NZ Labour Party slips deeper and deeper into paranoid crazymode

[Ab]

From the latest Council of Trade Unions campaign.

I trust we can all put 1 and 1 and 1 together.

[GM]

That advertising is more often than not targeted to demographics where the message is more relevant?

[CCS]

I'd rather those people didn't vote.

"Aw John Keys is a DICk eh bru! Not fukken voting for him, gonna vote for HONE!"

[BoyWonder]

Hey John Key, Monique thinks you're a dick...

[Farmer Joe]

Some good questions and answers on the radionz site: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2011/policies. Well they would be interesting if National hadn't refused to answer ALL the questions. What dicks.

[Pimp-X]

Dah de dah, personality voting!

[Deadmeat]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

It's far better to lock them up than to run a social experiment of allowing these people to cause harm within the community. And why? Because the experiment has been run before and it is known what the outcome will be and the better outcome is exclusion.

In 1987, Gendreau and Ross published a survey of over 200 studies on rehabilitation conducted from 1981-1987, many of which used mathematical methodology not available to the earlier researchers. Gendreau and Ross concluded:
“Our reviews of the research literature demonstrated that successful rehabilitation of offenders had been accomplished, and continued to be accomplished quite well. … Reductions in recidivism, sometimes as substantial as 80 percent, had been achieved in a considerable number of well-controlled studies. Effective programs were conducted in a variety of community and (to a lesser degree) institutional settings, involving pre- delinquents, hard-core adolescent offenders, and recidivistic adult offenders, including criminal heroin addicts. The results of these programs were not short-lived; follow-up periods of at least two years were not uncommon, and several studies reported even longer follow-ups.” (Gendreau and Ross 1987).

But why lower the crime rate when we can invest in prisons now right? We shouldn't look at criminals as people to be rehabilitated, we should look at them as resources to be exploited for profit.

[Deadmeat]

Originally Posted by CCS

I'd rather those people didn't vote.

"Aw John Keys is a DICk eh bru! Not fukken voting for him, gonna vote for HONE!"

Wouldn't that just serve to cancel out the "Oh that Mr Key is such a nice man" vote? If we're talking about dropping voters who vote for stupid reasons...

[CCS]

I'd like to cancel out your vote!

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by CCS

I'd rather those people didn't vote.

"Aw John Keys is a DICk eh bru! Not fukken voting for him, gonna vote for HONE!"

Well, if you're going to remove Mana voters, it's only fair we also remove ACT voters. Maybe have another tea party in Newmarket? That seemed to do the trick last time.

Personally, I'd vote Mana if it meant John Minto got into Parliament, just to watch Cameron Slater's head explode.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

But why lower the crime rate when we can invest in prisons now right? We shouldn't look at criminals as people to be rehabilitated, we should look at them as resources to be exploited for profit.

More abortions will lower the crime rate - it takes ten years to start to have an effect. In the interim lock up the criminals.

[ilk]

Isn't it more cost effective just to put a bullet in them?

[chubby]

the optimal gt result is not necessarily a cost "effective" one.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Council of Trade Union Facebook ad:



So... if we vote for CTU i.e. Labour, we are keeping CTU rich and us poor? OK GOT IT!

[CCS]

Lols, sarcasm fail.

[CCS]

Nice. Yeah. Real nice.

[pxpx]

Under National, you will die before your babys first birthday!!!!


























Actually, what we meant was you'll be at work on the day that your child turns 1.

[CCS]

'Cos National will either kill you or stop you taking a day off on your kid's birthday!

[A Corpse]

Is that actually authorised by Labour or some underhanded way to make them look like cunts? Surely even Labour aren't that retarded. Surely...

[CCS]

Yes. Or at least, it has an authorisation statement bearing the name of the Labour party secretary.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Classy.

Wonder if ACT is going to send around a couple of unemployed Maori youths to beat the shit out of you, steal your wallet, and stamp 'Authorised by The Don' on your forehead with their steel-caps.

[CCS]

[Spink]

BUT THE THUMB IS ON UP

[CCS]

GODDAMN SPERG

[TD]

That is the thumb of overseas investors buying our television. Clare Curran will put a stop to that thumb.

OWN NEW ZEALAND telly

[CCS]

That is the thumb of Clare Curran showing her finger is on the pulse.

[BoyWonder]

Originally Posted by Spink

BUT THE THUMB IS ON UP

Maybe the remote is around the wrong way.

[Spoon1]

Originally Posted by Spink

BUT THE THUMB IS ON UP

Errr, no it's not.

[CCS]

I changed the picture. HA HA HA!

[BoyWonder]

Another case of Labour preaching to the converted, but with added own-goal.

Now there are beneficiaries creeped out by Labour's use of information to personally address these flyers.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by CCS

Nice. Yeah. Real nice.

That's, ahhh... pretty fucking dodgy.

[CCS]

Not to mention very very desperate. Grant Robertson seems to think it's alright though.

Labour campaign spokesman Grant Robertson said the letter was supposed to be hard-hitting in response to a hard-hitting policy.

"The only thing that's threatening here is the policy itself. It will force woman back out to work. We believe it's a very negative policy," he said.

Using the electoral roll to search for occupation and gender, Labour had sent the flyers to female beneficiaries, he said.

Oh cool. Yeah. The end justifies the means, really. I mean, I the policy does. The policy justifies the targeted mailing with threatening language.

[CCS]

[Ab]

[Evoke]

Originally Posted by Ab

That's, ahhh... pretty fucking dodgy.

not to mention misinformed?

national policy says "Those receiving Sole Parent Support will be expected to look for part-time work when their child is five years old and full-time when their child reaches the age of 14."

where does it say anything about 1 year olds??

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Evoke

not to mention misinformed?

national policy says "Those receiving Sole Parent Support will be expected to look for part-time work when their child is five years old and full-time when their child reaches the age of 14."

where does it say anything about 1 year olds??

From memory the "1 year old" part comes into play if said parent is already on a benefit for having children at the time of the next child's arrival*. From my perspective it looks to be an attempt to curb the potential "have another child to stay on the benefit for another 14 years" scenario.

*I stand to be corrected on the details.

[CCS]

UNDER NATIONAL
JOHN KEY WILL
PUT HIS FINGER
IN YOUR
BOTTOM

[pxpx]

^ Voted!

[cyc]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10767838

This sort of rubbish, combined with the stunt of the Greens in defacing the billboards, makes the choice rather clear this election: vote left and support blatant lawlessness and get a dose of their rabid supporters for enjoyment also.

I won't be abstaining in the upcoming elections any more.

[Baxton]

Originally Posted by cyc

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10767838

I won't be abstaining in the upcoming elections any more.

I was also considering abstaing until now.