The "Fuck you Winston Peters and those who voted for him" thread

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Why don't you contribute a perspective of your own instead of a questioning someone else's for a change? Unless you're chicken. lols.

I contribute perspectives of my own all the time, but usually when I do idiots like you think to themselves "wow, he has a pretty good point. I'll just ignore it and pretend he never posted it and I'll go on saying "you never contribute anything waaaaah!"

Besides, grim reefer seems to be of low intelligence so it's rather pointless discussing anything with him. I've put some serious questions to him and he can't even answer them. So why bother talking with him?

[Savage]

I would hesitate to say he is of "low intelligence" - he has points, they're just hidden behind unfortunate spelling and grammar.

[GRiM ReeFer]

CCS another cop out, insults instead of substance, your question had nothing to do with what I was explaining and you know it, troll harder empty boy,

[IoriDyson]

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Savage

I would hesitate to say he is of "low intelligence" - he has points, they're just hidden behind unfortunate spelling and grammar.

Nah, a lot of what he said was just angry ranty-rant. No substance.

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

CCS another cop out, insults instead of substance, your question had nothing to do with what I was explaining and you know it, troll harder empty boy,

It was 100% to do with what you were explaining. You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't, but it won't change the facts. Have you not noticed that so far nobody has bothered to debate you? You probably think that just proves that you're right. Everyone else can see that you're a crazy ranty guy with flaws in his argument and can't be bothered.

I wonder... can you explain - in a nutshell, without going on ranty tangents about housing markets - what your opposition is to the government making sure that youths on a benefit have their rent paid directly to the landlord?

[cEvin]

hay guys: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...oxing-underdog

[fixed_truth]

He joked that he thought the $20,000 knockout prize up for grabs in the fight between Monty Betham and Shane Cameron would be donated to his party.

That cheeky darkie!

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by IoriDyson

you sound like a cunt... again

Well I would to an ultra left steal-from-everyone-else type of person.

[IoriDyson]

not ultra left at all and i work. who am i stealing from?

[Golden Teapot]

Possibly nobody?

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by CCS

stuff

one idea at a time then,

I don't think policies can be drafted in isolation,

1)Addressing each issue without investigating how it affects the interrelated and overlapping fields can yield unwanted results.

agree or disagree?

[CCS]

*sigh*

Don't patronise me. Just make your point.

[Vrtigo]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Well I would to an ultra left steal-from-everyone-else type of person.

you sound like a cunt, but not because of that.

you have a better-than-the-next attitude, act like your opinion should be worth its weight in gold, and belittle people with differing opinions for their "lack of intelligence" while silently implying that you hold greater intelligence than 99% of the population. but even this doesnt make you a cunt - just a run of the mill forum troll.

you sound like a cunt because you do all of this while being oblivious to actual discussion, or actual facts and figures. dont like that the people you loathe are having a say? throw some absolute batshit statements into the mix and turn the attention back on yourself. this, combined with the above, makes you sound like a cunt.

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by CCS

*sigh*

Don't patronise me. Just make your point.

can you explain - in a nutshell,

I just did and you provided an example. would you like me to explain it?

Your post above is an example of neither expressing support or opposition to an idea, but rather simply stating that you understand the idea, the idea being in this case that:

a policy can yield results that may not be initially apparent.

which was the point of my original post, National selling an idea and people buying it without taking into consideration the wider context. I did not say whether I opposed or supported the youth card, your straw-man argument.

I wasn't actually being patronizing, you implied that I rant, then tried to get me to defend a straw-man argument, and now get upset when I do as you ask, you don't want a debate, just an argument, an opportunity to be abusive, your posts are deceitful and mean, dress them up as humour if you like, you're only fooling yourself.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Vrtigo

you...

I think that every single one of your assertions about me, beyond those relating to your own viewpoint are both factually incorrect and easily demonstrated to be so.

I like the label though, and especially so given those here who seem to favor it.

I suppose it's also mildly entertaining to me that you're engaging in some of the behavior that you have incorrectly attributed to me. It's so hard to disassociate yourself from seeing your own behaviors, motivations, and prejudices as explinations for others isn't it?

[CCS]

As I thought, you can't summarise your post in a nutshell. In fact, that last post was more ranty nuttiness.

You seem to think that paying rent directly to landlords will somehow 'bolster' the housing market. What you mean by 'bolster', I don't know because it could be taken several ways and you're unable to explain your position.

I'll assume for the sake of argument that you think this policy will drive up rent or property prices. It won't. This only applies to those on a benefit and even then it's the youth benefit. That's 16 and 17 year olds. Not all teens on a youth benefit will be seeking a place of their own away from their parents. This is such a tiny tiny number that it is a thimble in an ocean when it comes to the property market. All that happens is that the rent is paid directly to the landlord instead of being given to the tenant and hoping that they do pay it to the landlord themselves instead of buying booze, weed or playstation games. So it doesn't increase the number of tenants in the market, it doesn't even guarantee those on a youth benefit even find somewhere to stay or guarantee tenants to landlords. It simply means that the landlords get the money each week from the tenant and won't be forced to evict beneficiaries for non-payment. It will have no effect at all on the 'property investment market', as you call it.

The thing is, you've made a claim but failed utterly to back it up. You talk about the 'interrelated and overlapping fields' but cannot explain this. You've given little thought to the factors involved here beyond a very generalised theory and your rant seems motivated more by your dislike of National than the workings of the policy. When I ask you to explain your reasoning you just have another rant and sulk that I'm 'mean and deceitful'.

Pull your socks up, eh?

[Vrtigo]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

NO U

[Baal]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

NZ is a socialist country. This is why our right-wing party has to position itself to the quite far left to succeed.

There are a lot of people in NZ who: hate to see others succeed, demand they have a standard of living beyond their own means, and who have no moral issue with stealing money from successful people to make up for their own inadequacies. These people congregate under the labour and green umbrellas and crowd out the others sheltering there. And, when a used the term "a lot" I mean that this is the basic aspiration of perhaps 60% of the population to be like this, and with such a low hurdle so many do succeed in achieving membership of this sad club.

Moari and Mana voters are very different. They're good wholesome people and very like National voters save for having enjoyed a different pathway through life with which comes a different political bias. In actual fact though the differences in political position can be quite small as is seen with the priori positions on welfare of National and Maori.

labour is regrettably the natural government for NZ given the massive number of deadbeats that have been bred here and who aspire to be spoon fed by those capable of holding a spoon. Another three or four decades of appropriate immigration will fix this but for now it's nigh on inevitable that the n+2 government will be a labour one.

For now the rats have jumped ship to save themselves but as soon as the hole is plugged they'll all be back on board with their aim of destroying the successful of this country.

/thread

I honestly can't see why this would wind anyone up. It's more or less right on the button.

[GM]

The self destruct button hopefully.

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by CCS

nicely worded insults
Pull your socks up, eh?

So

The youth card, which Paula Bennett called highly intrusive and would rob individuals of their freedom of choice and only applies to
hardship assistance and special needs grants, 16 -17 yr olds and 18 yr old DPB recipients
will not be extended to include anyone else?


Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is refusing to rule out extending the Government's newly proposed welfare payment card to adult beneficiaries.

Nice you can make that call, are you John Key?

[CCS]

I never said any of that. Stay on target.

What I'm referring to was the link to the 3 News article that you linked to.

[GRiM ReeFer]

on target? you have been attacking the example I used to make a point yet avoiding the point I was making, but I do appreciate a civil post.

so if you agree that individual policies should be formed to comply and aid an overall goal, what is nationals overall goal?

Did voters make decisions based on individual policies or overriding party philosophy

youth card? make youths responsible by removing responsibility, sounds nanny state not right wing don't you think?

If you are middle income and you are thinking of investing you weight up the worst case scenarios, Low priced housing= low income tenants, the worst case scenario is chasing tenants for unpaid rent, who would be the riskiest group? ( to avoid assuming you know that income restricts the choice of housing you can afford to invest in, I'll state it here, entry level investment by middle income investors will be restricted by their ability to service a loan so low cost housing is the obvious choice)

My opinion is that bringing in a payment card that removes the worse cast scenario benefits property investment by middle income workers, to the detriment of lower income workers (to avoid assumptions, lower income workers may have voted for national in the belief that national want investment to be directed at the sharemarket and away from "non-productive" property investment, thereby lowering demand, lower demand equaling lower prices)

Now since Assumption is the word for the day, I have assumed that the youth card was renamed to payment card for a reason, and I also assume that National will use the same "will not rule out" weasel wording as they did with GST and open cast mining, national supporters will no doubt swallow the "changing landscape, moving with the times" justification later on when the changes are made.

( to avoid assumptions the Oxford dictionary definition of Bolster is "support or strengthen" , so in a recession the expectations are housing prices will decline, hence bolster would be a slowing of that decline, sorry if my wording assumed you had an understanding of the greater context)

So my opinion is based on assumptions and opinion that the National parties individual policies are designed to sell a product that will not meet the buyers expectations.

Several here have assumed that voters act only in self interest, and parties they don't support do the same, what's the title of this thread? but refuse to entertain the possibility that those they support could do the same, blind faith

A smart person should be most critical of those they follow, otherwise they will end up feeling betrayed and bitter, anyone here fit that description?

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Someone's gonna need to translate that for me.

Is he saying that Low Income earners won't invest in property because people on benefits will pay rent on time?

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Someone's gonna need to translate that for me.

Is he saying that Low Income earners won't invest in property because people on benefits will pay rent on time?

I'll play nice and assume your not trolling or a complete idiot.

low income earners buy family homes.

middle and high income earners buy homes and investment properties.

2 different markets competing for the same product.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Um, righto?

[Rince]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...se-of-tea-tape

let the Winnie Show begin

[cyc]

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

I'll play nice and assume your not trolling or a complete idiot.

Grim Reefer, you really need to take some English lessons and learn how to express yourself properly. Not much that you're saying in this thread is making sense to anybody. You can assume that everyone else is stupid but that's almost certainly a wrong assumption.

[cyc]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...e-won-t-be-shy

HEY GUYS, LET'S GET STARTED WITH SOME COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING AND BURQA BANNING!

[MrTTTT]

burqa banning is retarded But i'd have no qualms with compulsory military trainings - what is so facepalm about that?

[crocos]

While I feel there is SOME merit in compulsory military training (eg: Generally higher fitness levels across the country lowering obesity-related health issues), it's dramatically contrasted against the fact that this tiny little dot in the Pacific really doesn't have any USE for that many military trained personnel.

The burqa ban? He's dreaming.

Look forward to see what other comedic pearls come out of WF.

[pxpx]

Looking forward to the court jesters (NZF) distracting everyone for the next 3 years.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by crocos

eg: Generally higher fitness levels across the country lowering obesity-related health issues

Neither of those would occur; at least not in the population aged over 30.

I'm also not convinced that teaching people to blindly follow orders to go off and kill others in the name of "king and country" is a good idea on any level.

Winston is just making sure he'll get the very old vote. It's not so uncommon to believe that a pathway through life that one takes, having been good, would be good for others. Especially when the reality of fifty years ago is forgotten.

[Chrono]

Hey GT, I have a totally off topic question for you. Is the email in your profile legit? If not can you please drop me a line on mine? Cheers mate.

[Ab]

The post mortem after the election has been interesting on the radio this week.

The number of people who called to say they didn't realise that voting for Winston would mean other people would get in has been teeth-grindingly extraordinary.

"Sooooo," I've been asking, "when you ticked New Zealand First as your party of choice, what did you want to happen?"

"I just wanted Winston to get in to keep the Government honest," they reply.

"And what about the other members of New Zealand First? Did you know who was on the party list?"

"No," they replied as one. "We just thought we'd be getting Winston."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10770688

THESE PEOPLE VOTED TO KEEP MMP

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Chrono

Hey GT, I have a totally off topic question for you. Is the email in your profile legit?

Yep - should work... ?

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10770688

THESE PEOPLE VOTED TO KEEP MMP

AND NATIONAL.

[Ab]

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10770688

THESE PEOPLE VOTED TO KEEP MMP

Hahah, that's hilarious.

Parliament is gonna be a lol a minute this term I think.

[fidgit]

So really what we need is a quicky exam you have to pass, maybe when you enrol to vote, that demonstrates you understand what you're doing.

We're big on not disenfranchising anyone in NZ, but I reckon if ever there was a chance to stop people that don't understand what they're doing from voting, it's going to be the next 3 years of NZF.

It's not like MMP is hard to understand :/ (especially when compared to STV).

[blynk]

Originally Posted by chubby

AND NATIONAL.

Really? How do you figure that?