About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

June 25, 2008 8:52pm by David Farrar

General Debate 25 and 26 June 2008

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment191

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (191)

Login to comment or vote

Fairfacts Media

What an amazing beat up over at the Standard, No Right Turn, TV1 and Tv3.
John Key is roasted over what is touted as an almighty gaffe over New Zealand history.
But Michael Cullen said pretty much the same.
Meanwhile, the economy continues tanking.
But now Liarbour has delivered recession in election year, the left no longer want to talk about the economy.
Instead, they reaffirm their Key Derangement Sydrome by attacking Key for what Michael Cullen has said himself!
About something that happened, or didn’t happen, over 100 years ago. Priorities! Priorities!

It just confirms Liabour’s inability to empathise with householders over the pain we face thanks to Liarbour’s failed economic policies, especially when it seems recession will be confirmed tomorrow! The row just confirms what truly interests the left, and it ain’t the voters!
http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:21pm
big bruv

adc

Given that you look at it that way can I assume the following will happen once all the “sins of our forbears” are righted.

1. The appalling rates of child abuse and child murders among Maori will stop
2. The shocking Maori crime rate will fall
3. The end of sickly white liberals kowtowing to everything Maori out of some misguided guilt
4. Maori start to take ownership of their problems
5. And end to gang violence and anti social behaviour from Maori
6. The end of the obesity and diabetes epidemic that afflicts Maori
7. The end of the bullshit “colonisation” excuse
8. And the end of us “whiteys” being blamed for all the ills in Maoridom
9. And most of all the end of all race based funding and privilege.

Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?

If I was a betting man I know where my money will be, make no mistake your and my grandkids will still be handing out money to Maori when they are middle aged, as long as the likes of you are prepared to accept these piss arse excuses from Maori then NOTHING will change.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:25pm
Patrick Starr

Ok adc. tell me what year did that happen?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:25pm
louie

I am also appalled at the bigoted coverage of John Keys on TV1 news tonight. We got zero context with onlt the hint there might be some from a reporter right at the end. For ‘expert commentary’ there was an academic from Waikato University!!! No position could be too far to the left for her.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:25pm
Labour are scum

I don’t understand why the good bloggers at Kiwiblog allow a mentally disturbed sad individual with paranoid delusions to rark them up.

Sonic needs help. He isn’t going to get it here, in fact you people make his condition worse.

It’s actually quite cruel. In Victorian times people used to go on the weekend to see the loonies at Bedlam Hospital.

Please stop teasing sonic. If you ignore him there is a better chance he will seek help.

Unfortunately KKKlarKKK closed the asylums at places like Carrington Hospital so sonic has no where to go. His mother is unable to ensure he takes his medication. It is not impossible that sonics condition is genetic and mom of sonic needs compassion too.

It is also possible that his mental health is caused by a disease such as syphilis.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:29pm
big bruv

John Key’s little mistake on its own is no big deal and will be forgotten about by breakfast.

However what it does show and this is far more worrying is that the scum bag wankers in the left wing media have already started their dirty work on behalf of dear leader.

Watch the likes of Espiner, Campbell, and Barry Soper ignore the worsening economy, ignore the endless cases of corruption that spews out of the Labour party, ignore the fuck up that is the EFA and ignore the way dear corrupt maggot leader has swept aside the opinion of the people over the smacking petition/referendum, the bastards are after Key and the Nat’s.
As usual when you deal with these left wing cunts the truth will have no bearing on the way they report anything, they are in attack mode and things are going to get rough.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:35pm
MGduP

a3catlady wrote at 1:31 pm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:37pm
MGduP

a3catlady wrote at 1:31 pm
“Climate Change, Bird Flu, Y2K, Nuclear War, and I’m sure there are a few more scary things I’ve totally missed.”
You did miss a very big one that has been strangely lacking in media attention.
That is the fact that the World Health Organisation has recently announced that HIV / AIDS is confined to high risk groups (in the West) and that there is in fact no threat of a global Aids pandemic among heterosexuals after all.
That’s lucky because for the last thirty years, until they changed their minds, humanity was doomed – doomed I tell you – by HIV.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:38pm
dad4justice

The media are all on the absolute power Klarkula gravy train. Hey bro, got a spare billion for race 8?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:39pm
Ryan Sproull

1. The appalling rates of child abuse and child murders among Maori will stop
2. The shocking Maori crime rate will fall
3. The end of sickly white liberals kowtowing to everything Maori out of some misguided guilt
4. Maori start to take ownership of their problems
5. And end to gang violence and anti social behaviour from Maori
6. The end of the obesity and diabetes epidemic that afflicts Maori
7. The end of the bullshit “colonisation” excuse
8. And the end of us “whiteys” being blamed for all the ills in Maoridom
9. And most of all the end of all race based funding and privilege.

Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?

Big bruv,

I see almost all of those as results of generational poverty that, yes, originated in colonisation. I believe disproportionate representation of Maori in the various things you listed would indeed become proportionate if those cycles of poverty and lack of education were rectified, and I think that race-based iniatives are an acceptable short-term unfairness to rectify an open-ended unfairness.

But this confuses me:

Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?

I believe in cause and effect. I believe the cause of the effects you call Maori failure are strongly rooted in generational poverty and, to a lesser degree, institutional racism in the past in New Zealand.

That’s my explanation. What is your explanation for those disproportionate representations?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:42pm
adc

big bruv. I’m only talking about what we actually did to them. The stuff they definitely don’t teach in school.

I don’t feel any personal guilt about what past administrations did. But I don’t think we should ignore them either just because they happened before we were born.

A lot of the major rorts were to do with governments reneging on agreed deals. Well post-treaty too I might add. So no excuse. And not just in any one year either, but time and again over decades, even well into the 20th C.

For specifics, I’d have to research – it’s not my field, I’m only relaying the fragments and sentiment that I learned from many discussions with my friend (researcher for CRFT). However if you heard what I’d heard about what successive administrations have done, you’d be disgusted. You wouldn’t be looking for reasons to justify them, or to avoid making amends.

As for affirmative action programmes, I think they are unjustified, and discriminatory. Any sort of decisions based on race to me are by definition prejudicial.

But as for your list. Well I admit I probably would have been sympathetic to it as a teenager from the waikato, but now I think it’s just a demonstration of the sort of ignorance that really compounds these problems.

I don’t think we’ll be paying out forever. Take a look at the groups that have already received major settlements. They aren’t pissing it up against a wall, and we aren’t still paying them either. These people have by and large been waiting patiently an incredibly long time for justice.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:46pm
big bruv

Ryan

My explanation is blindingly bloody simple,

If the left wing hand wringers and “guilty whiteys” stop making excuses for Maori and stopped letting them milk the whole intergenerational grievance and colonisation bullshit then things could change relatively quickly.

When you think about it the lefts fawning attitude to things Maori is actually racism of the worst kind, the white trendy lefties rush into help Maori in the racist and mistaken belief that they need the help of the white man, stop treating them as second class citizens and you will see an almost immediate improvement, stop making excuses for them based on the colour of their skin and you will see and almost immediate improvement.

Can you do that Ryan?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:52pm
The Optimist

>> “I think it is a fairly transparent scam undertaken by environmentalists to get their way in lots of issues they care about, like restricting private transport, cutting energy use and making us all live in a shoebox.”

> Well, I think it’s sad that people jump to the conclusion that an environmentalist’s goal is to ruin your life, and any excuse will do. It shows a pretty petty way of looking at life.

On whose part?

> They couldn’t possibly ACTUALLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT now, could they? No, it must be all about keeping hardworking people down. Damn socialists.

I have no argument about that, just the way it interferes with us humans. Can’t environmentalists care about the environment with their own money and time, and leave the rest of us in peace?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:55pm
big bruv

adc

“But as for your list. Well I admit I probably would have been sympathetic to it as a teenager from the waikato, but now I think it’s just a demonstration of the sort of ignorance that really compounds these problems.”

Oh really?, so tell me what is false about my little (and it could have been a LOT longer) list?

“I don’t think we’ll be paying out forever. Take a look at the groups that have already received major settlements. They aren’t pissing it up against a wall, and we aren’t still paying them either. These people have by and large been waiting patiently an incredibly long time for justice.”

Here you show that despite the claims you make you do not really know as much about the settlement process as you claim, the agreements reached some time ago with other tribes all have a “top up” clause in them, as a direct result of the tree lords deal those tribes who apparently received full and final settlements will receive more of our money.

This WILL keep going for generations to come.

Oh and one more thing adc, please do not speak for me, when you say you are talking about what “we” did you are including me in that and I can assure you it had absolutely nothing to do with me, I am just the poor bastard who has to pay for it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 7:57pm
dad4justice

Did we eat each other? No. Burn the treaty and move on FFS!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:02pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan

My explanation is blindingly bloody simple,

If the left wing hand wringers and “guilty whiteys” stop making excuses for Maori and stopped letting them milk the whole intergenerational grievance and colonisation bullshit then things could change relatively quickly.

How would things change?

When you think about it the lefts fawning attitude to things Maori is actually racism of the worst kind, the white trendy lefties rush into help Maori in the racist and mistaken belief that they need the help of the white man, stop treating them as second class citizens and you will see an almost immediate improvement, stop making excuses for them based on the colour of their skin and you will see and almost immediate improvement.

Can you do that Ryan?

Wasn’t there a time in the past when there was no left-wing fawning attitudes? Did things improve then?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:04pm
adc

big bruv.

Why do you think there’s a treaty? Surely if the brits had conquered the maori, there wouldn’t be need for one?

The reason there is a treaty, is because the Brits were finding it too expensive (so far away) to fight an ongoing war that they weren’t actually doing that crash hot at. The Maori were pretty damn good fighters, even before they got hold of guns. The british didn’t conquer the maori. It’s not like the rest of the world. The Maori LET them do a treaty because the treaty promised benefits that they considered were worth the trade.

Part of the treaty terms related to agreements to sell enough land for colonies, partnership arrangements etc. The crown has since then breached this treaty so many times. why do you think they say “honour the treaty”!

Do you honour your promises? I think everyone should.

Later on, land started getting confiscated and stolen. Deals for places like Auckland by Governor Grey were broken (ending up in problems like Bastion Point, which to their enormous credit, once they won it back, they gifted it to NZ). Then the repression of maori culture (getting caned if caught speaking your own language in school etc). Are these all supposed to be things we should be proud of?

I think there may be a lot of people who go to far in pandering to things, but I don’t think that means nothing wrong was done. I’m certainly not left-wing, and totally believe in personal responsibility for actions, but I believe maori have had many genuine terrible greivances, and various governments have perpetrated all sorts of misinformation campaigns and myths to steel our resolve against them. It’s pretty disgusting.

So as far as I’m concerned, we’re just being justly done for major breach of contract. These people don’t want to spend their whole lives fighting for this, once they get it, they want to get on with their lives. Wouldn’t you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:11pm
side show bob

So the Maori’s now own thousands of hectares of trees. I would hope that all things been fair in this country that when these two bobs bring in their Carbon trading con the Maoris will have the unbridled joy of giving the government millions of dollars for cutting the fucking things down. I bet that will put a dent in half a billion. Whats the bet the slimy socialist bastards flogged of the trees because they had dollar signs in their eyes, they knew they were going to get it back with interest. I have not heard the government state they will hand back the Carbon credits to the forest owners so as far as I see it the government are just Indian givers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:14pm
adc

hey big bruv

what is wrong with your list is that you put it down.

The facts may not be unjustifiable, but they are irrelevant. Why should we put conditions on redressing wrongs?

That’s like me stealing your house, and saying I’ll give it back to you if you lose some weight. Its damn rude man. And it’s morally an indefensible position.

Noone has a perfect track record in any of the areas in your list.

Point taken re speaking for you. I didn’t do anything either. But that’s no excuse either.

As for top-ups. The Crown Forestry Rental Trust has been accumulating rental income (from forestry operators) for decades on Crown Land subject to disputes. It’s only right that this money get distributed along with the land it was earned on. If I stole 100 dollars from you, kept it for 10 years, you would be justified in getting 100 dollars back plus interest. If I stole land from you and rented it out, you’d expect the land back and the rent as an absolute minimum.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:17pm
The Optimist

An interesting question as to what will come after global warming – what will environmentalists come up with next?

I agree that ‘intellibots’ sounds like a plan. In anticipation of the global warming scam falling apart, environmentalists can bone up on Terminator 1, 2 and 3. (What night is Sarah Connor files on?) That way we can ban computers, which will really put some sand in the works. If that doesn’t get us back to the stone age, nothing will.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:18pm
Patrick Starr

“when there was no left-wing fawning attitudes? ” Oh, you mean Doug Graham? hahaha -good one
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:24pm
Ryan Sproull

The Optimist,

I am an environmentalist, and I do not want to ban computers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:54pm
Ryan Sproull

If anything, they’re an incredibly low-impact form of entertainment, in terms of power consumption, and they’re insanely efficient uses of power compared to other means of communication.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:55pm
Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left

“I don’t understand why the good bloggers at Kiwiblog allow a mentally disturbed sad individual with paranoid delusions to rark them up.”
Im sorry LaS
its just that, well, sometimes your collective ignorance is soul destroying
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 8:59pm
RRM

# dad4justice (3850) June 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
What will roger nome and sonic do after the election? I do hope John Key when Prime Minister does not tolerate paying blogger’s to stir shit ? Russell at Public Address has done nicely from the Aunty Helen club.

What will YOU and all your kind do after the election? Once the evil Clark is gone, you’ll have nothing to bitch about, and then you’ll have to find a new outlet for all your hatred. For everyone’s sake I can only hope you find another relatively safe and benign environment like this to do it in…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 9:05pm
The Optimist

Hi Ryan,

> I am an environmentalist, and I do not want to ban computers.

I would send you along to an environmentalists anoymous meeting if I knew of one, but for the moment you can going to have to suffer, sorry…

What about AI computers that argue against environmentalists (am I human?)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 9:06pm
big bruv

adc

So if we ignore the problems they will go away will they?

BRILLIANT!!!

In the mean time everything that is wrong continues and can be put down to colonisation, perhaps that is the next gravy train once the land settlements have been reached, I can see it now, record settlements for the damages caused by colonisation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 9:13pm
adc

big bruv

eh?

You’re sounding a bit socialistic there mate. Proposing that we start imposing constraints on people’s diets, activities, child-rearing etc… you sure you’re not Sue Bradford under there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 9:14pm
Ryan Sproull

What about AI computers that argue against environmentalists (am I human?)

Shall we play a game?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 9:20pm
Political Busker

The first question in any debate of this nature is whether the argument is to be objective or subjective.

If it is objective under New Zealand law it will be sovereignty controlled. If it is subjective it exists entirely in the realm of ‘lore’. Lore encases objectivity as subjective. That is to say that there is nothing written about that which is tangible, or of the object. The object is built into the subjective. The subjective is about the subject and how we ‘feel’. What is subjective is about our emotions.

In New Zealand law and sovereignty we obey the law and the law is objective. In the arguments above, as far as I can see the body of the discussion is subjective. This is to say it is emotional and not constructed to facts.

If the facts are engaged as if they are important we must investigate the value of the Treaty. New Zealand has extraordinary laws. In 1986 there was a revolution. That revolution was called the Constitution Act. It was built from a disengagement from a responsibility to the Crown. Additionally it removed any responsibility to any established Maori authority. Or at least that is what the Crown wanted it to do. The fact is that Sovereignty were never legal in this country. The document legitimising the English Laws Act 1852 (as I remember the year) was not constituted effectively or properly into the jurisdiction of the Declaration of Independence in 1835. The Declaration of Independence gave Maori authority in the country no matter their tribal or political differences.

The last paragraph does not fully disclose the objective principles relative to New Zealand’s ability to fully intergrate two culture to work in unity as two people’s side by side. It does however provide sufficient information to engage a different set of rules when considering the common question, already established clearly in this thread of ‘where to from here’. So the primary question remains. Is the debate going to be objective or subjective? The history of the country, as is likely in this thread is that the subjective will rage on regardless and the body of the most vocal will carry on bellowing whether or not they are right, but more simply because they feel most passionately about what they are saying and how they feel. Fair enough.

Yet such a concession does not solve the problem. If the second question is ‘is the problem solvable”‘ then the answer is of course. The instrument globally on this is how those people who are most passionate in the debate that they figure is most important is how they conduct themselves.

Big Bruv,

if you take out points 7 & 8 of your list you open remove the most direct aggitators. There after you are left with point 3 as the aggressor. That’s the point that secures your argument. You don’t need points 7 or 8. If you have the ability to take out points 7 & 8, then you are not the direct pakeha opposite of the sickly white liberal about who you complain and you can concentrate on the second part of that point. When you get to the part on ‘misguided guilt’, then you arrive at the instrument to fix the whole problem. In fact not just that problem but nearly every problem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 9:47pm
RRM

… blinks dumbly as a tumbleweed rolls across the scene…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 9:53pm
reid

RRM 551 = comment of the year to date

Mr Busker, I’m interested in your thesis about ‘misguided guilt’ being pretty durn terrific. Do you have any brochures?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 10:23pm
Political Busker

reid,

uuum, no. Sorry I don’t have any brochures. Don’t have any cards either. But if I had a brochure I doubt I would put the misguided guilt statement on it. It doesn’t belong to me it belongs to big bruv. He figured it out not me.

Misguided guilt though as I see it, is something that big bruv suggests is fed. Force fed, obviously. Fear is force fed. I think there is a pretty close connection. The comment that big bruv made though, about the cultural relationship between the indigenous people and the coloniser is the secondary argument that I challenge. The primary argument is about dads and men. Men these days live off misguided guilt. It sort of goes like this: be ashamed of who you are. Your always going to be wrong.

cheers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 10:52pm
reid

Thanks for that PB, I am ashamed of who I am. Can I just ask for a few clarifications?

Can you please clarify the connection between being wrong and being force-fed fear?

What is the exact procedure for force feeding fear? For example, does it involve a dangerous amount of delicious chocolate deserts?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 11:09pm
Political Busker

I don’t know who you are Reid.

If you should feel ashamed for who you are then it isn’t my job to instruct on who you should be and what you fear. I try not to force fear although it is pretty east to do being a protester who organises protests outside people’s houses who eat lots of chocolate and then kick the shit out of the rest of the public when they get to work.

Cheers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 26, 2008 11:19pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi

Labour’s pathetic attack on John Key over his comments about colonial history has backfired on the government. Labour just gets lamer and lamer.

Once again Cullen is shown to be a silly old man.

Time to retire the fool!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 5:49am
jcuknz

Optimist — I suggest that God is a belief and Jesus Christ is a fact.
Global warming is both depending on what aspect of it you are considering.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 7:42am
jcuknz

Optimist — I currently own five green and grey bags and they are very useful, taking books to and from the library etc, and reduce my consumption of plastic bags but I am not a supporter of ‘ban the plastic bag’ as they have useful purposes, wrapping chicken bones so the local cats don’t smell them and rip my rubbish bag hangiung in the outhouse, but like everything use in moderation.
I think the supermarket checkout girls are the leaders in mis-use, the way they use and use bags when goods could be carried in just a single bag. This pre-occupation in packing meat etc in it’s own bag when it is already wrapped …. separate for strong smelling items like soap makes sense but wrapped meat … no way.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 7:51am
Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left

jcuknz
maybe if the meat was wrapped properly
me, I still want my meat seperate from other foods but you can pack all the meat in one bag
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 8:06am
philu

look..!..i think we should just leave busker alone..

..to his burblings/meanderings..

..he’s ‘too easy’..

sorta like going to one of those game-park enclosures..to shoot ‘game’….

(and kinda amazing tho’..how any traces of any s.o.h. seem to have been wrung out of him..eh..?

(and doncha luv the overt/mannered’politeness’..barely covering the seething rage..?..

whoar..!..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 9:17am
Lance

I know this is many comments after the raging debate earlier..
But are we seriously being told there is NO global warming, temperatures are being read wrong… WTF

Those silly old glaciers aren’t really melting, the north pole really isn’t breaking up in summer and Antarctica isn’t really breaking off huge chunks of ice. Fuck me!
We aren’t even in the man vs nature causation debate here.. it just isn’t happening?

I know.. faked photo’s, bought off officials and evil scientists are behind it all… just like the faked moon landings. Moonbat alert “Fly my lovelies, fly”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 9:35am
Political Busker

I’m better now,

I don’t know quite what came over me. Must have been a chocolate rush? Maybe I’m pregnant?

…much better..now..

thank you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 9:54am
a3catlady

Love the Intellbots and Computers, yes artifical intelligence is a good pick for the next global panic based on a few facts and well overblown by media hype (Sorry yes I did forget HIV/AIDS – how careless/callous or just damn up PC of me). Just imagine the senarios all those strange pale faced hackers (actually they are aliens living among us) working on global domination by taking over our computers, that could cause major panic as financial institutions discover multiple, multi billion dollar corruption, Health agencies discover previously unknown viral threats that are transmitted by computers, causing serious fatal illness that kills swiftly and leaves victims prostrate across their computer keyboards, children using computers have whole programs of highly secret information loaded into their brains while playing computer games, causing them to apply their now superior knowledge to the domination of any adult in eye scanning distance of them.

Actually this fantasy creation is a damn sight more fun than worrying about what Helen is up to………. ah see she is a superior alien, disenfranchising us from one another by clever use of our money and manipulation of the truth……..someone call the media…………. opps thats right they are responsible for hyping up her exaltedness to create panic among the masses so they see only Helen as the saviour of there sorry state.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 10:05am
philu

catlady..can i suggest a cuppa tea..?..and a wee lie-down..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 10:23am
Political Busker

I realise that the referendum debate may be seen as done and dusted but there remains this question in my mind for you pro-National folk that I think requires an answer. Hasn’t the Personal Assistant to John Key made some kind of ridiculous mistake?

Isn’t she doing a flop flop in a flip flip where a flip flops into a flap? Hasn’t she just made a policy statement that might cost New Zealander’s $4.9 Million. Isn’t she arguing against the postal vote yet arguing for it?

Come on folk?

getstaffed (1604) +3 Says:

June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am

Thank you for your email regarding the petition in support of a referendum on the anti-smacking laws.

National’s view is that a referendum should take place at the 2008 general election.

National’s position is quite clear on section 59, but the issue for us in this case is about democracy – the right of the people of New Zealand to be heard whether or not politicians like what they are being told.

Helen Clark has again demonstrated arrogance with her use of a technicality to not let New Zealanders’ have a say on this matter.

It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to hold a referendum separately. As an example of the potential cost, the 1995 firefighter referendum cost about $10million, and the 1997 retirement savings referendum cost about $5.1million for a postal ballot.

Thank you for your views.

Thanks
Emma Holmes
Personal Assistant to John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 11:29am
Political Busker

New Zealand general election, 1996

Got that one wrong. Wasn’t around then sorry.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 11:57am
getstaffed

Dad grounds daughter, but court ungrounds her

World Net Daily June 18, 2008
Parents beware. You may be losing the right to discipline your children. A father in Canada had grounded his daughter from going on a school trip because she disobeyed his orders to stay off the Internet. But a court has now overturned the punishment. According to Agence France-Presse, Justice Suzanne Tessier in Quebec Superior Court ordered the grounding for the 12-year-old girl lifted, prompting the father’s lawyer, Kim Beaudoin, to warn, “Parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on.”

The father had ordered the daughter, who was not identified by the report, to remain off the Internet. She didn’t, chatting on websites her father had tried to block and then posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s Internet portal. As punishment, the father refused to let her go on a scheduled school trip, so the 12-year-old went to Canada’s judicial system to get her way.

Beaudoin told AFP the punishment was for her own protection, and he is pursuing an appeal.

“She’s a child,” Beaudoin said. “At her age, children test their limits and it’s up to their parents to set boundaries.” The lawyer said she’ll try to “re-establish” parental authority and to make sure the judge’s opinion doesn’t set a precedent.

“I think most children respect their parents and would never go so far as to take them to court, but it’s clear that some would and we have to ask ourselves how far this will go,” Beaudoin said.

Court records indicated the 12-year-old’s violation of her home’s Internet rules was just one in a list of instructions that she had violated. But Tessier said the punishment was just too much. The girl reportedly had access to the courts using a court-appointed attorney who represented her in her parents’ custody dispute.

That sucks. A society is rooted when we see good parents hauled before the courts like this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 12:06pm
Brownie

Nice post, getstaffed.

It goes a long way to show that not only is NZ besieged by an PC mentality that overrules commonsense (and not Annette Kings version of “commonsense” either).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 12:16pm
jodi ihaka

Dave Mann – are you for real?

“useless fucking parasites” “backward tribalists” and “when will it all end” ????????????

Indeed, Mr Mann, if that’s your real name. My name is Jodi – I’m a researcher on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson (TV1) and I’d like to invite you onto the programme. In print you look like the perfect talent for our show. We discuss issues from a politically right and left perspective. It is a robust and fiery television debate and you are obviously not shy in expressing your opinions. Next Friday we’re talking Treaty settlements and we’re asking when will it all end? You can put your questions to the Minister of Maori Affairs. What do you think – you Mann enough?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 12:23pm
Hagues

“I think the supermarket checkout girls are the leaders in mis-use”

Are you suggesting that supermarket cherckout boys have their plastic bag use under control?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 12:42pm
Fairfacts Media

I wasn’t going to bother much more with this, but since the left and some of the media are still wetting themselves over it, here are a few points about Key’s so called gaffe.
1- Michael Cullen said as much a few years back.
2- Michael Cullen, as a former history lecturer, should have a better grasp of NZ history too. But maybe that is why he said what he said in 2005.
3- Michael Cullen is Treaty negotiations minister so should’t he also be accounted for his views on history? Where is Pita Sharples now? I saw him on TV3 having a go at John Key.
4- The governor general also echoed Keys comments on history.
5- Other historians, as the Herald notes, also back Key’s account.
6- And we have Cullen attacking Key, forgetting what he said a few years back, until a reminder forced his silence.
Hip, hip, hipocracy!

Furthermore, If the left say we can’t have Key because of his lack of history knowledge, then the USA can’t have Obama as president because he thinks Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and he claims to have visited 56 US states!

PS I see Cullen has left a fine economic legacy for National to clear up too.
And yet more corruption and incompetence today from government as well.
How does Liarbour manage it all?
Badly!

http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 2:34pm
Political Busker

Fairfacts Media

I would be interested to read the comments that Cullen made as weel, there was some reference in the House to a comment the Governor General made???

…So let’s call it even. Labour and National don’t know their/our history. Let’s even say that the newly elected Governor General is trying to swamp the every day public that it was all rosy. Now what? The three top representative bodies of New Zealand all agree that we will command the word ‘civil’. There was no disquiet. After all look how uncivil these Maori gangs are… Is that what they are/slowly collectively trying to paint; as the savages begin to get restless, and then in the future our most esteemed leaders can all say, well it was them who were nasty back then, here’s the proof just look at them now.

This domestic violence campaign is the same at the moment. Tarnish men as hard and as black as you can and by doing that then only men will get the blame and women’s violence as it may be real, and not how it is directly associated with the male’s violence, can stay quitely removed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 3:02pm
Brownie

Hi All Check this out:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4598289a6160.html

What a dick that Winston is. Obviously Immigration is just not the vote winner it used to be
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 3:10pm
Andrew W

Re getstaffed’s comment 12:06

Sometimes in this household, one parent will discipline a child when the other parent doesn’t see that the discipline is necessary. When that happens it’s still important that the punishment stands or else one parent is undermining the other in front of the children.

Nanny state in the home is a parent with all the power and no responsibility.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 4:35pm
big bruv

I had no idea that Barry Soper is such a pinko, does anybody here know just how “close” his relationship is with dear corrupt leader?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 4:37pm
dad4justice

The pinko inner circle are very secretive bb.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 4:55pm
Political Busker

Absolutely Andrew W,

And I would allege it is the principal cause of most domestic violence arguments in regards to the discipline of children. There is no cohesion between the adults. The interpretation of domestic violecne below from the Domestic Violence Act 1995 describes nothing but a race to see who gets to the telephone first. Obviously women are quicker to get to the phone to make a complaint. So if the argument gets to a shout, and one parent complains that that shout is domestic violence then the parent who makes the complaint is free from investigation:

3 Meaning of domestic violence

(1) In this Act, domestic violence, in relation to any person, means violence against that person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship.

(c) Psychological abuse, including, but not limited to,—

(v) In relation to a child, abuse of the kind set out in subsection (3) of this section.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2)(c) of this section, a person psychologically abuses a child if that person—
(a) Causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship; or
(b) Puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring;—

but the person who suffers that abuse is not regarded, for the purposes of this subsection, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear the abuse, or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 4:57pm
adc

lance

yep – a lot of people are saying the measurements are all wrong. I’m inclined to believe them given that

a) the source code (posted at that first site) for the algorithm that “combines” nearby temp station data with each other (to try and counter for known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect) would be a source of utter shame for even a novice programmer. There are identified issues with it. This is the program that massages the raw data from which we derive a gridded globally-extrapolated temperature profile – this is supposed to be the source of the “proof” that the planet is actually warming up. It’s completely dodgy.

b) they don’t agree with data from the satellites over the last couplea decades.

c) people (lots of them) have been “auditing” temp measuring stations. Highlighting many many problems with the sites which invariably cause them to read higher. E.g.
– moving sensors to rooves of buildings, next to aircon ducts etc.
– putting sensors over tarmac
– wrong classification of sites (i.e. site originally rural, becomes urban with urban sprawl, then subject to UHI)
– or generally NOT installing them according to the strict guidelines (which exist).

d) rounding. Most US sites take a rounded average of the min and max temp (in F) for the day. This introduces a +/- 0.5 degree F error immediately. This is a significant proportion of the changes in temps being claimed ( depending on the claim anything from 20% to over 100% of claimed temp change is right there).

So, there are problems with the raw data going in due to problems at the source, improper placement of sensors, rounding errors, questionable combinational processing. Doesn’t fill me with faith in the numbers that come out, but we are using these numbers to justify spending trillions of dollars to wage war on carbon.

As for other things you mention. Well, one thing that has changed is that we sure as hell LOOK at the poles a lot more than we used to. I think there have always been bits coming off. The key is how much water remains locked up in the poles. From what I understand, the sea level hasn’t really risen (nowhere near what the IPCC claim), and that although for instance at Antarctica there are chunks breaking off at the edges all the time, the buildup in the centre is outstripping that, and it is accumulating water not losing it. Don’t know about the north pole. As for glaciers, I understand there are many in the northern hemisphere that are advancing not retreating.

There are 1700-odd scientists on the IPCC. There were about 30,000 who signed a petition rejecting the hypothesis of the IPCC. A lot of geologists, meteorologists, etc – people who have studied ice-core samples, tree rings etc etc etc who all say the earth is gonna cool down, not heat up.

Even the alarmists have started hedging… note how it’s now called “Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming”. They don’t know which way it’s going, because all their predictions for temp rises have not been borne out.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 5:31pm
Political Busker

Andrew W,

(Part 2) And then after the police arrive to a complaint of shouting and the Police are not entitled to investigate the complainant (because thats what the law says), and now they have new powers of temporary protection orders: guess what! Enter section 16 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995…

16 Protection of persons other than applicant(1) Where the Court makes a protection order, that order applies for the benefit of any child of the applicant’s family.

So now what you’ve got is some guy finding out his wife just gave his brother oral sex the night before at a family party and he complains. Unfortunately he cannot contain himself and complains as soon as he walks in the door when he gets home. He’s really pissed off and the kids are in the house and he let’s rip all right – but he doesn’t hit her. She’s frightened. She brings out her phone and says she will call the cops he says (probably the most common line used by guys with protection orders) call the cops then I don’t care. So she hits the buttons 111. He still won’t hit her, but he storms out of the house.

It’s all over. His life just got blown away.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 6:40pm
Andrew W

It’s a minefield Political Busker, The law is a tool in the hands of those who know how to use it. Those who don’t know the traps get caught. “Justice” doesn’t come into it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 7:15pm
Political Busker

So we will get justice.

Paul Catton, Vince Siemer myself, Noeleen Irvine, and in recent communication, Anne Hunt are prepared to challenge the corruption. There will be others. The public should be behind us as we force those who have damaged so many countless lives to pay a direct and greater attention to what we are saying, to look at what has happened and what the remedies must be to overcome these gross injustices.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 7:20pm
Andrew W

adc,
Satellite and ground data are in agreement.

The ice build-up in the centre of the Antarctic is what the IPCC expects – warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour, leads to more polar precipitation.

You’re comparing scientific research with a petition, that’s lame.

Observed Sea level rise is in line with expectations, recent corrections to historical data by an Australian team now has SLR and sea temperature (ie the thermal expansion component) in agreement.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 7:25pm
Andrew W

At the moment my ex and I are fighting for custody of 4 kids, I’ve got them at the moment (she moved towns a year and a half ago and I got a prevent removal order) one day, one day, the courts will finally find the time to hear our case. It’ll be interesting to see if I find the anti-man bias D4J sees in the system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 7:32pm
dad4justice

Andrew W as a 7 year vet caught up in the fire fight insane litigation world of the family court I do hope the children involved are not used as weapons of war. Damaged children is not justice.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 8:05pm
Patrick Starr

Andrew W. I’ve been through a few now (probably not to the extent of D4J) but what the FC do really focus on these days is what the kids want. There used to be a blatant bias but it is not so obvious now
Is LFC appointed yet?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 9:07pm
capills_enema

Where did Dave ‘Mann’ get to? I want to see how he responds to Jodi’s invitation… Go on, Dave. Do it… Go on the telly. It is your destiny…

It would be fascinating to see what one of these frothing racist tools from Kiwiblog looks like in captivity…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 9:11pm
Andrew W

LFC has been on the case for over a year, as far as what the kids want, the two oldest (11 & 9) aren’t choosing, the two youngest (7 & 5) have a preference for mum, but that could be the Hansel & Gretel effect. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 10:46pm
Redbaiter

“It would be fascinating to see what one of these frothing racist tools from Kiwiblog looks like in captivity…”

Like he’d ever get a fair go on any TV One show. Anyway, interesting to see you’d find Dave “fascinating”. I’d be surprised if he regarded you as anything more than loathsome.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 11:10pm
Falafulu Fisi

Jodi Ihaka said..

My name is Jodi – I’m a researcher on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson (TV1) and I’d like to invite you onto the programme.

Jodi, forget about picking or trying to challenge people randomly on the internet who make comments in blogosphere. If you are really really a researcher, then look no further than Peter Cresswell from the Libertarianz who holds the same view as Dave Mann , although he doesn’t use Dave’s offensive language in his argument on his blog post on : Privatising the forests. He had appeared once in one of the Eye to Eye show before.

BTW, are you also involved as a researcher for the Close UP current affair with Mark Sainsbury?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 11:35pm
Political Busker

Andrew W,

cheers bro:

The emphasis isn’t as much on the views of the child as empowering the child. The recent models and the laws being developed are developing with the child’s state of mind as a primary criteria. The rules are being dropped although you wouldn’t think it when you concentrate on the views and directions of Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Boshier.

(I’m going to digress here deliberately). JB has an intention to retain the FC as the model for use. I think he is drunk. He wants bigger courtrooms and gowns. He wants to retain the emphasis of authority when any push turns into a shove. Individually I think he has got it wrong. A court is a court is a court. The FC is more limited with DC powers as against the stronger abilities of the higher Courts (not the DC) The Justices are able to do what they want in regards to the situation as they balance it to evidence, so they get caught on the weight of evidence and its closeness to law. Yet adversley the FC have an extraordinary power. They can simply ignore evidence. So instead of being bound to the evidence they simply waive what they do not want to know. And it shows!!!!!!! Additionally as I have now uncovered the lawyers have been free to act in comprehensively rougish behaviour (but I won’t digress that far at present).

So Andrew, when you get into the Court your dealing with an unusual beast. If the beast doesn’t like you it has no obligation tobe bound in law to like you. It can pick and you and push you, prick you prod you, steal your property and literally steal your children. In the case I am dealing with in Feilding the house has been stolen and the Court (on this rule of evidence) want to pretend that they haven’t infact ‘stolen’ the evidence (and I shouldn’t digress this far either)! The point is is that it is a personality game. It’s a game. It is an unpleasant game with a horrendous cost when it goes bottom up and when it gets to Court it always goes bottom up for someone. At present as the rule in regards to protecting the child’s state of mind is being developed – you – have options/instruments that others have not been so fortunate to use.

My suggestion, without making any statement that interferes with your relationship with you lawyer, is inquire generally whetehr your sons and daughters require any assistance with how life is at the moment. Check it out with then first. Be very discreet and do not ruffle them into thinking that anything is unusual. Make an assesment of their condition from your own experiences and then make a decision if it would be benficial for them to have (I am sure it has advanced to this at the moment) court funded counselling.

Ordinarily I am sceptical about any counselling from a regime that has no idea what the interests of the child can be and think that men are all child abusers and the child ‘must’ be protected from the real beast. But I know a little about the programme that government is putting into place and I have high respect for a part of its NZ craftmansship. YET: besides whether or not any like counselling, I am pointing at the fact. This is the focus. Lots of Karma that has been untested and if you want the Court onside as you establish what for you is an aweful period better to have a bit of kalma than not.

All the best. If you want support from any fathers I know let me know on laos_newzealand@yahoo.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 27, 2008 11:37pm
Andrew W

Thanks for that Political Busker,

My main areas of concern are that the court will be faced with two versions of events and have limited solid information on which to base its decision. In such a situation, as you allude, a judges own personal biases may ultimately be pivotal ie. I hope the judge isn’t sucked in by he lies.

Are the changes advocated by JB perhaps designed to greater formalised the process and so intimidate people out of lying?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 8:33am
Patrick Starr

Andrew W I have found (to my benefit) that the following provisions seem to override everything else;

Care of Children Act 2004 No 90 (as at 20 September 2007), Public Act
4. Child’s welfare and best interests to be paramount
(1) The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration—
o (a) in the administration and application of this Act, for example, in proceedings under this Act; and
o (b) in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of, or the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, a child.
(2) The welfare and best interests of the particular child in his or her particular circumstances must be considered.
(3) A parent’s conduct may be considered only to the extent (if any) that it is relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.
(4) For the purposes of this section, and regardless of a child’s age, it must not be presumed that placing the child in the day-to-day care of a particular person will, because of that person’s sex, best serve the welfare and best interests of the child.
(5) In determining what best serves the child’s welfare and best interests, a Court or a person must take into account—
o (a) the principle that decisions affecting the child should be made and implemented within a time frame that is appropriate to the child’s sense of time; and
o (b) any of the principles specified in section 5 that are relevant to the welfare and best interests of the particular child in his or her particular circumstances.
(6) Subsection (5) does not limit section 6 (child’s views) or prevent the Court or person from taking into account other matters relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.
(7) This section does not limit section 83 or subpart 4 of Part 2.

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 No 24 (as at 01 October 2007), Public Act
6. Welfare and interests of child or young person paramount
In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act (other than Parts 4 and 5 and sections 351 to 360), the welfare and interests of the child or young person shall be the first and paramount consideration, having regard to the principles set out in sections 5 and 13 of this Act.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 8:52am
getstaffed

Christians challenge teaching of evolution

A Christian group promoting intelligent design theory over evolution has sent teaching material to schools that critics say is religious propaganda and sloppy pseudoscience.

I thought that evolution was still a theory, or has it been conclusively proven? And I guess that if science has conclusively proven that God doesn’t exist that it’s fine to call intelligent design religious propaganda.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 9:33am
big bruv

I see dear corrupt leader has sunk to new depths.

PM forces disabled man to walk
By CHARLIE GATES – The Dominion Post | Saturday, 28 June 2008

A partially sighted Christchurch man with Parkinson’s disease was forced to struggle down the street to his car after Prime Minister Helen Clark’s security commandeered parking spaces.

Clark was “very shocked” by the incident, (utter bullshit) and police have apologised.

Clark’s security meant Elizabeth Winkworth was unable to park outside the Christchurch Town Hall to pick up her husband, Marshall Leaf, 81, after a performance by the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra on Friday night last week.

The pick-up area outside the Town Hall was cordoned and two cars were waiting for Clark. When Winkworth tried to park nearby she was twice moved on by police (on the orders of Clark)

She had to park about 200m away and help her husband to the car.

Winkworth said the walk was a struggle for her husband. “It was horrible,” she said. “I thought it was absolutely unacceptable.

“The 200m walk took about 10 minutes and was about his limit. The streets were wet and I was very worried about him slipping.”

Winkworth was frustrated that the pick-up area was cordoned long before Clark emerged from the Town Hall.

“That was one of the things that annoyed me the most. The cars were sitting there with no-one around. We could have used that area.”

Leaf said: “I personally felt a little bit upset about it. I thought, `Good heavens, is she increasing her bureaucracy?”‘

Winkworth wanted to thank the Town Hall ushers for helping her husband back to the car.

“The ushers are the most caring and helpful band of women I have ever come across,” she said.

A spokesman for Clark said she would seek an explanation from police over the incident. (meaning that some poor bastard acting on Clark’s orders is going to have to take the blame)

“The Prime Minister was very shocked to hear about what happened. She had not been aware of the incident until The Press contacted her office. (another blatant lie from Clark)

“She will be seeking an explanation from police and also requesting that such a thing does not happen again,” the spokesman said.

Canterbury police district commander Dave Cliff apologised.

“I am sorry (they) were inconvenienced by the security provided for the Prime Minister. We endeavour to minimise any difficulties to the public and I am sorry she became caught up in the security arrangements,” he said.

Clark’s security is provided by the Diplomatic Protection Squad, with assistance from local police.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 9:39am
dad4justice

Look for a massive swing from traditional geeks who vote Liarbour in the Christchurch seats as LieAnn , B Burns and Dykeson look set too get a hammering !!! The BATTLE has started.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 10:05am
Political Busker

getstaffed,

will scientists weave in water or will they only think through wine?

Good on you Andrew W, Patrick Starr and I are saying the same thing, that it is child focused, that means if you think that your focus in on the child then your playing on the same page as the Court has to play. And you’re right it is on personality. Once you know which Judge you’ve got spend a bit of time trawling through the press releases etc on the net. See if you can build a profile – not for your lawyer but for you. When you get into Court test the impressions you have made formed from the statements the Judge has made and see if the views expressed are consistent in part to what you have read. Stay calm – always. If you have an overt character type and you are pretty confident try and dampen it a bit for the proceedings. The Judge is sitting on a power that can cripple you emotionally and financially for life and the Judge has no capacity for remorse when delivering such a vicious blow to another human.

You ask me to make a public statement on the philisophical direction of the Court? Wow, what a dangerous question.

Implicitly, I believe as the law is physically constructed that every human is paramountly good. That’s what I believe as well as how we are all obliged to function. Yet the Court is no different from any other beast. Its primary purpose is one of self survival. The FC is the most widely used and accessed of all of the Courts. On August 1st of this year for the first time in the southern hemisphere, (I imagine) lawyers will be bound to accountability. Its been a long time since litigation guardians – lawyers – have been made fully accountable to the degree that anyone these days who has the brass to call themselves a litigation guardian is the only type of lawyer who would ever be accountable for the privilege (its been a very sick system for aver long time). The new legislation is another positive move in the direction of citizen focused protections from ordinary life and market highways. So the answer to your question is twofold: Yes (to the second part) because telling lies shouldn’t be allowed in a Court and lawyers now as well are responsible to protect against such lies and; Yes to the first part, on intimidation, because they must manufacture every resource in order to stay alive.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 10:06am
philu

gee ..!..bb..i called that as ‘bullshit headline of the month’

http://whoar.co.nz/2008/here-is-this-months-bullshit-headline-of-the-month-awardpm-forces-disabled-man-to-walk/

but then..you suck up/disseminate bullshit..the way other people do oxygen..

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 10:18am
dad4justice

philu, you are the best advertisement for the National Party this century.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 10:25am
goodgod

I’ve just read the most amusing dummy spit in the Herald by John Roughan over Michael Bassett’s book. He goes to many pages to disprove the theory he is the old socialist Bassett paints him as, but instead constructs a portrait of an old socialist. All the mannerisms, sneering, emotional hyperbole, general whining, it’s all there. He begins his essay by defining the label he applies to the book, the phrase Straw Man, a favorite strategy of socialists everywhere – when they’re beat. Roughan probably knows this because he chose the definition over the word itself. I guess he thought he’d fool some of the people some of the time instead. You can’t hide what you are Mr. Roughan, especially in print. Take consolation that no one with any brain power would treat a book written by politician as anything but fiction.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 10:31am
Political Busker

Philu,

give me a chance to breath man, I was writing. I don’t do it very often. Where’ your poetry?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 11:07am
Dave Mann

Jodi, thanks for the invitation. I am flattererd (I guess…? hahaha), but I don’t think I have a ‘television’ personality and I wouldn’t present my case well as I would be a bag of nerves being on the telly. I have to admit to not being a good public speaker and I’d probably sit in the corner nervously and it wouldn’t be worth your while.

But I will watch with interest. I wonder if anybody on the show will liken the established Maori grievance industry to ‘parasitism’ or the Treaty of Waitangi gravy train as ‘backward looking’? I doubt it. Mainly I am expecting earnest questions of intricate detail which will nicely mask the big question of why this country continues to focus negatively on the past.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 11:15am
dad4justice

Can I burn the treaty on your programme Jodi? Just a thought on a cold day.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 11:16am
Political Busker

Philu.. e..

I’m not sure. Who used the whistle least, do you think, the DPS or the media?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2008 11:40am
Mr Dennis

getstaffed:
Interesting quote at the bottom of that article:
“Education Ministry senior manager Mary Chamberlain said parents had a right to withdraw children from religious instruction.”

Both Creation scientists and Evolutionary scientists look at the same evidence, but both draw different conclusions. Evolutionists draw their conclusions as they base their beliefs on atheism, which says that God doesn’t exist (or sometimes agnosticism, which says that he doesn’t do anything much). As a result, life must have arisen through natural processes. Creationists base their conclusions on a belief in the existence of God.

Belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a religious position and cannot be proved scientifically. You can never prove either Evolution or Creation, it all happened in the past & can’t be tested. Both theories are ultimately religious positions. You can only choose to believe which one best seems to fit the evidence in your view, but can never prove your view.

So on that basis, can a parent withdraw their child from “religious instruction” in atheism? I’d like to see someone try this one.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 30, 2008 10:39pm
RRM

Mr Dennis;

While I think you’re right that a lot of people’s “belief” in Darwinian Evolution is probably a fairly non-understanding, non-tested kind of belief similar to religious faith, there is a big difference: For the educated **there really is** a large body of independent scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s evolution, whereas the bible has, well… the bible says so, and everyone else says the bible says so.

This doesn’t stop at least a couple of the most highly-qualified biological research type people I know from still believing in God, so I can only assume the two beliefs don’t have to be mutually exclusive!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 1, 2008 12:02am
Andrew W

Mr Dennis, evolution is not atheism, Darwin was a devout Christian, (though it’s claimed that his faith was shaken by the death of his daughter)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 1, 2008 8:27am
Mr Dennis

RPM and Andrew W:
I am quite familiar with the scientific evidence on both sides of the debate. It is a common misconception that all science completely supports evolution (a view caused by one-sided coverage in school textbooks), however the reality is quite different. Usually the evidence can be seen to support either theory based on which way you look at it, and what your presuppositions are. There is also a lot of scientific evidence people (not all Christians) bring out to claim evolution is false.

In my experience at university, the lecturers that were strongest in support of evolution were the ones that didn’t know much of the science when you talked to them about it. Those that knew the science well were far more willing to accept that there was doubt. In fact, my university genetics lecturer felt evolution was a load of rubbish based purely on his knowledge of genetics (he is an atheist by the way, so disbelieved it based on the science not on religion), and kept hassling evolutionary scientists throughout the course! I generally found that scientists were ready to accept that there was no evidence for evolution in their particular field of study, but often believed that another field of study that they were unfamiliar with had proved it. The geologists think the biologists have proved it and the biologists think the geologists have…

The scientific method works on things that are repeatable and testable. You can study stuff today scientifically. You cannot study the past scientifically, as you cannot experiment and test your theories. You can decide what you feel is most likely to have happened in the past, based on evidence today, but this is closer to forensics and philosophy than traditional physical science. You can never prove it one way or the other.

I am not trying to persuade you to change your views, I am just showing that there is debate, despite many people claiming “consensus”. Do you see the similarity to the global warming debate? Some people argue the temperature was high in the past and others disagree. The fact is that you can never prove either viewpoint, just work out which is most likely. So, just like evolution, people will be debating global warming forever.

In both these fields, dissent and debate is good. It forces people to examine the evidence more carefully and learn more. Once debate is shut down, knowledge stagnates. It doesn’t matter which side you personally believe, debate is good in science.

Andrew W:
There are many Christians today who believe evolution. They can if they like. Others disbelieve it, and they have good reason to as well. You cannot prove it either way, but can only believe what you feel is most consistent with the science and (for a Christian) the Bible. However, evolution allows origins without God. Although it is not atheism per se, it is the only feasible theory of origins that is consistent with atheism, therefore a belief in evolution is strongly held by most atheists.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 1, 2008 11:13am
Andrew W

Mr Dennis, I label myself agnostic rather than atheist because, as you point out, outside of mathematical proofs, science rarely has certainties. I would put the both AGW and Evolution at better than 90% certain, Pasteur’s germ theory (1865) I would put at better than 99.9% certain, Evolution and AGW, in my view, just need a bit more time and study for science to remove most of the legitimate doubt (for or against) that remains.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 1, 2008 5:08pm
Andrew W

I’ll add that little of the uncertainty in the wider community that exists over evolution and AGW has a scientific foundation, but rather is based in theology and political dogma.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 1, 2008 5:15pm
Mr Dennis

Andrew W: And your opinion as stated is just as valid as any other opinion, provided you recognise that it is an opinion of course. I could also add that quite a lot of the certainty over evolution and AGW also lacks a scientific foundation, but rather is based in theology and political dogma…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 1, 2008 5:50pm
Andrew W

“… quite a lot of the certainty over evolution and AGW also lacks a scientific foundation”. Within the wider community perhaps, scientists however don’t arrive at degrees of confidence by throwing darts at a board, confidence intervals are products of the data.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 1, 2008 6:34pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Heading North

Churchill »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Your Cheatin’ Ballot III: Pennsylvania Right Now
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d