Super Greedies List

[Patrick FitzGerald]

The annual list of shame of the billionaire super greedies who have
accumulated far more than they can ever spend or need has now been
published.


Patrick

[Pooh]

"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:m85aj8lbmi88nfb3a...@4ax.com...

If there was a list of jealous whingers your name would top it Pratsie.

Pooh

[Liberty]

How many people are employed directly or in directly by these successful people ?
Who would generate the bulk of Paye, GST, company Tax, etc
You really are an ungrateful little whiner Patrick

[Fred]

They should be forced to retire immediately, fire all employees, close
down any businesses, stop their evil practices. Higher paid entertainers
likes of Jagger, Paul simon, McArtney should be forbidden to give public
performances. Chairmen of large public companies should hand over all
their duties to the office junior. Lets stamp out the evil carry on of
providing goods and services that people actually want - it's causing
these greedy pricks to make a profit.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:29:02 +1300, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>They should be forced to retire immediately, fire all employees, close
>down any businesses, stop their evil practices. Higher paid entertainers
>likes of Jagger, Paul simon, McArtney should be forbidden to give public
>performances. Chairmen of large public companies should hand over all
>their duties to the office junior. Lets stamp out the evil carry on of
>providing goods and services that people actually want - it's causing
>these greedy pricks to make a profit.

For your information Fred none of the people you name are on the list
of shame, aka the greed list of billionaires who have accumulated far
more wealth than they need or can spend.



Patrick

[BR]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:44:28 +1300, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com>
wrote:

>
>

What would you do with a billion dollars in the unlikely event you
ever got control of it Patrick?

Bill.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:47:52 +1300, BR <bugg...@spammer.com> wrote:


>What would you do with a billion dollars in the unlikely event you
>ever got control of it Patrick?
>

Keep a modest amount and give the rest away to those that need help.


Patrick

[Allistar]

A lot of people already do that.

A lot of people who are not rich do that.

Would you want to enforce it? I.e. confiscate the property from those that
are not voluntarily sharing it?
--
A.

[misanthropic_curmudgeon]

And your 'solution', patrick-two-face, is to take it off them!

[Pooh]

"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message

news:v7ncj8tug8b54erob...@4ax.com...

Just how much do you consider would be a 'modest' amount Patrick? Don't go
all bashful on us please, but for once be open with us.

Pooh

[richard...@libertarianz.org.nz]

> >What would you do with a billion dollars in the unlikely event you
>
> >ever got control of it Patrick?
>

> Keep a modest amount and give the rest away to those that need help.

Until you had actually given it away though, by your own description you would be a member of the hall of shame of billionaire greedies who had accumulated far more than they could ever spend.

And you would want to pay maximum tax on the "modest" amount that you selfishly kept for yourself. Although why did you say you would keep some rather than giving it all away? Isn't that just greedy - after all, there are something like six billion people in the world. A true socialist would only keep what they consider their fair share after redistribution, i.e. 16 cents.

[richard...@libertarianz.org.nz]

Heaven forbid anyone should work hard, employ others, accumulate capital and invest it.

Patrick, do you think the billionaires keep all their money under the mattress? Or do you think they might invest some of it as a hedge against inflation, thus creating more jobs?

[Fred]

On 5/03/2013 10:44 a.m., Patrick FitzGerald wrote:
>
>

I don't know any billionaires, but I know quite a few reasonably
comfortable people - in the 5 to 10 million range. The things they all
have in common are a sense of fun and humour, and a generous nature. So
what is it that once they progress from multi-millionaire to billionaire
makes them greedy? Beats me. Perhaps you could explain this Patrick. I
do know a few greedy people. I even have relatives who are greedy. The
things they have in common are a whining, snivelling nature, and they're
all broke.

[Allistar]

"Greed" is wanting access to something that someone else has earned. Wanting
to keep the fruits of your own labour is not greed.
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:12:24 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>Fred wrote:

>
>"Greed" is wanting access to something that someone else has earned. Wanting
>to keep the fruits of your own labour is not greed.

That is why the employees of some of the super greedies deserve far
higher wages than what they get now.


Patrick

[Pooh]

"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kh85k8$8f1$1...@dont-email.me...

Sounds just like Pratdick the hypocritical marxist muppet to a 'T'.

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote in message
news:kh6j6t$785$1...@dont-email.me...

I thought he was suffering from cryptorchidism but obviously that wasn't
true. He's just a coward without the balls to answer an embarassing
question.

Pratdicks 'modest' amount kept is obviously 99% of it.

Pooh

[george152]

On 07/03/13 10:09, Pooh wrote:

> I thought he was suffering from cryptorchidism but obviously that wasn't
> true. He's just a coward without the balls to answer an embarassing
> question.

He didn't start out with cryptorchidism.
In fact he was cut out to fill his position

[Allistar]

They deserve what they have consensually agreed to. Nothing more, nothing
less.
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

It is waste of time replying to the mephitic, fimicolous POO. POO is
like a dung beetle, carrying around his excrement globe of crass
ignorance, and scavenging on illiteracy , mangled
grammar and deep ignorance of the rules of lexicography.

POO has a low level of comprehension and is incapable of understanding
any of the issues that underlie posts here.

Patrick

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:48:53 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>
>They deserve what they have consensually agreed to. Nothing more, nothing
>less.

In a lot of cases there are no consensual agreements




Patrick

[Allistar]

Who would agreed to trade with someone else without an agreement in place?
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:03:43 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>
>Who would agreed to trade with someone else without an agreement in place?

Those who have no valid choice.


Patrick

[Allistar]

That's nonsense. Everyone has a choice. You're saying that people would work
for someone without knowing how much they'll get paid?
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:31:58 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>You're saying that people would work
>for someone without knowing how much they'll get paid?

NO I am not saying that

[Allistar]

You said "in a lot of cases there are no consensual agreements".

Since there are a "lot" of such cases, can you provide an example of one?
--
A.

[Pooh]

"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message

news:fagfj85ut6opno5t8...@4ax.com...

Whereas your just a cowardly loser using a spellchecker (when you remember)
to give you a false sense of superiority Pratdick.

So useless you havn't got the balls to answer a polite question. You're so
thick you think you're the only one in here with any ideas. The fact the
ideas are at the level of a four year old completely eludes you Pratdick.

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message

news:nagfj8le23cn4ruho...@4ax.com...

Give us some figures Patsy. Or are we supposed to believe you actualy have
some evidence to back up your wild guesses?

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message

news:bopfj81h74qenpa3g...@4ax.com...

As usual Pratsie you're not saying very much. What's the problem? Realised
just how deep the hole is your digging for yourself at last? Or just don't
have the balls to make a stand using facts instead of the produce of your
withered and rotting brain?

Pooh

[Fred]

If they deserved them they would soon find someone who would pay them that.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:00:08 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>
>Since there are a "lot" of such cases, can you provide an example of one?

When the only wages on offer are minimal and the alternative is
starvation.


Patrick

[Allistar]

That has nothing to do with your assertion that "in a lot of cases there are
no consensual agreements".

Can you provide an example of where there is no consensual agreement between
employee and employer?
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:15:01 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>That has nothing to do with your assertion that "in a lot of cases there are
>no consensual agreements".
>

Yes it has .

It has everything to do with lack of consensual agreement.


Patrick

[Allistar]

Can you show me a case of where there is no consensual agreement between

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:01:37 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>
>Can you show me a case of where there is no consensual agreement between
>employee and employer?

????

[Allistar]

You said there were lots of cases where there was no consensual agreement in
place. I'm asking you to show an example of that.
--
A.

[richard...@libertarianz.org.nz]

On Friday, March 8, 2013 3:05:01 PM UTC+13, Allistar wrote:

> You said there were lots of cases where there was no consensual agreement in
>
> place. I'm asking you to show an example of that.

Come on Patrick, put up or shut up. Stop playing dumb. Someone has called your bluff; now produce an example for Allistar or admit you can't find one.

[richard...@libertarianz.org.nz]

Still waiting... Patrick.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:48:16 -0700 (PDT),
richard...@libertarianz.org.nz wrote:


>
>Still waiting... Patrick.

I have forgotten what the question was!!

Patrick

[Allistar]

You said there were lots of cases where there was no consensual agreement

in place. Can you show an example of that.
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:56:59 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>
>You said there were lots of cases where there was no consensual agreement
>in place. Can you show an example of that.

In some third world countries people either take a job at low wages
or they starve. No consensual agreement in that.


Iatric

[Allistar]

We're talking about New Zealand. Can yo show an exmaple of an employee in
New Zealand that has no consensual agreement with their employer?
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:08 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:


>

>We're talking about New Zealand.

You might be but my assertion made at the time of the billionaires
greedy list had global scope.


Patrick

[Allistar]

Do you think there are any New Zealanders that work without a consensual
agreement?
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:58:20 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>
>Do you think there are any New Zealanders that work without a consensual
>agreement?

Probably not but their agreement to pay and conditions will be
impaired by the disastrous economic policies of the nasty nats.


Patrick

[Allistar]

Yet you agree they have voluntarily consented to that pay and conditions.
--
A.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:56:59 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

I'm not sure what the 'cases' were supposed to be about, but it is
well known that 'consent' does not necessarily mean that 'agreements'
were made on the basis of free negotiation - whether that is in
employment, divorce settlements, or a wide range of contracts. For
example I object to the high increases in electricity costs, but with
a cartel of companies conspiring to take turns at increasing "market
prices", I am left with little choice if I wish to light my home. If I
want a job, I have to accept that National's high unemployment policy
has led to employers knowing that they can impose terms at will. For
most employees or contractors, rates of pay are a question of either
accepting the rate advised by the employer or leaving employment.

Taht situation does ot owever always apply - if you are selling a home
for example estate agents are no longer able to insist on their scale
fees - many are sold with lower negotiated fees. So what was the
question again, Allistar?

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:08 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

That depends on what you mean by consent, Allistar. When the
alternative to consent is cessation of employment, there is little
balance in many wage negotiations. Why do you think so many moving to
Australia cite wages and other employment conditions as a reason for
fleeing New Zealand with its high unemployment policies?

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:46 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

I haven't seen any such agreement. "Voluntary" is a relative term,
Allistar. Do you mean they sign under coercion with the alternative
being no job and little hope of any other job?

[Allistar]

Rich80105 wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:56:59 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Patrick FitzGerald wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:48:16 -0700 (PDT),
>>> richard...@libertarianz.org.nz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Still waiting... Patrick.
>>>
>>> I have forgotten what the question was!!
>>
>>You said there were lots of cases where there was no consensual agreement
>>in place. Can you show an example of that.
>
> I'm not sure what the 'cases' were supposed to be about, but it is
> well known that 'consent' does not necessarily mean that 'agreements'
> were made on the basis of free negotiation - whether that is in
> employment, divorce settlements, or a wide range of contracts. For
> example I object to the high increases in electricity costs, but with
> a cartel of companies conspiring to take turns at increasing "market
> prices", I am left with little choice if I wish to light my home.

You still consent to the terms of the contract. You may not like them, but
you consent to them.

> If I
> want a job, I have to accept that National's high unemployment policy
> has led to employers knowing that they can impose terms at will. For
> most employees or contractors, rates of pay are a question of either
> accepting the rate advised by the employer or leaving employment.

That's far from my experience.

But regardless, people voluntarily consent.

> Taht situation does ot owever always apply

Eh?

> - if you are selling a home
> for example estate agents are no longer able to insist on their scale
> fees - many are sold with lower negotiated fees. So what was the
> question again, Allistar?

The question which employees in NZ didn't consent to their terms of
employment.
--
A.

[Allistar]

Rich80105 wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:08 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Patrick FitzGerald wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:56:59 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You said there were lots of cases where there was no consensual
>>>>agreement in place. Can you show an example of that.
>>>
>>>
>>> In some third world countries people either take a job at low wages
>>> or they starve. No consensual agreement in that.
>>
>>We're talking about New Zealand. Can yo show an exmaple of an employee in
>>New Zealand that has no consensual agreement with their employer?
>
> That depends on what you mean by consent, Allistar.

"Consent" is not an ambiguous term.

> When the
> alternative to consent is cessation of employment, there is little
> balance in many wage negotiations.

Only if there was only one employer. But that's not the case.

> Why do you think so many moving to
> Australia cite wages and other employment conditions as a reason for
> fleeing New Zealand with its high unemployment policies?

Because they see the grass as being greener over the Tasman. And good on
them too.

NZ doesn't have high unemployment policies.
--
A.

[Allistar]

Rich80105 wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:46 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Patrick FitzGerald wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:58:20 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you think there are any New Zealanders that work without a consensual
>>>>agreement?
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably not but their agreement to pay and conditions will be
>>> impaired by the disastrous economic policies of the nasty nats.
>>
>>Yet you agree they have voluntarily consented to that pay and conditions.
>
> I haven't seen any such agreement. "Voluntary" is a relative term,
> Allistar.

No it's not.

> Do you mean they sign under coercion with the alternative
> being no job and little hope of any other job?

That's not coersion by the prospective employer. You could argue that it's
coersion by nature, but not by any individuals. The employer is offering
people a trade agreement - one they either agree to or they don't. But don't
mistake the fact that the employers still voluntarily consented.
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:46 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:


>

>Yet you agree they have voluntarily consented to that pay and conditions.

Only because they have no better alternative.

Patrick

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:39:28 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Thre is a difference between effectively forced consent and frelly
given agreement. There was a front page story recently about some
employees who were told that they were now to become contractors, with
costs effectively forcing them to receive lower net pay than the
minimum wage. The only reason some were considering remaining working
for that employer was because of the lack of alternative employment.
Do you regard that as freely given consent?

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:40:53 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Allistar, you appear to have a closed mind, and to ignore or
deliberately avoid many news reports contrary to your assertions. Your
wilful ignorance appears ireedeemable and profound. There does not
seem much point in responding to your posts - it is unlikely to better
inform either of us.

[Allistar]

"Effectively forced"? No employers are forcing people to be employed by
them.

> There was a front page story recently about some
> employees who were told that they were now to become contractors, with
> costs effectively forcing them to receive lower net pay than the
> minimum wage.

You make it sound like those employes didn't have a choice to seek
employment elsewhere.

> The only reason some were considering remaining working
> for that employer was because of the lack of alternative employment.
> Do you regard that as freely given consent?

Did their initial employment contract allow for this to happen? If so then
yes it is freely given consent. If not then they have a case to take up
against their employer.
--
A.

[Allistar]

Never-the-less, voluntary consent was given.

If no alternatives were available then they should be thankful to that
employer for agreeing to trade with them.
--
A.

[Patrick FitzGerald]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:25:49 +1300, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>If no alternatives were available then they should be thankful to that
>employer for agreeing to trade with them.

What has trade got to do with this topic?

It is wages and conditions that are the issue.


Patrick

[Allistar]

The employer/employee relationship is one of trade.

My point is that those employees have consented to the terms of their
agreement.
--
A.

[Pooh]

"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:frosj8pf6rbifo4nl...@4ax.com...

Exactly which economical policies are those Pratdick?

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message

news:32atj8hecqperogi2...@4ax.com...

Nice snip Pratsie. Up to your usual low standards.

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Rich80105" <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pbtsj8de461hep48d...@4ax.com...

High unemployment policies? Your talking shit as usual and ignoring the
facts of an international monetary crisis and Australias larger economy.
Pretty typical of halfwitted marxists like you.

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Rich80105" <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:egvsj8lsim1htp0kn...@4ax.com...

You accuse Allistar of all your own faults Dickie. I may not agree with
everything Allistar posts but he's a damn sight more honest than you'll ever
be.

Pooh

[JohnO]

On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 13:27:34 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

> That depends on what you mean by consent, Allistar. When the
> alternative to consent is cessation of employment, there is little
> balance in many wage negotiations. Why do you think so many moving to
> Australia cite wages and other employment conditions as a reason for
> fleeing New Zealand with its high unemployment policies?

Many of them are going to work in industries related to mining. You know, dig it, drill it mine it? What you and your idiot mates are all against happening here. Labour and Greens are the most anti employment and anti opportunity parties in New Zealand.

[victor]

Hows that coal mining going ?

[JohnO]

There's plenty of other wealth and jobs to be had digging and drilling for other resources.

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:52:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Show us a reference for that made-up statistic, Pooh. I suspect many
more are going to other jobs in Sydney, Melbourne and various towns in
Queensland.

The reality os that despite large numbers going overseas, and
therefoer not counting in NZ unemployment statistics, we still have
high unemployment rate, that stubbornly persists because of poor
government decision making. Rhetoric is not the same as results pooh -
National don;t understand the difference either - their falure to do
anything about teh appalling number of unemployed - and particualrly
youth unemployment, will be a major factor in their losing the next
election. Even Peter Dunne is distancing himself from them -
ironically for their dishonesty - another of the major reasons they
are failing.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:05:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>

We have a large number of unused resources - all those unemployed
youth. A few of the millions wasted by National on big pay on the
Solid Energy debacle spent on investing in getting those young [people
into work would certainly be worthwhile. The problem is that National
have only contempt for investing in the development of people . . .

[JohnO]

Airy fairy content-less hand-waving from Dickbot.

Fact: Youth unemployment spiked immediately after Labour abolished youth rates. Unemployed youth have Labour to blame.

Fact: Labour/Green oppose the exploration, mineral mining and fossil fuel leading to those employment opportunities going to same in Australia.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>

Can you give a reference to that?

>Fact: Labour/Green oppose the exploration, mineral mining and fossil fuel leading to those employment opportunities going to same in Australia.

How has mining gone in NZ since November 2008, JohnO?
And how has emigration to Asutralia gone in that time?

[JohnO]

On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 15:49:04 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 08:02:53 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

<snip>

>
> >Fact: Youth unemployment spiked immediately after Labour abolished youth rates. Unemployed youth have Labour to blame.
>
>
>
> Can you give a reference to that?

Of course: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2010/02/youth-rates-revisited.html

> >Fact: Labour/Green oppose the exploration, mineral mining and fossil fuel leading to those employment opportunities going to same in Australia.
>
> How has mining gone in NZ since November 2008, JohnO?

It has suffered a lack of growth, due to Labour/Green incited public hysteria against new mining exploration.

> And how has emigration to Asutralia gone in that time?

Great. The Australians don't obstruct new minerals exploration like we do in NZ.

Thanks for reinforcing my point, dumbass.

[Liberty]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:12:22 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 15:49:04 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 08:02:53 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> >Fact: Youth unemployment spiked immediately after Labour abolished youth rates. Unemployed youth have Labour to blame.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you give a reference to that?
>
>Of course: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2010/02/youth-rates-revisited.html

It looks like labour stuffed up.

[Pooh]

"Rich80105" <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:4fvtj8t9ihmmsbo8d...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:52:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 13:27:34 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by consent, Allistar. When the
>>> alternative to consent is cessation of employment, there is little
>>> balance in many wage negotiations. Why do you think so many moving to
>>> Australia cite wages and other employment conditions as a reason for
>>> fleeing New Zealand with its high unemployment policies?
>>
>>Many of them are going to work in industries related to mining. You know,
>>dig it, drill it mine it? What you and your idiot mates are all against
>>happening here. Labour and Greens are the most anti employment and anti
>>opportunity parties in New Zealand.
>
> Show us a reference for that made-up statistic, Pooh. I suspect many
> more are going to other jobs in Sydney, Melbourne and various towns in
> Queensland.
>

What a stupid useless f%^king marxist muppet you are Dickhead. You don't
even know who your being thrashed by yet again. Get a grip sweetie.

> The reality os that despite large numbers going overseas, and
> therefoer not counting in NZ unemployment statistics, we still have
> high unemployment rate, that stubbornly persists because of poor
> government decision making. Rhetoric is not the same as results pooh -
> National don;t understand the difference either - their falure to do
> anything about teh appalling number of unemployed - and particualrly
> youth unemployment, will be a major factor in their losing the next
> election. Even Peter Dunne is distancing himself from them -
> ironically for their dishonesty - another of the major reasons they
> are failing.
>

The reality Dickie is that New Zealanders have been fleeing overseas in ever
increasing numbers since about 1840 and the numbers have been breaking
records on an annual basis since 1999 (something your far to dense to
understand or accept).

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
news:c4uvj8ptfdc08vhub...@4ax.com...

Labour looked after youth just like it did for those on minimum wage.
Unemployment started shooting up after the stupid marxist muppets increased
the minimum wage by 25%. It made about as much sense as buying back Kiwirail
which needed serious money invested in it during an international recession.
Vote Labour folk, but only if you want to see the workers and taxpayers
screw so Labour/Green can buy houses for their retirement fund.

Pooh

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Rich80105" <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:86qvj8p9sbo9p144u...@4ax.com...

Why? Can't you remember how you gave us the cite that gave us the info
Dickie?

>>Fact: Labour/Green oppose the exploration, mineral mining and fossil fuel
>>leading to those employment opportunities going to same in Australia.
>
> How has mining gone in NZ since November 2008, JohnO?
> And how has emigration to Asutralia gone in that time?

Much the same as both have done since 1999 Dickhead. Badly and in ever
increasing numbers.

Pooh

[Fred]

On 5/03/2013 10:44 a.m., Patrick FitzGerald wrote:
>
>
> The annual list of shame of the billionaire super greedies who have
> accumulated far more than they can ever spend or need has now been
> published.
>
>
> Patrick
>

Not everyone is a failure Patrick. That's why there is such a list. Do
you think these people should only work until they have accumulated what
you deem sufficient and then stay in bed all day, like those who have
accumulated sfa?? What good would that do the world? (apart from the
fact there'd be less tax to dish out to the bludgers)