Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Press Play > Budget, in reply to Russell Brown,
Intriguing the was the TV3 coverage has basically ignored the speech and gone straight to reactions
Bill English is pretty much a dullard - If you look at a budget being the high point of highlighting future policy direction - then this one is going nowhere with nothing much.
-
Hard News: The Voyage of a Lifetime, in reply to merc,
Eventually, and it look like a very long eventually, the only way is up.
-
Hard News: The Editorial Image, in reply to Kumara Republic,
The Tom Scott carton made me chortle - I don't have a problem with free contraception being made available to people on welfare or anyone else for that matter. I do think it is a non policy - a big nothing.
The Nats’ recent policy initiatives and press releases – contraception for benefs, the reform of the labour laws (the change to collective bargaining Shits me), class sizes and assessment of teachers, student loans, the lastest Shane Jones thang, Key calling Shearer a hypocrite etc etc are a timed diversion aimed at putting some smoke in the air prior to the budget following which it will be apparent the economy nor the Chch rebuild have been well managed.
This govt is to my mind the most incompetent for decades – I have an impression that the ministers are so slight weight and lack leadership that they contract out at the earliest opportunity.
Political/ editorial cartoons cut to point effectively - my fav cartoonist is the minimalist Bromhead:
http://www.sanderson.co.nz/Artist/164/Peter-Bromhead/PageIndex/1/ProductId/7699.aspx
The Muldoon years were cartoonist nirvana.
-
Today we got a letter from the ever Groovy John Banks MP for Epsom - he has addressed it to us both and given us one household questionaire - some one should fill him in "Women Have the Vote" and often have different views from that of their partners and they can drive cars - as scary as all that may sound to some - it is a reality.
-
OnPoint: To Whom it May Concern, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Research shows that most Studly Dudes who have tried Camels prefer women.
-
Legal Beagle: Sanctuary!, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Just not a fan of arguments based on people's appearances, is all.
Perhaps derision isn’t really based on appearances but the exhibition of and expression of dominant personalty traits shared between political figures and comedic actors (clowns).
So saying Mallard is a prime candidate for the Red Wiggle is offensive - offensive to Wiggles fans.
You would probably be offended if I suggested that based on appearances the Wiggles could be restructured to create a NZ Political Reality TV Show where there next crop of Wiggles consists pf representatives from the NZ Political Spectrum - in wide screen Technicolor - and offered the following groups of players:
The Blue Wiggles - National
The Red Wiggles - Labour
The Green Wiggles - The Greens
The Black & White Minstrel Wiggles – NZ First on the basis that black is white and white is black when Winston says so except on the rear occasions when Winston says black is black and white is white.
The Yellow Wiggle - Act - who are really the Bedlam wing of the National Party and are a deeply crazy and hazy blue.
The Brown Wiggles - The Maori Party - who are really the National Party with benefits and are really Blue Wiggles
The Real Brown Wiggle - The Mana Party
The Chamelon Wiggle - United Future - ideology right but fiscally left or is that fiscally right and ideologically left I can never figure it out – there isn't a colour for playing it safe while supporting gambling and other social ills.
The White Non Wiggles – The Conservative Party.So not wanting to cause offence, I won’t suggest any of that.
But I digress.............
-
Legal Beagle: Sanctuary!, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I 'm pretty sure Ms Slocombe would resent the comparison.
-
I prefer he original mix - though laughed my face off at the dance routine - thought it was Billy T.
-
Legal Beagle: Sanctuary!, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
The Red Wiggles Vs Ms Slocombe and Friends
-
Legal Beagle: Sanctuary!, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
The geezer's denial of having never being served and his seeing me remove the notice of hearing and then place it back in his letter box on the morning of the first hearing was not considered credible by the Judge.
I asked if it was in order to hand him the papers and it was confirmed - the judge then timetabled matters for his reply - at that stage I had filed all the prehearing interlocs and the pre hearing conference had taken place - which he didn't attend - he claimed that I had also removed this notice from .his letter box and that these papers had also not been served - which they had.
The allowance at the "hearing" afforded me to pass a full set of all papers filed to that date was granted to ensure that geezer had all papers and could go off and attend to filing a statement of defence. The Court wanted him in the interests of natural justice to put up a defence and to do that he had to have in his possession the full set of papers. It also put an end to his saying he never rec'd the guff.
At the end of it all we, some 3 years down the track, following a hearing that lasted a full day, received a judgment in our favour.
You can see why people can be tempted to take matters into their own hands – perhaps a tag team wrestling match would best solve Collins case.