Posts by dc_red
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Craig regarding your extended middle finger and reaction to "Kat's" hyperbolic discourse about a stupid country deserving a right-wing government: don't be too precious, there must be a hundred comments a day to this effect directed against Labour between KB and Your Views.
Its tiresome, unhelpful and exaggerated - but it's been the stock and trade of NZ rightwing discourse online for years.
-
I've been trying not to think too hard about it, hoping that the polls might start creeping back towards the leftish side of the spectrum. Today's polls have made me sick to the stomach...
I'm in exactly the same boat. If it pans out as dreadfully as those polls suggest, I'm going to start hanging out on Your Views talking about how I'm going to leave the country.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I could handle living under the "coalition of rednecks and rogergnomes" again....
-
...but please don't presume to do anyone a favour by 'liberating' their hoarding for them. That's rude.
But if you were going to, targeting the hoardings of property rights fetishists would have a certain poetry to it.
-
Mikaere, you've mastered the Ron Mark school of political philosophy.
-
I was thinking they look ideal for sliding down the wet grassy slopes of the domain.
One Tree Hill is steeper.... I, for one, already have that sinking feeling - without creative re-use of a Libz sign.
-
So she decided she would probably vote for ACT because "Rodney Hide is quite funny."
It made me think she was treating it like a text vote for a TV talent show.I am soooo sick of ACT supporters - can we vote them off the island(s)?
-
And how is that working out, again? I can remember when National was running the argument if that two-faced be-atch Clark ever got her skinny arse on the Treasury benches we'd all be singing the Internationale before morning tea. Know why that didn't work - because even if you weren't a fan of Labour, it was a horribly implausible argument.
Well, I can't countenance the idea that the likes of Ryall, McCully, Williamson, Brownlee, the Smiths etc. are capable of changing their spots.
Moreover, there are plenty of "commentators" around (see "Your Views", KB) who appear to believe that Clark has led an "extreme socialist government". Make of that what you will.
Anyway, I'm not assuming a damn thing before the only poll that really matters has even opened.
Well, good on for that. Though I fear the outcome is (a) very clear and (b) set in stone, by this point.
-
a protracted 8 week negotiation process.
Pfft. I'd be surprised if it takes 8 hours. Negotiations shouldn't be much more complicated than this:
John: Hey Rodders, wanna form a government?
Rodders: OK, can I bring my mate?
John: Yep, I have vacancies in Transport and Immigration anyway. Hold on, I've got Pete on the other line. How's it going Pete?
Pete: Jolly good, y'know I've just won Ohario for the 17th consecutive election. I'll be around longer than Jonathan Hunt at this rate. Speaking of old Johno, can I play Speaker?
John: Sure, would you like a Crown limosine with that?
Pete: Yep.
John: Done. I'm off to call old whatshisface, the Gov'nor General. He lives in Epsom just down the road from me anyway, perhaps I'll pay a personal visit?
-
Labour's "John Key will arse-rape your kid's puppy" strategy was dumb
Oh bollocks. Labour's strategy was to argue that Key was slippery to the point of being fundamentally untrustworthy. And given his willingness to promise (almost) anything he thinks the audience wants to hear, they're right.
Once ensconced in power, with a substantial majority (over Labour), National will abandon its centrist and left-wing promises (made to centrist and left-wing audiences) in favour of the same old crap they tried in the 90s.
For example, Tony Ryall will try to re-Uptonize the health care system.
-
The age was set at 65 in 1898 when the average mortality age was 59.
I have a distant memory of the superannuation traditionally kicking in at age 60, and being incrementally raised to 65 in the 1990s? Precisely to address the increased cost associated with longer lifespans?