Open Forum – Wednesday

9 March 2016

Facebook: NZ politics/media+

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is to encourage you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some basic ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised.

Leave a comment

117 Comments

  1. Oliver

     /  9th March 2016

    I’m not against people who have money, who like money, who go crazy for money

    “But in politics we have to separate them. We have to run people who love money too much out of politics, they’re a danger in politics… People who love money should dedicate themselves to industry, to commerce, to multiply wealth. But politics is the struggle for the happiness of all.”

    Rich people make bad representatives of poor people

    “They tend to view the world through their perspective, which is the perspective of money. Even when operating with good intentions, the perspective they have of the world, of life, of their decisions, is informed by wealth. If we live in a world where the majority is supposed to govern, we have to try to root our perspective in that of the majority, not the minority.”

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  9th March 2016

      Depends on whether you want to be governed by successful people or unsuccessful people, Oliver. Successful people don’t need your money. Unsuccessful people do. When you live in a rich neighborhood you don’t get robbed. When you live in a poor one you do.

      Reply
      • Tacit in that of course is that you don’t have to have a lot of money to be a successful person.

        Among reasons for being less likely to be robbed while living in a rich neighbourhood might be the security systems you have in place, the fact that when you holiday in Vienna you get a house sitter in, you live in a gated community or you have more than one rottweiler.
        However, while being at ease with those precautions the guy over the back fence you invested $328,000 may have walked across your Welcome mat and ‘lost’ it.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  9th March 2016

          You are far more likely to find the rottweiler in the poor areas, duperez. Anyone can lose money and unfortunately Mum & Dad investors seem to be the hardest hit by the scammers.

          No, you don’t have to have a lot of money to be a successful person but chances are you have enough and are just as different from the majority in very many ways as a wealthy person.

          Of course the enormous blind spot in Oliver’s quote is that successful people don’t love money although they may earn it. They love doing what they do and making good things happen.

          Reply
      • Joe Bloggs

         /  9th March 2016

        When you live in a rich neighborhood you don’t get robbed. When you live in a poor one you do.

        What’s your source for that pearl of wisdom, Alan?

        It’s obviously not the interactive burglary map that’s currently up on the NZ Horrid website, because if you drill down into that map it become patently obvious that burglaries happen in rich and poor suburbs alike.
        http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/new-zealand-burglary-map

        And it’s certainly not the white collar crime stats or people like Alan Hawkins, Roger Giles, Grant Griffiths, John Russell, Marcus MacDonald, Rob Roest, or Rob Petricevic, to mention but a very few of the good old boys who’ve made millions by ripping off people in rich and poor suburbs alike.
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3598227

        Or are you really insinuating that if you like in a rich neighbourhood you don’t get robbed, just perhaps because you’re the robber baron.

        And that’s before I even start on what being successful really means.

        Reply
        • Jeeves

           /  9th March 2016

          People who can’t understand success, and can’t achieve it, are sometimes in this position because they’ve put so much effort into collecting money and wealth and land and prosperity their whole lives, under the extremely narrow view that this is success.
          They have been fooled by the baying of the market- they are the ultimate in gullible consumers.

          They hope wearing Nikes make you faster.

          And while there is lots to be enjoyed with money,- options, choices, environment, material luxuries- most of the allure diminishes when you sit in your Audi and wonder what happened to your marriage, or why your children aren’t as close to you as you’d like. Or why your friends aren’t as permanent as other peoples’. Why you don’t get the same enjoyment out of life as people who seem to have much less wealth- but much more happiness. How people with less have so much more- all now unattainable, because what they have in money they lack now in time.

          And all these miserable poor wretches have left is to keep baying with the crowd “Success! Success!”

          When they should have been screaming “Money! Money! Misery and Money!

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  9th March 2016

            The big fly in your ointment, Jeeves, is that rich people are far more likely to be happily married than poor. But keep trying. You’ll find something to hang your bitterness on somewhere.

            Reply
            • Ian

               /  9th March 2016

              The only skerrick of real truth in that statement is that rich people are more likely to be married, other than that the problems that can beset a marriage exist outside wealth. Alcoholism, drug addiction, infidelity, gambling, cruelty, violence – rich and poor alike.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th March 2016

              Far more likely to be married, and more likely to say married. Divorcing is one of the quickest ways to get poor or never get wealthy.

            • Ian

               /  9th March 2016

              Looks like I won that one.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              I have come into contact with a few of NZ’s richest people although I am not one, alas, and they don’t seem to be miserable at all. They enjoy the nice things that their money buys, they donate very generously without making a big hoohah about it, and have a very pleasant life indeed. I also think that if they lost it all tomorrow, it wouldn’t make them miserable. They would either start again or take the view that it was nice while it lasted. One cheerfully describes himself as a rich prick 🙂 But the rich prick is a generous giver and an unobtrusive one, and deserves his lifestyle which is not of the look-at-me-I’m-rich-Dotcom type. It’s one that I could happily share, not because it’s a lavish one but because it’s such a pleasant one. I can’t say why because that could identify him.

            • Ian

               /  9th March 2016

              Did anyone say anything about miserable?
              Or did you just need to tell everyone you have a rich friend?

            • Ian, I have a problem with your supplied email address. It’s an invalid address and the company who owns the domain name has no knowledge of the name used. Explanation?

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              I didn’t say that this person was a friend,only that I knew him, and Jeeves ended his post about rich people with ‘Money and misery !’ . I don’t claim that everyone with whom I come into contact is a friend, although I do have rich friends. It would be as foolish to dislike a rich person because they’re rich as it would be to like them for this reason.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              There’d be little point in putting on airs and claiming to have someone as a friend because I happen to be acquainted with someone if I didn’t name them, surely.

            • Ian

               /  9th March 2016

              “and the company who owns the domain name has no knowledge of the name used.”

              You contacted a business to snoop on a reader?
              You should probably explain.

              For my part, Only a fool puts a legitimate email address into a non-secure website. Where’s your https?

            • Most people here are happy to identify themselves privately. It’s not a “non-secure website”.

              So you’re admitting using a company domain name that you have no connection to?

              So if someone didn’t like something you said here, hacked the site (if it’s as insecure as you claim), obtained the email address and gave the domain name to a disreputable website that then attacked the business you would be fine with that?

              Or more realistically if I was legally required to identify you for something posted illegally and that implicated an innocent party? That’s serious.

              Notice to everyone else – don’t use a domain name to identify yourself or to avoid identifying yourself that you are not authorised to use.

            • Ian

               /  9th March 2016

              Have a look at your address bar, do you see a padlock symbol, does the address start with https?
              No it doesn’t, so when someone puts an email address in that box it gets transmitted unencoded in plain text so anyone can get it as it whizzes past.

              (changed it to gmail)

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th March 2016

              Sure Ian, if you count Lefty votes as your measure rather than the truth. Meanwhile the rich are laughing at you all, all the way to their holiday houses.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  10th March 2016

              Mr Ian-if you’re as worried as all that, why do you keep coming back here ? If this site requires a legitimate email address, and you’re not prepared to give one-don’t come here. Didn’t you give one when you were here under another name ? You aren’t actually deceiving anyone, I imagine.

            • Jeeves

               /  10th March 2016

              And the whopping big fly in yours AW, is that nowhere did I mention ‘Rich’ people.

              I’m not suggesting that the 1% are miserable, its the 30% clamouring to join them without any hope of doing so that I was talking about.

              But of course you have to be able to read without hate to see what is actually being said.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  10th March 2016

              You may not have used the word, but that was what you meant when you talked about money and what it could buy, surely.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  10th March 2016

              It was your comment that was hate-based, not mine, Jeeves. And your image of the rich broken marriage I refuted.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  9th March 2016

          You didn’t read this then, Joe?

          “New data shows the areas hardest hit by burglaries are the most deprived parts of the country, and research shows it is the people living there who are committing the crimes.”

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hitting-home-burglaries-in-nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503997&objectid=11601649

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  9th March 2016

            Ouch! Alan has taken a beating. You can still save face by admitting that you’re wrong.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th March 2016

              Dream on, Oliver, and keep oiling your random noise machine.

          • Joe Bloggs

             /  9th March 2016

            So because white collar crime doesn’t fit your argument you ignore it, and pretend it doesn’t exist. Nice tactic. Must remember that.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th March 2016

              Try not to be absurd, Joe. I just demonstrated your statement was crap and you try to slide away under the nearest rock,

              You claimed: “It’s obviously not the interactive burglary map that’s currently up on the NZ Horrid website, because if you drill down into that map it become patently obvious that burglaries happen in rich and poor suburbs alike.”

              – completely wrong.

        • kittycatkin

           /  9th March 2016

          I have heard that if someone’s sole motivation is to make money, they probably won’t, and in my observation that seems to be true. The people I know who have made a lot of money have made it doing something that they like doing anyway. It’s good of Oliver to say that he doesn’t mind rich people, I’m sure that they’ll be very flattered.

          Reply
    • Timoti

       /  9th March 2016

      You’re coming from the ” life aint fair perspective” which is common amongst socialists. In fact its the mainspring of their philosophy. Without it socialism ceases to exist.

      Of course, socialists are right…life ain’t fair. Just ask the disabled, And rick folk who have lost their fortunes.

      Thing is Oliver, the wealthy don’t view the world in terms of money, they view the world in terms of ” projects” That’s why most wealthy folk create. Its a mindset, not a given.

      When the so-called majority are given a modicum of power…..well, that’s best left to Kiwi Guy to show you in pictorial form. Rooting our perspective in the majority leads to Tyranny perpetrated on the individual. The very people the majority was meant to uplift.

      But we are lucky in Aotearoa, we have a process called an election. Hell, even the majority can participate. Even taking list MPs into account- the only way a government comes to power is by support from people of the majority grouping.. And this election process was voted on by the majority who favoured MMP.

      As an aside, Oliver. Could you please name current politicians who would fit your description above.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  9th March 2016

        I can dismiss your comment in one sentence. And by the way you won’t enjoy this.

        “wealthy don’t view the world in terms of money, they view the world in terms of ” projects” That’s why most wealthy folk create. Its a mindset, not a given.”

        If “wealthy” people view the word in terms of projects (and not money) then surely they would be content doing these “projects” for minimum wage. Or would they???????????????????????????????

        Reply
        • Timoti

           /  9th March 2016

          “If “wealthy” people view the word in terms of projects (and not money) then surely they would be content doing these “projects” for minimum wage. Or would they???????????????????????????????”

          Of course they wouldn’t. They are creating, they call the tune. People will either accept that or tell them to F-OFF. Its a democracy.. Don’t forget many wealthy people started off in menial jobs at the minimum wage. And don’t forget the quiet giving to charity. Don’t let envy eat your soul.

          Very poor point,Ollie. You will have to do better or I won’t waste time on you.

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  9th March 2016

            “Of course they wouldn’t. They are creating”

            Yes creating money. So you agree it’s all about the money.

            “Don’t forget many wealthy people started off in menial jobs at the minimum wage.”

            They didn’t stay in menial jobs because there wasn’t enough money to satisfy their hunger to be rich. So money motivated them to move on.

            “And don’t forget the quiet giving to charity”

            Yes because they feel guilty for ripping everybody off. Survivors guilt. They knowno in order for them to be rich a lot of people will have to be poor.

            Reply
            • Timoti

               /  9th March 2016

              i won’t waste your time again, Ollie.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              I can’t remember who said that to generalise is to be an idiot, but it’s true. It’s impossible to have a discussion with someone who generalises, especially about things that they obviously know very little about.

            • Ian

               /  9th March 2016

              And pedants too.

            • Timoti

               /  9th March 2016

              Yep, too true, KittyKat.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              I can’t see why someone who’s provided hundreds of people with work would feel guilty . The workers are never going to be paid the same as the business owner earns, that would be impossible. But I wouldn’t feel guilty if I were Stephen Tindall or anyone else like him.Survivor’s guilt is another thing entirely.

      • Oliver

         /  9th March 2016

        It cost money to when an election. The party that has the biggest budget always wins. That’s a fact. It got nothing to do with being the most suitable for the job. We have an election but our choices are limited, because elections are based around money, if you don’t have it then you don’t have a chance. Trump is a perfect example of money wins elections.

        Life isn’t fair because corporations rule our lives. And corporations aren’t concerned with people’s welfare, they only care about money and power.

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  9th March 2016

          You should stop enabling those nasty corporations by refusing to use their technology which you’re using to spread nonsense on the internet. Win for everyone!

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  9th March 2016

            Actually the tax payer paid for the research and development of this technology. Corporations just profited from it, without paying back the people who made it happen. People developed technology – corporations sell it back to us.

            Reply
            • Iceberg

               /  9th March 2016

              Right, so what’s your position on using the technology provided by Corporates? Does corporate rhyme with hypocrite?

        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  9th March 2016

          Oliver: “Trump is a perfect example of money wins elections”

          Kim Dotcom & Colin Craig are perfect example in this country of money NOT winning elections……….

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  9th March 2016

            Yes but they didn’t have sufficient time to campaign. They left it late. It’s also comes down to how you use that money. National used their money to wage a one side dirty politics war. And I don’t believe the Internet party had as much money as National. So close be yet so far.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  9th March 2016

              I think you’ll find that when comparing ‘money spent per vote gained’ Dotcom was well on top with Colin Craig second – and Colin Craig has had years of campaigning at general election level so he had sufficient time – your arguments (as per normal) do not stack up.

            • Oliver

               /  9th March 2016

              Dotcom isn’t an MP. Money doesn’t buy votes it buys propaganda which is used to gain votes. So this thing about money spent per vote is irrelevant since I explained that the Internet party left it late and that National had more money to spend on propaganda.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  9th March 2016

              You still make no sense Oliver – in the 2014 election the Greens/Labour combined spent more money than National but received far less votes overall and didn’t form govt – so they had more money for propaganda purposes but obviously that made no difference?

              The problem is you are being far too simplistic in saying ‘money buys elections’ when (in this country at least) having a stable govt and a sound economy are just as (if not) more important. The left need to wake up and address their real problems (lack of leadership, infighting, lack of talent, lack of direction) rather than blaming ‘lack of money’ or ‘dumb, mindless voters’.

            • Oliver

               /  9th March 2016

              “in the 2014 election the Greens/Labour combined spent more money than National but received far less votes overall and didn’t form govt – so they had more money for propaganda purposes ”

              Proof?? Or are you expressing an opinion? Please verify so I can make a judgement of whether or not I should ignore you comment.

            • Oliver

               /  9th March 2016

              So National spent more money than the Internet party. That’s what the tables says. Right? In fact they spent more than twice as much overall. Which proves my point that the party with the most money wins. In this case is was clearly National who spent the most money, and they won.

              I don’t get what you’re trying to say PDB. This money spent per vote gained means absolutely nothing. And don’t disprove my statement. You could use that data to say the more money you spend the more value you get in terms of votes.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  9th March 2016

              *face palm* Not really worth talking to you Oliver…..but one last attempt to get through;

              *If you are arguing money buys elections then ‘$ spent per vote gained’ means EVERYTHING. Put it another way Dotcom spent 2/5 of what National spent overall so if money was the major factor in elections Mana should have got roughly 2/5 of Nationals vote. Guess what they didn’t – instead of getting 452,600 votes under that scenario they only got 34,040 votes. Obviously money was only part of the equation when getting votes.
              *In your latest reply you purposely ignored mentioning the question you asked when I gave you the link (because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis): that is Greens/Labour together spent more than National at the last election but didn’t win the election – in fact they got far less votes for that larger spend – that disproves your theory straight away.

            • Oliver

               /  9th March 2016

              Why are you putting the Greens and Labour together? They are two separate parties. Of course if you combine the money spent by multiple parties eventually you will have a figure that exceeds Nationals individual figure. But if you compare the parties individually as you should, National has spent more.

            • Oliver

               /  9th March 2016

              Mana campaigned late so had less time to spread propaganda. So you can’t compare them to National unless you take into consideration time spent campaigning.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  9th March 2016

              Going around in circles Oliver – Colin Craig spent close to 2 million last election, and he has been in politics a while so no problem with a ‘late start’ and he still trailed well behind Labour, Greens and NZL first (in terms of votes) who all individually spent far less then him. Thus proving again that money doesn’t necessarily equate to votes.

              Yes, individually National spent the most and won the election but to say it was only due to money is silly considering other things like John Key’s popularity, a disorganized Labour party, dislike of Cunliffe, party policies, the Dotcom/Mana madness, a solid economy etc

              Helen Clark once won an election simply by promising interest free student loans.

            • Oliver

               /  9th March 2016

              “Yes, individually National spent the most and won the election”

              So you admit that I’m right…. That’s all I needed to hear.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              As I understand it, nobody can spend more than so much per capita of the electorate. I remember that Kenneth Wang inadvertently made himself very unpopular with a National candidate by including her name on his posters-which meant that she was obliged by law to pay for them from her election campaign budget.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              If anyone campaigns late, that’s their lookout and their problem. What do you want to happen, Oliver ? Should nobody be able to begin campaigning in case someone decides to stand at the last minute ? If someone wants to do so, it’s up to them to organise themselves like everyone else.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th March 2016

              In Kenneth Wang’s case, it was unintentional-he thought that he was doing the National candidate a good turn by giving them free publicity on his posters !

              I can’t see any solution to the problem of late-comers to an election. They surely know that they have a handicap by starting their campaign a long time after everyone else has started theirs. It’s like someone deciding to run a marathon hours after the race has begun.

            • Ian

               /  9th March 2016

              You’re off on tangents again Kitty.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  10th March 2016

              No, mrMan, it’s called an analogy, I compared someone coming late to an election to someone beginning a marathon late. This is not the same as a tangent, mrMan.

  2. You have put in what appear to be quotes. If you post quotes you must at least state a source and should also provide a link to them if the quotes were obtained online.

    Reply
  3. I’m not going to allow any mention of or link to a couple of certain websites at this stage.

    They are blatantly lying and have escalated dirt to a new level, and I don’t want any links to them or assistance to publicising what is probably illegal activity.

    So any references to those sites will be removed.

    Reply
    • Ian

       /  9th March 2016

      You may wish to expand on that, no one can stop linking to a list of sites and illegal activities if they don’t know what they are. (I’m guessing KG knows).

      Reply
  4. Klik Bate

     /  9th March 2016

    “Rich Chinese who invest cash for Visas, could be allowing ‘dirty money’ to enter the country….”

    There’s no way this would be allowed to happen here of course.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-07/trump-tower-financed-by-rich-chinese-who-invest-cash-for-visas

    Reply
  5. insider

     /  9th March 2016

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1603/S00148/flag-referendum-referral-to-the-police.htm

    Interesting police referrals. Hope it’s not those people who’ve said on public address, standard and dimpost that they were allowing their kids to fill their forms. Would be a legal travesty if it were.

    Reply
    • Oliver

       /  9th March 2016

      I seen a guy on trade me who was auctioning his vote.

      Reply
      • Dougal

         /  9th March 2016

        Yes, what a clever chap exposing himself like that…probably another “it’s all John Key and National’s fault” type. Clever way to get some free time out with Bubba and the boys 🙂

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  9th March 2016

          Another genius wrote to the Listener saying how he cheated the system by voting in every polling booth, obviously not realising that this would be discovered when the votes were counted so his vote would be invalid and it would be as if he hadn’t voted at all.Even if this wasn’t so, it would only make a difference if the margin was tiny, even if he went to every booth in the country. Another bright spark wrote in to say that he paid his children to vote a particular way. It pays to advertise.

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  9th March 2016

          Sounds more like an ACT candidate or someone else who believes in free markets to me 8-).

          Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  9th March 2016

            I doubt that. I have yet to meet an Act supporter who’s that stupid-and anyone who tells the whole country that he’s doing this is very stupid.

            The Trade Me vote seller was a protestor against the flag referendum who said that the money raised would go to a charity that was missing out because of the referendum. He didn’t manage to sell his vote-who’d be daft enough to buy it ? The margin is most unlikely to be that narrow. I don’t know if there’d be a severe penalty for the buyer if they were caught, but it would seem that nobody wanted a single extra vote badly enough to risk finding out. Apart from anything else, the vote would be invalid if the person was caught.

            Reply
  6. Dougal

     /  9th March 2016

    Timoti has his own post over WO. I guess there must be something interesting about the tumbleweeds here?
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/03/take-the-quiz-and-learn-the-secrets-of-whaleoils-success-cough/

    Reply
    • Oliver

       /  9th March 2016

      I reckon I could out manipulate Slater. If only he would have the balls to let me post on that blog.

      Reply
      • Dougal

         /  9th March 2016

        I think you underestimate Mr Slater Oliver. Not only would he shoot your arguments full of holes but in the process make you feel good about it. Remember, if you try to wrestle with a pig you will get dirty, and the pig will like it (figuratively speaking).

        Reply
        • Oliver

           /  9th March 2016

          I did argue with him. And when I had him against the ropes he would block me. So obviously I intimidated him.

          Reply
          • Dougal

             /  9th March 2016

            Perhaps in your mind Oliver yes. Like I said, don’t underestimate him and he may have blocked you because he couldn’t be bothered, he had his fun, let you think you’d won and then showed you the door..See how that works?

            Reply
    • Timoti

       /  9th March 2016

      Damn, my teacher said I would eventually be good for something.

      See how easy manipulation is, Dougy? I think we can take it Cam lucked out on how to
      present his blog. It has good Feng Shui. Lets see if he lucks out on keeping it going and manipulating the collar around Belts neck.

      Reply
      • Dougal

         /  9th March 2016

        What an excellent job you did there Timoti 🙂 I note Kevin had his lips firmly pressed on Cam’s arse in that post. If you’re reading this Kevin, nice work mate..now go wash your lips! 🙂

        Reply
  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  9th March 2016

    Trump wins Mississipi and Michigan. Clinton trails in Michigan.

    Reply
    • Timoti

       /  9th March 2016

      Excellent.

      Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  9th March 2016

      Trump has a massive lead in Florida in most polls.

      Hopefully this holds as he faces a massive anti Trump media blitz by The Establishment this week.

      Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  9th March 2016

      Its a long shot that Trump would make it to the presidency but if [deleted – this sort of language is unneccesary and unwelcome here. PG] it may be possible..

      Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  9th March 2016

      Reply
      • Dougal

         /  9th March 2016

        With her staffer now granted immunity it’s certainly likely.

        Reply
    • Oliver

       /  9th March 2016

      Is this what triggers world war 3? or is this how the US empire collapses. Better start stockpiling guns and ammo.

      Reply
      • kiwi guy

         /  9th March 2016

        MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

        Reply
        • Dougal

           /  9th March 2016

          I can smell the cordite from here!

          Reply
        • Oliver

           /  9th March 2016

          The Roman empire had a similar meme, be for they collapsed.

          Reply
        • Nelly Smickers

           /  9th March 2016

          MAKE AMERICA GRATE AGAIN!! 😀 😀 😀

          Reply
        • Good one Nelly! 😀 This Song ‘grates’ in several ways. I like it!!! Are you promoting your husband’s musical career again? 😉

          Speaking of guns … BREAKING NEWS – 3 Police Officers injured in a shooting in Bay of Plenty. Two in Whakatane Hospital, one transfered to Rotorua. A very serious police operation is underway as a result apparently …

          Best shell out some more guns and ammo to the Inbred Family Fiores’ here in NZ eh KG? That’ll make us all safe from firearms like people in the good ole’ United States of America are? Yipeee and Yahooooo! I wanna be like a Yankee!

          Reply
          • Nelly Smickers

             /  9th March 2016

            I nu that would be a bit’a yu Parti 😀

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  9th March 2016

            They’ll never be able to get the guns off the citizenry. High numbers of gun-related deaths will just forever be one of those things that characterises US society.

            Reply
        • Timoti

           /  9th March 2016

          I see one of the little boys has a lunch box pistol. That’s for when a wetback kid says:
          “Hey, four eyes, give me your food.” The lovely little Conservative tike will reply: F-off of and eat this amigo….. and fires one straight between the eyes.

          Its right to be Right. Thanks Kiwi Guy.

          Reply
  8. kiwi guy

     /  9th March 2016

    Wow Pete, I guess there is no point me making a joke that for US voters the Democrats and the Republican Establishment are a big Progressive dildo and a bulk container of lube, respectively.

    Reply
  9. Our Daily Flag – According to John Cox, New Zealand Flag Institute, in a letter to the editor Northland Age yesterday, “… although the Citizen’s Referenda Act 1993 imposes a $50,000 spending limit on advertising during a referendum, there is no such limit for these referenda … Spending limits are a normal part of referenda in NZ, designed to ensure a democratic process and provide a level playing field”

    Reply
  10. Alan Wilkinson

     /  9th March 2016

    Clinton loses Michigan to Sanders.

    Reply
    • Yes, interesting, she was predicted to win easily. But she cleaned up in Mississippi and edged Sanders on delegates for the day.

      Reply
  11. Robby

     /  9th March 2016

    Where is the music tonight??? Perhaps everyone is too busy arguing about the flag, and the translation of voting instructions??? 😉

    Reply
    • Here’s mine for all the Hindi voters … there might be appropriateness questions since I don’t understand the lingo …

      Reply
      • Robby

         /  9th March 2016

        Don’t understand a word of it either PZ, but it has a great rhythm 🙂

        Reply
  12. Good one from ‘Weird Al’ Robby. I hate it when the batteries fail on the ‘lectric toothbrush and I have to scrub manually! Sticking with my theme tonight of not understanding a word of what’s being said, here’s the great MAN himself. No-one can fail to understand great music –

    Go Carlos!

    Reply
    • OMG! That’s me done … I can forget anything else now, its just Carlos after Carlos …
      Never mind the quality feel the Q U A L I T Y and RIP … THE … BAG !!!!

      Now words in this to NOT UNDERSTAND !!! Special man Carlos … Special place in my life.

      Reply
    • Robby

       /  9th March 2016

      Another one from ‘Mr Al’, seems appropriate with all the talk about ‘spooks’….

      Reply
  13. Pickled Possum

     /  9th March 2016

    Because

    also Gramatik … Stairway to hip hop heaven … is a different sound from the rest

    Reply
    • @ Possum – I thought, Nahhhh, it can’t be dangerous just to look at the cover of what Possum has posted while I sip my tea …? How wrong I was!!! I managed to turn aside and spray it on the computer carry case rather than the keyboard! You are dangerously funny sometimes do you know!? ‘Daily Morning Music’ indeed … !!!
      Interesting band though … if they are a band, are they …? They may be a ‘me’, a mere ‘I’?

      @ Robby – While my guitar gently speaks?
      Hey yous both, here’s some more ear candy from Carlos and Michelle Branch, with, dare I say it, a bit more eye candy thrown in … THE MEN … I mean the MEN !!!! Like with Bollywood, you know …?

      Gonna listen to some more Gramatik too Possum …

      Reply
      • Pickled Possum

         /  9th March 2016

        Gramatik … Solvenia guy who put his music up for free … he is into DIGITAL FREEDOM!
        This young lad is really really good. He Loves music

        Reply
        • Robby

           /  10th March 2016

          That kid is amazing PP, and loving every minute of it. Playing it and feeling it simultaneously, while making it look easy……
          And Gramatik have cemented a place on my playlist for tomorrow.
          Anyhow, I GTG, many thanks to the usual suspects for some great debate, and great music……

          Reply
    • Robby

       /  9th March 2016

      Am loving that bass PP 🙂 Will have to share this one with my eldest son tomorrow

      Reply
  14. Pickled Possum

     /  9th March 2016

    Carlos and Satriani …. Mean players!

    Reply
    • Dustin Tomsen is pretty amazing all right Possum! Hope he goes far.
      A few words for Joe Satriani, who I’ve never really encountered, how’s FAR FRIGGIN’ OUT AND FRACKIN’ AMAZING !!!!
      This was inevitable I suppose, considering the ear and eye candy pathway I’ve been on this evening … Different … 5 million views! There’s another version of ‘Game of Love’ been watched by 9.5 million people … An unusual take on the old classic –

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: