why not just call him four eyes?
       • ak 9.3.1.1

         13 May 2013 at 9:41 pm

         That’s lovely Bretty, now off to bed my man, big day tomorrow, don’t want to miss Aaron Utu eh? Nigh nigh wee fella
         • Brett Dale 9.3.1.1.1

           13 May 2013 at 11:19 pm

           Couldnt care less about his Aaron, just counting down the days till the very last office, not what some lazy politician who never help those in the redzone, is going to do in his final speech.
   • karol 9.4

     13 May 2013 at 9:30 pm

     Farrar does have a speech disability. If I recall correctly, I thought he had dyspraxia.

     ie a problem in pronouncing words. He has said he sometimes uses his second or third choice of word when speaking as he couldn’t be certain he could pronounce his first choice correctly. It is not something to be laughed at.

     This is different from the rhotacism Irish uses in the post’s title.

     It can be the result of a difficulty with pronouncing R’s specifically, but is also an affectation historically used by Brit upper-class fops. Also, it’s associated with prolonged childhood as many children take a while to learn to pronounce their Rs.
     • Anne 9.4.1

       13 May 2013 at 9:56 pm

       an affectation historically used by Brit upper-class fops.

       This reminds me of an Elizabethan party I attended many years ago. It took place in a rather shabby little castle on the outskirts of London and was full of upper class toffs who talked exactly as karol has described. They were draped over mantlepieces and sprawled in exaggerated ‘relaxed’ poses over chairs and couches and they constantly laughed loudly at precisely nothing. I kept my mouth shut for fear my Kiwi accent would send them hysterical and escaped at the first opportunity.
     • Ed 9.4.2

       13 May 2013 at 11:08 pm

       I have listened to Farrar often enough on the National programme in the afternoons on National Radio. He has a particualr New Zealand accent, and is inclined to be a bit precious, but I don;t think he has a noticeable speech impediment, or dispraxia. I didn’t see the title as pointing to such issues either – Farrar is a typical National person that confuses basic concepts for his own ends, and adopts a special NAct vocabulary when it suits. Perhaps I have missed the point.
       • karol 9.4.2.1

         14 May 2013 at 11:40 am

         I had noticed previously that Farrar has an unusual way of speaking. I heard him talking about his speech disability on The Panel on RNZ one afternoon when I was driving. He was paying homage to the elderly speech therapist who had helped him manage, and largely overcome, his disability in his younger days.

         He said he still sometimes avoids using words, and selects an alternative, if he can’t be sure that he will be able to pronounce them correctly. He has to practice pronouncing words he hasn’t used before/a lot, before he can be confident in using them.

         But Brett is using this as a diversion from the affected upper class speech parodied in the title – it’s something that a load of people in affect whether or not they have a speech disability – the vast majority of those posing toffs don’t have any speech disability.
         • ghostrider888 9.4.2.1.1

           14 May 2013 at 11:49 am

           too many fweejoas
   • geoff 9.5

     13 May 2013 at 11:15 pm

     And he looks like the penguin! If ever there was a person whose revolting personality was matched by their physical appearance it would be David Farrar. What a scumbag!

     Are you up in arms because you’re an ugly muthafucker as well, Brett?

     If your looks matched your personality then you must resemble one of the characters from the Mos Eisley cantina.
     • Brett Dale 9.5.1

       13 May 2013 at 11:21 pm

       Geoff:

       Well I do make billy bob thorton look like brad pitt and have been told I look like flea from the red hot chilli peppers.

       But what does looks have to do with what he is saying.

       Its a cheap shot to make fun of a speech impediment because you don’t like a guys politics.
       • geoff 9.5.1.1

         13 May 2013 at 11:27 pm

         Cheap shot? Who fucking cares, Farrar should be shot with a ball of his own shit and dropped from a helicopter onto white island with Steven Joyce and Tony Ryall strapped to him.
         • Brett Dale 9.5.1.1.1

           13 May 2013 at 11:39 pm

           Thats a slight overreaction.
           • geoff 9.5.1.1.1.1

             13 May 2013 at 11:46 pm

             No, it’s a fucking great idea for stimulating the tourism industry!

             Come to NZ, drop scumbag, thieving torys from a chopper into the belching heart of an active volcano!

             I think those high net-wealth, socialist leaning, Chinese tourists would love to have a go at that.
             • Arfamo …

               14 May 2013 at 12:18 am

               “Thats a slight overreaction.”

               Ok, Fair enough. Farrar should be shot with a ball of his own shit and dropped from a helicopter onto white island with Steven Joyce and Paula Bennett strapped to him. Is that about the right level of reaction?
       • felix 9.5.1.2

         13 May 2013 at 11:35 pm

         Nobody made fun of his speech impediment Brett.

         If you think someone did, then point it out.
         • Brett Dale 9.5.1.2.1

           13 May 2013 at 11:40 pm

           The title of this post.
           • felix 9.5.1.2.1.1

             13 May 2013 at 11:45 pm

             …does not refer to a speech impediment.

             Think about it Brett. Imagine Farrar saying “Property rights”. It sounds nothing like the title of the post, does it?

             Know why?
   • tricledrown 9.6

     13 May 2013 at 11:43 pm

     brett thwats wot hapens wen yu r born width a silber spoon in your mouth
10. Paul 10

    13 May 2013 at 9:26 pm

    Brave of you to read Kiwiblog.
    Dangerous to spend too long in the sewers
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    13 May 2013 at 9:46 pm

    Should anyone have the right to affect you without your say so?

    Bye, bye property rights, hello human rights.
12. georgecom 12

    13 May 2013 at 10:52 pm

    The Nats line is that they have a mandate from the last election to sell state assets. They were voted into Govt with a policy which entitles them to enact the sales.

    So, if a political party has a policy to repeal the pokies for sale deal, and gets elected, then it too has a mandate to enact its policy.

    Simple really, just apply Davids rationale to the situation and he has little to grizzle about.

    As for property rights, the Nats have breached property rights with their sale of out assets. The assets are ours and belong to us as a nation. The nats have shown little respect for our property rights as they go ahead with the first of several sales.

    Suddenly however Farrar is moaning about property right being breached. Funny how he can’t seemingly apply a logical argument across the political spectrum.
    • UpandComer 12.1

      14 May 2013 at 11:22 pm

      You don’t know what property rights are. What the Greens want to do is akin to the govt legislating to come in and take your motorbike which used to belong to the post office. It’s not your property if you don’t have the right of refusal. You ‘owned’ the public power companies in the same way you ‘own’ public toilets outside your local. You derive some benefit from them, you use them, but you don’t bloody own them. Keep saying it, and it still sounds just as stupid as the first time.

      As to above posters calling this govt ‘fascist’ one thing about fascist govts is that they ignore property rights, electoral law, the general law, make legal what is/was illegal to punish their political opponents, and turn the public service into their partisan creature. That would be Labour, even without the malign influence of the Greens, who basically want to destroy the economy. I even give Labour credit that they don’t want to destroy the economy as a matter of principle even if they will through unintended consequences.
      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.1.1

        14 May 2013 at 11:57 pm

        What nonsense! As though a regulatory environment were a piece of property to be bought and sold!

        What about the property rights of the other bidders, disadvantaged by Key’s insider trading? It’s time to send a clear message that corrupt back room deals by the National Party don’t bind Parliament.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.2

        14 May 2013 at 11:58 pm

        Without any concept of the commons, or what the “economy” actually entails, your half assed musings are barely just quarter-assed.
13. Pete 13

    14 May 2013 at 12:51 am

    It doesn’t even have to be a reversal of the license. How about an increase in the casino duty? At present, it only stands at 4% . Now the Nats tell us that 15% is an entirely reasonable tax to pay on most transactions, so surely no-one, aside from the casinos, would find such a rate too objectionable.

    IANA accountant, butin 2012, Sky City paid $62 million in casino duties, and returned a total profit of $179 million before income tax. If the casino levy were at the same level as GST and all other things being equal, they would have suffered a loss of $50 million.

    Let them keep their precious license. Tax them into oblivion.
    • Lanthanide 13.1

      14 May 2013 at 11:42 am

      Yeah, I thought about that too. The clause is apparently about changes to the gambling laws. So don’t touch the gambling laws, but get them through other avenues.
      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 13.1.1

        14 May 2013 at 11:54 am

        No. The National Party and Sky City have entered into a corrupt arrangement. Annulling that arrangement will send a message that you can buy the National Party as much as you like: Parliament will not be bound by bribery and insider trading.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1

          15 May 2013 at 12:04 am

          Correct. Odious arrangements like this which disadvantage the peoples of an entire nation can be swept away as unconstitutional and illegitimate.
14. xtasy 14

    14 May 2013 at 2:11 am

    Let David “Farrarcious” cling to his “property” or “domain rights” at his damned “Kiwiblock”(head) forum. If anyone does not sing from his songbook, one soon gets some subtle and not so subtle messages noted underneath comments, something like “demerit” points, and if he gets too uptight, he just blocks people from posting there.

    That is the mindset of a control freak of sorts, who wants to have things go his way, or the way of the party he favours, and we know which one that is.

    So property rights, and contracts binding through generations, he seems to think as being right.

    That basically could mean as much as valididating slave contracts too then, could it not? Democracy does mean something else. Well, maybe some compensation could be expected, but such matters could likely be looked at by the courts, to see what is “reasonable” and what is not.

    Having a government hand out and grant licence exptensions to a time a generation away, that is not what I consider reasonable. What about the sovereign, being the people who vote governments and representatives in and out?

    In some subtle way I see “Farrarcious” expose himself as being not so democratic after all.

    And all this now seems to depend on the man with the towering, greying hairdo, trying to be so fashionable and liberal and “sensible” again? Well, he was not damned sensible when voting for the damned draconian welfare reforms and other laws to go through Parliament. And he fiddles with stupid regulations and rules on synthetic freely available drugs, rather than perhaps show common sense and decriminalise the natural stimulant to possession of a small, acceptable amount for own use (by adults).

    Gosh, sigh, this country is sinking into the bottomless mire-pit deeper by the day, is there any hope, are there any thousands assembling in the streets to take a stand? I hear nothing, I see none, I expect none.

    Good night and sleep fast, as soon the sun rises for another day in servitude.
    • tracey 14.1

      14 May 2013 at 12:16 pm

      “So property rights, and contracts binding through generations, he seems to think as being right.” Except the Treaty f Waitangi which many of his readers/posters think is outmoded and needs to go…
    • Populuxe1 14.2

      14 May 2013 at 8:33 pm

      “That is the mindset of a control freak of sorts, who wants to have things go his way, or the way of the party he favours, and we know which one that is.”

      Well goodness me, that’s just about everyone here, too
15. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15

    14 May 2013 at 11:53 am

    “Prwoperty rwights”.

    It’s so funny when you say it with that speech impediment. It enables us all to laugh at just how silly property rights are.

    Can you do any others? I can’t wait to hear your maori, or perhaps that little gay voice with a hiss in the end?
    • xtasy 15.1

      14 May 2013 at 11:57 am

      I am sure that there are some “others” fitting “fools” with funny names.
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.2

      14 May 2013 at 11:58 am

      Do you read it as a speech impediment? I think it mimics the sort of childish whinging that passes for wingnut logic.
      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.2.1

        14 May 2013 at 12:11 pm

        It’s silly to whine over property rights. These are not rights at all. I laugh every time I think about them.
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.2.1.1

          14 May 2013 at 12:20 pm

          Property rights? This is about insider trading and sleaze. What about the property rights of the other bidders who were unfairly and illegally disadvantaged by John Key’s corrupt business practices?
          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.2.1.1.1

            14 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

            Don’t be silly. This is a brilliant plan that will make us all rich. We get every government employee to be paid one month in arrears. Then we change the rules on the day before they are paid and get all of their labour for free! If they complain, we tell them: Parliament is sovereign! Don’t you believe in democracy, you wingnuts!. [BTW, I love using the word “wingnut”, as it is both insulting and funny]. We use that money to buy everyone in New Zealand as many ponchos as they want. Ponchos are both practical and stylish.

            We can do this for, what do you reckon, at least three months?
            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.2.1.1.1.1

              14 May 2013 at 12:33 pm

              What about the property rights of the bidders who were disadvantaged by John Key’s corrupt business practices?
              • prism …

                14 May 2013 at 12:53 pm

                OAK True. To prepare an offer to dd\eal takes a lot of time, expertise, and so costs large. Joyce this morning chortling about the silly Greens and Labour – well he just can’t believe how silly they are- is so mendacious.
              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                14 May 2013 at 1:09 pm

                No, One Anonymous Knucklehead, there are no such thing as property rights. Only wingnuts (gets me every time) think there are, and we all know how crazy they are.

                What we want is the government involved in the detail of every transaction going on in the country, so as to provide jobs and prosperity for all. I personally hate it when they do nothing, as it shows they do not care. On this basis they should own all parts of the economy and direct everything that is happening. Except, of course, until they do, when we will decry them for entering into such deals.

                Surely, it’s not much to ask.
                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                  14 May 2013 at 1:41 pm

                  Well, the National Party was involved in this deal from go to whoa, and they trampled all over the property rights of the other bidders in a manifestly flawed process, so I’m not sure where you’re going with that.
                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                    14 May 2013 at 1:53 pm

                    I hope you are not falling for that property rights, thing, One Anonymous Knucklehead. You know, I call them “Pwoperty Rwights” to indicate my disdain for the whole concept. After the always classic “wingnut”, it is my favourite expression.

                    If it is better for the people of New Zealand for the government to trample over pwroperty rwights, surely you see, it should do this.

                    That’s all the Nats have done to the other bidders, who were probably rich already anyway. Why should we care about them?
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      14 May 2013 at 2:07 pm

                      Why? For the same reason that we uphold property rights, which far from disdaining, I am advocating should apply equally to all, not just The National Party’s clients.

                      I note that the “property” being bought and sold in this transaction is the law, and the old adage which holds that when law is for sale the first thing to be bought will be legislators.
                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                      14 May 2013 at 2:41 pm

                      I thought you were disdaining them. Especially when you said: I think it mimics the sort of childish whinging that passes for wingnut logic. I loved that bit. It cleverly used my favourite put-down (wingnut) while, at the same time, saying that pwoperty rwights (which I also hate) were illogical.

                      It was like a double-whammy of genius.

                      Give us more like that and keep ’em coming.
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      14 May 2013 at 2:48 pm

                      Looks like the point sailed right over your head.

                      How can this be about property when the contract is for the sale of a regulatory environment?

                      How can this be about property rights when the property rights of the other bidders are being undermined?

                      The use of the phrase “prwopety rwights” is a gesture of ridicule and contempt aimed at David Farrar, not an acknowledgement that he has a valid argument. Can you see the difference?

                      .
                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                      14 May 2013 at 3:19 pm

                      When I said “keep ’em coming” I dared not hope for the skill and elan that you have subsequently displayed. You have exceeded my already high expectations. Accept my heartiest congratulations.

                      In answer to your questions:

                      1. How can this be about property when the contract is for the sale of a regulatory environment?

                      As always, you are absolutely correct. Anyone who says that a future government accepting the benefit of a $450m Convention Centre but welshing on their side of the deal, really does not understand prwoperty rwights. $450m is not, on any reasonable definition, prwoperty.

                      2. How can this be about property rights when the property rights of the other bidders are being undermined?

                      There were simply too many references to property rights in your question for me to be able to process it. Irishbill and I are agreed that there are no prwoperty rights. For anyone.

                      3. The use of the phrase “prwopety rwights” is a gesture of ridicule and contempt aimed at David Farrar, not an acknowledgement that he has a valid argument. Can you see the difference?

                      Yeah, Farrar, wanker. He thinks there are pwoperty rwights. And there aren’t.
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      14 May 2013 at 3:23 pm

                      Yep, you’ve got nothing. hence the attempt to distract and divert.
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      14 May 2013 at 3:35 pm

                      “…officials effectively worked with SkyCity for some months, giving detailed feedback and engaging in some preliminary negotiations, while the other proposers were kept on hold and given very little information”

                      Auditor General’s report.
                    • Tracey …

                      14 May 2013 at 4:54 pm

                      It is no more an abuse of democracy (as Joyce calls it) for the greens to suggest they will reverse legislation to overturn a commercial contract thanit is for a party to use a slim majority to grant an excessive deal to a party that cannot be undone (democratically) without much financial hardship. By extending the licence so extremely Joyce has overridden the very democratic process he is squealing at the Greens about.

                      Where is the report that says Auckland needs this conference centre? Are the projections of income and what-have-you the same as for the World Cup of Rugby (ie grossly inflated). Now if sky city wants to pay for the rail loop…. that MIGHT require something thinking from a public interest point of view.
    • tracey 15.3

      14 May 2013 at 12:15 pm

      “that little gay voice with a hiss in the end?” Do you mean that strong teeth sucking noise the PM made on TV3 news last night when he finished speaking???
      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.3.1

        14 May 2013 at 12:16 pm

        I know, it’s funny because he sounds homosexual. Bumfuckers!
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.3.1.1

          14 May 2013 at 12:23 pm

          No, you missed the point: it’s noteworthy because that is Key’s “tell” when he lying.
          • tracey 15.3.1.1.1

            14 May 2013 at 12:23 pm

            I KNOW! Made me chuckle…
        • tracey 15.3.1.2

          14 May 2013 at 12:23 pm

          Except John Key’s phrase instead of saying lesbian, is “colourful history”.
      • karol 15.3.2

        14 May 2013 at 12:58 pm

        Yes. That his was soooo noticeable!
16. tracey 16

    14 May 2013 at 12:14 pm

    It is no more an abuse of democracy (as Joyce calls it) for the greens to suggest they will reverse legislation to overturn a commercial contract thanit is for a party to use a slim majority to grant an excessive deal to a party that cannot be undone (democratically) without much financial hardship. By extending the licence so extremely Joyce has overridden the very democratic process he is squealing at the Greens about.

    Where is the report that says Auckland needs this conference centre? Are the projections of income and what-have-you the same as for the World Cup of Rugby (ie grossly inflated). Now if sky city wants to pay for the rail loop…. that MIGHT require something thinking from a public interest point of view.
17. joe90 17

    14 May 2013 at 1:23 pm

    Speaking of speech impediments – have a wee giggle about vocal fry, the teen speak of Bridges and Coleman.
18. Lionel 18

    14 May 2013 at 5:40 pm

    My sentiments precisely

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS