web analytics

So. Very. Funny.

Written By: - Date published: 9:00 pm, May 16th, 2013 - 54 comments
Categories: you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Just in case you haven’t seen this work of genius by Danyl:

collins replicant

54 comments on “So. Very. Funny.”

  1. xtasy 1

    Judith the HARD one, and she is, so we deal to her, and she is shallow as to deal with in person, hard is a strange word for it.

    Judith betrayed on the MMP agenda, she did the hard line on law and order, she is denying the OIA reforms, recommended by the Commissioners in question, and much more, she is a DICTATOR woman, and some love it.

    So rethink, relearn, reevaluate, and see this for reflection, perhaps:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEj7jnR–Dg&list=PLD5B5A871D6D13C01

    NZ must as a people wake up and take charge, or are you going to want to be full sold out?

    • prism 1.1

      Good question xtasy
      NZ must as a people wake up and take charge, or are you going to want to be full sold out?

      This is a plea from anti nazi protesters. Has the same ring as your sentence.

      …why do you allow these men who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one domain of your rights after another, until one day nothing, nothing at all will be left but a mechanised state system presided over by criminals and drunks? Is your spirit already so crushed by abuse that you forget it is your right – or rather, your moral duty – to eliminate this system? (From Leaflet 3)

      I think this is the right link to three quotes from the White Rose anti nazi group.
      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11052013/#comment-631524

    • Steve Withers 1.2

      Tories love dictators. It’s at the very root, the heart, of being a Tory.

      • Tracey 1.2.1

        dictators dont require pesky things like consensus and votes.

      • King Kong 1.2.2

        So do the people. Their heart says Labour but their head wants a Tory to lower taxes, brutalise criminals and rule over them like a king.

        To paraphrase Sideshow Bob.

      • Populuxe1 1.2.3

        So no left winger said nice things about Castro or Stalin ever?

    • “she did the hard line on law and order”

      Only when it suits her. She had no interest in addressing a case of overt judicial fraud from 2011.

      “NZ must as a people wake up and take charge, or are you going to want to be full sold out?”

      Take charge of what, exactly, and how? Activism without a workable strategy will probably be a waste of time and energy.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.3.1

        A people’s common law tribunal will sort it all out. Why don’t you convene one?

      • Populuxe1 1.3.2

        Quite right. Special Victims Unit was by far the superior TV show.

    • Love the video, love the music, thanks

    • veutoviper 2.1

      So did I!

      And I particularly liked the one comment although not directly related:

      “Good news: 99% of voters didn’t see Shearer’s speech.

      Bad news: 100% of his caucus did.”

  2. vto 3

    People like Judith Collins are easy to handle.

    Just say no.

    • hey vto not sure if you saw this which answered a question you had the other day
      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15052013/#comment-633462

      • vto 3.1.1

        No I didn’t but it looks interesting. Let me have a gander and a wander back in five…

      • vto 3.1.2

        It was unintentional and not noticed.

        I have been following the constitution debate thingy from time to here and there and time.. On that Sunday I was actively involved in another activity and listening only side-on to te wireless. I obviously missed who the person was who asked the question and in evidence of that if you go back to the original post you will see I had some questions marks and uncertainty around that.

        What I heard was the question. The particular person of the question was immaterial to the question, as I was whistling while I worked and missed it. But mine ears perked at it from thence forth listening more closely. The panelists all declined to answer. That was very odd, given the situation, hence my post.

        Note that the host, a mr simon price i think, allowed the question to be raised by mr asnell. There were only a handful of questions permitted – why would mr price endulge mr ansell? That is a question (of limited use).

        I responded to this to weka yesterday or so on the thread.

        The mistake aorund the questionnaire is immaterial to the point raised. Once you glean out the flotsam and jetsam.

        John Ansell is someone else of another world.

        We should keep talking and not succumb to assumption. It is good. Weka was very concentrated in her responses and missed or avoided countless wider and more important points made. Don’t lose what I said there marty mars, it was real and true. I know you read it and understood it despite weka’s attempt to zero in on this error.

        I don’t think that has covered all of the things. Onwards with good intent is the only way.

        • veutoviper 3.1.2.1

          The host was Stephen Price, a Wellington barrister who specialises in media law and blogs at

          http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/

        • marty mars 3.1.2.2

          The respected panelists didn’t answer because it was a loaded question from a known fool.

          The assumptions you made in your original post were false – what you said about the panelists, the question and the wider implications of talking about the issues was not true.

          The list I presented was woeful but not in the way you mean – put your own list up vto and let’s get the debate going – I’m not going to trawl through your comments looking for quotes – been there done that, and posted on it in the past, remember…
          http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/vto-and-me.html

          • weka 3.1.2.2.1

            Ugg, hadn’t seen that write up before. That makes me very angry.

            vto “… and through inter-marriage and conquest these migrants merged with the resident Waitaha and took over authority of Te Waipounamu.” Ngai Tahu website. LOL, this is exactly what I was referring to. A painting of history at odds with the reality. For example, why write “…through inter-marriage and conquest … took over authority” which implies inter-marriage was somehow equal at the time to conquest? I tell you why – because it makes for a better looking history when compared to writing “though military conquest the Waitaha were conquered and authority assumed by mamoe at the end of a taiaha. … ” As for inter-marriage, how long after the “conquest” was that? Or was it a result of the rape by soldiers?

            Vto, all I can say is try asking those questions face to face within Maori communities or on a Marae. And make sure you ask the women. Until you are willing to do that you are full of shit and a coward. Looking at tourism site boards, and then applying your own interpretation to what Kai Tahu write on their website without knowing anything useful about the deeper reality of Southern Maori and their histories is just wrong.

            Sorry, I have alot of respect for you in other things you write on ts, but in this you are very very ignorant. I can hope that one day you will walk far enough into Te Ao Maori to understand just how ignorant you were in 2012.

            • Populuxe1 3.1.2.2.1.1

              I suggest reading Hana O’Reagan’s excellent book Ko Tahu Ko Au – Kāi Tahu Tribal identity. Intermarriage began very early in the South Island, particulalry as Scottish and Irish settlers came from cultural patterns relatively sympathetic to Māori tikanga. The use of the word “conquest” is perhaps a tad emotive out of context – a metaphorical, economic, psychological, and cultural conquest of Kāi Tahu, certainly, nonetheless terrible – but the Lad Wars were strictly a North Island phenomenon, though there was at one point a plan to establish “native reserves” in Canterbury – a notion quickly discarded. Even the individual provincial govenments functioned quite seperately. It is a mistake to view both islands as sharing an identical history of colonisation – that is a reductive simplification of a very complex/multiplex historical process. Some people might say that the colonisation of New South Wales and Victoria were genocides, but out of context that would be to do a disservice to what happened in Tasmania. I also have to wince a bit whenever some respected Kaumātua bandies the word “Holocaust” around.

        • weka 3.1.2.3

          vto, I accept that it wasn’t intentional. But am disappointed with your response now.

          “The mistake aorund the questionnaire is immaterial to the point raised. Once you glean out the flotsam and jetsam.”

          No. It’s. Not. Your whole argument was that a good question was asked, and that it was strange that the panelists all refused to answer, and your conclusion was that they were afraid to. You were wrong vto, just admit it and then we can move on to more productive discussion.

          Further, the very nature of the question was racist, given who was asking it and why. Can you even acknowledge that now that you see the context?

          Anyhow, here is the actual question, devoid of the immediately surrounding context:

          Given that polls tell us that 80% of New Zealanders are distressed at seeing their country being slowly surrendered to the part descendants of the minority of Maori who breached the Treaty by rebelling against the Crown in the 1860s, could we use a republican referendum process to entrench racial equality?

          In what ways is this a useful question?

          What do you think is really being asked here? (given it is an oddly phrase question).

          Do you have any qualms about the implication that Pakeha are unfairly treated as a ‘race’, or do you agree?

          Do you believe that there has ever been credible research that asked NZers how they felt about NZ being slowly surrendered to the half caste descendants of Maori rebels?

      • vto 3.1.3

        Marty the list is a good idea but the first cut is woeful. A collation is perhaps a better way…

  3. yes very funny – I wonder if there are actually any humans in that cabinet instead of the bloody replicants

  4. Descendant Of Sssmith 5

    Now that I’ve read that I can’t unread it.

    My favourite movie and Judith Collins in the same sentence – aaarrggghhhhhh

    Thanks a lot.

  5. sukieDamson 6

    I must admit I find it hard to reconcile the Collins as next leader meme with the buffoonery I hear whenever she opens her mouth.

  6. Ad 7

    I prefer Colins to Shearer.

    Remember when Clark stared down anyone? It’s sexy, because we see a politician wielding power skillfully.
    Thats what makes her the natural successor. Shearer head to head with Collins on tv anyone?
    Get ready to weep.

    • karol 7.1

      Clark and Collins? Chalk and cheese.

      Spot the differences….. it’s not that hard.

      • Ad 7.1.1

        Go right ahead list them.
        Its the political-force similarities that make them both so attractive.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1

          And if she’d just wear high heeled shiny black lace up vinyl boots in the House it would be perfection, right?

          • Ad 7.1.1.1.1

            I’d just settle for knew how to dress.
            It shouldn’t matter, but image really does.

            • karol 7.1.1.1.1.1

              The differences go much deeper than image. Clark’s strength was in her grasp of the extensive details of policies and issues. Collins just relies on the perception of toughness based on a superficial understanding..

    • ghostrider888 7.2

      sad Ad; Collins stands for everything I despise; she is the worst sort of lawyering bully; makes me feel disgust just thinking of her.

  7. millsy 8

    I don’t know whether to laugh or shudder.

    • Even if you don’t know of the replicant meme, she’s acquiescing to a slanderer. Slander is an essential part of the Crown’s modus operandi, but it usually isn’t recognised as such.

  8. Tracey 9

    If the turtle was walking through the dessert instead, would she save the turtle to rescue the dessert?

  9. dewithiel 10

    It’s a pity she’s not a Serco, oops, I meant Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 model which, of course, was meant to last only four years.

    • Rhinocrates 10.1

      She’s a rather clumsily-executed waxwork effigy of Thatcher, I think. I wonder if the Tory planners are wondering if they can persuade Argentina to invade the Chatham Islands?

  10. Populuxe1 11

    I think she would have ripped the tortoise apart and eaten it to survive. She’s good at that.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts