Leprosy is contagious
hellicopter
Can we afford John Key?
peterwn
> Even financial leprosy.
>
> Can we afford John Key?
More so than Helen and Mike, especially considering Helen's totally
disgusting comments after Tuesday's TV debate.
It looked as if Labour people held a 'thnk tank' after the show to
dredge up something they could try and hit John with.
Frankly, Helen's comments about john are more a reflection on the
woman and the nasty, vindictive party she leads.
hellicopter
Key said he was fresh, and Clark was trying to say he wasn't
but was shouted down.
It was a farce, only then to proceeded by more farce about
Key winning by not winning.
TV One should apologize.
I do not like a lot of Labour policies but at least they don't lie
to me like Key has.
The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
flowing through John Keys veins.
John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
why would you not concede he still is.
Allistar
> peterwn wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Even financial leprosy.
>>>
>>> Can we afford John Key?
>>
>> More so than Helen and Mike, especially considering Helen's totally
>> disgusting comments after Tuesday's TV debate.
>>
>> It looked as if Labour people held a 'thnk tank' after the show to
>> dredge up something they could try and hit John with.
>>
>> Frankly, Helen's comments about john are more a reflection on the
>> woman and the nasty, vindictive party she leads.
>
> Key said he was fresh, and Clark was trying to say he wasn't
> but was shouted down.
>
> It was a farce, only then to proceeded by more farce about
> Key winning by not winning.
>
> TV One should apologize.
>
> I do not like a lot of Labour policies but at least they don't lie
> to me like Key has.
Sure they do. Remember how they promised not to increase income tax, and
then proceeded to do so every year they were in power?
> The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
> a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
> flowing through John Keys veins.
What "financial leprosy"? That's a nonsense expression.
> John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
> why would you not concede he still is.
"Fudging"?
--
A.
hellicopter
> hellicopter wrote:
>
>> peterwn wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> Even financial leprosy.
>>>>
>>>> Can we afford John Key?
>>>
>>> More so than Helen and Mike, especially considering Helen's totally
>>> disgusting comments after Tuesday's TV debate.
>>>
>>> It looked as if Labour people held a 'thnk tank' after the show to
>>> dredge up something they could try and hit John with.
>>>
>>> Frankly, Helen's comments about john are more a reflection on the
>>> woman and the nasty, vindictive party she leads.
>>
>> Key said he was fresh, and Clark was trying to say he wasn't
>> but was shouted down.
>>
>> It was a farce, only then to proceeded by more farce about
>> Key winning by not winning.
>>
>> TV One should apologize.
>>
>> I do not like a lot of Labour policies but at least they don't lie
>> to me like Key has.
>
> Sure they do. Remember how they promised not to increase income tax, and
> then proceeded to do so every year they were in power?
Labour and National work together to shift wealth to the rich.
I cannot disengage the two when its a tag team, one is honest,
the other dishonest. I have to attack the dishonesty of today.
>
>> The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
>> a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
>> flowing through John Keys veins.
>
> What "financial leprosy"? That's a nonsense expression.
The face of market capitalism is despoiled by the US cheap
credit syndicate.
>
>> John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
>> why would you not concede he still is.
>
> "Fudging"?
Buy low, sell high, talk up a stock or currency that you are
selling, DUH. You put a gloss on the company accounts, picking
the good numbers fudging the bad. How do you think they blew the
whole financial fuse! By ignoring the fact that there was nothing
to back their derivatives trading. It could be argued that
once they knew they had no clothes every day of trading
was criminal nakedness, that authorities should be seizing
corporate emails while bailing them out.
Allistar
> Allistar wrote:
>
>> hellicopter wrote:
>>
>>> peterwn wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> Even financial leprosy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we afford John Key?
>>>>
>>>> More so than Helen and Mike, especially considering Helen's totally
>>>> disgusting comments after Tuesday's TV debate.
>>>>
>>>> It looked as if Labour people held a 'thnk tank' after the show to
>>>> dredge up something they could try and hit John with.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, Helen's comments about john are more a reflection on the
>>>> woman and the nasty, vindictive party she leads.
>>>
>>> Key said he was fresh, and Clark was trying to say he wasn't
>>> but was shouted down.
>>>
>>> It was a farce, only then to proceeded by more farce about
>>> Key winning by not winning.
>>>
>>> TV One should apologize.
>>>
>>> I do not like a lot of Labour policies but at least they don't lie
>>> to me like Key has.
>>
>> Sure they do. Remember how they promised not to increase income tax, and
>> then proceeded to do so every year they were in power?
>
> Labour and National work together to shift wealth to the rich.
No they don't. They both shift wealth of the people that earn it, whether
rich or not.
> I cannot disengage the two when its a tag team, one is honest,
> the other dishonest. I have to attack the dishonesty of today.
They are both dishonest because they are both socialist.
>>> The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
>>> a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
>>> flowing through John Keys veins.
>>
>> What "financial leprosy"? That's a nonsense expression.
>
> The face of market capitalism is despoiled by the US cheap
> credit syndicate.
You mean the "free market" that was never really free.
>>> John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
>>> why would you not concede he still is.
>>
>> "Fudging"?
>
> Buy low, sell high, talk up a stock or currency that you are
> selling, DUH. You put a gloss on the company accounts, picking
> the good numbers fudging the bad. How do you think they blew the
> whole financial fuse! By ignoring the fact that there was nothing
> to back their derivatives trading. It could be argued that
> once they knew they had no clothes every day of trading
> was criminal nakedness, that authorities should be seizing
> corporate emails while bailing them out.
All in a non-free market.
--
A.
Pooh
"hellicopter" <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gd61eh$r0t$1...@aioe.org...
> peterwn wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Even financial leprosy.
>>>
>>> Can we afford John Key?
>>
>> More so than Helen and Mike, especially considering Helen's totally
>> disgusting comments after Tuesday's TV debate.
>>
>> It looked as if Labour people held a 'thnk tank' after the show to
>> dredge up something they could try and hit John with.
>>
>> Frankly, Helen's comments about john are more a reflection on the
>> woman and the nasty, vindictive party she leads.
>
> Key said he was fresh, and Clark was trying to say he wasn't
> but was shouted down.
>
Compaired with Clarke a DINOSAUR is fresh! She's been around parliament for
abour 25 years. Then has the cheek to suggest Labour are fresh! :O)
> It was a farce, only then to proceeded by more farce about
> Key winning by not winning.
>
It was only a farce because it didn't turn out the way Clarke wanted it to.
Typical of the dumb dyke to spit the dummy when she doesn't get her own way.
> TV One should apologize.
>
For what and to who? The NZ public for Clarkes bad manners?
> I do not like a lot of Labour policies but at least they don't lie
> to me like Key has.
>
No they lie to you like Clarke does constantly.
> The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
> a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
> flowing through John Keys veins.
>
Tell that to Clarke, Cullen and the Labour party.
> John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
> why would you not concede he still is.
>
You have a cite for fudged numbers I suppose or is this just another of your
pipe dreams?
Pooh
Enkidu
> On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> Even financial leprosy.
>>
>> Can we afford John Key?
>
> More so than Helen and Mike, especially considering Helen's totally
> disgusting comments after Tuesday's TV debate.
>
> dredge up something they could try and hit John with.
>
> woman and the nasty, vindictive party she leads.
>
only showed himself to be wet, wet, wet.
So what if you leader has a feminine voice? He can't help it if his
thong was too tight.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Tax is not theft.
Enkidu
"Financial leprosy" is a system where your financial parts turn white
and drop off.
>
>> John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
>> why would you not concede he still is.
>
> "Fudging"?
>
That's a perfectly good word. Appropriate too.
hellicopter
That's dishonest, since to create a level playing field someone
has to pay. Then to blame those the playing field fails for
not paying their share, and reinforcing the failure creates
a under class. I welcome the Maori parties wisdom in recognizing
that welfare is an abomination, that a free people cannot
be free when locked into dependency, that lowlife cannot be
allow to get away with shafting people off the playing field
and then demanding they shut up and live with it.
>
>> I cannot disengage the two when its a tag team, one is honest,
>> the other dishonest. I have to attack the dishonesty of today.
>
> They are both dishonest because they are both socialist.
There is nothing socialist about the network effect.
That to get good roads, peaceful suburbs, people need to
own their space, feel they have control over their lives,
they cannot do this if every carefree I'm all right jack
doesn't understand basic society economics. Basic
social interactions require for any group to cohere as
one there is the need for trade, gift giving, and mutual
understanding, but when we can just pull the rope and
then them rot on the end of a hang man noose because they
"don't pay their way". Is it any wonder crime amongst
the poor is common, that its the sickness benefit who
murders a good Samaritan, they have no repsect because YOU
have no notion apart from ignoring your own obligations
to level the playing field.
>
>>>> The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
>>>> a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
>>>> flowing through John Keys veins.
>>>
>>> What "financial leprosy"? That's a nonsense expression.
>>
>> The face of market capitalism is despoiled by the US cheap
>> credit syndicate.
>
> You mean the "free market" that was never really free.
A market should regulated well enough so that traders can
be free to move about without fear. Not free of regulation.
No market can be free since participates self-regulate
at a minimum, well until they blow the frigging fuse of the
global economy, when they get dumber that dumb.
Allistar
A "level playing field" is assured by leaving wealth with the people that
create it. "Level playing field" implies fairness and equality. That means
that you get paid for your efforts and skill. People who put in no effort
and/or have no skill have no right to the wealth of people who do.
> Then to blame those the playing field fails for
> not paying their share, and reinforcing the failure creates
> a under class.
"Paying their share"? What share is that?
> I welcome the Maori parties wisdom in recognizing
> that welfare is an abomination, that a free people cannot
> be free when locked into dependency, that lowlife cannot be
> allow to get away with shafting people off the playing field
> and then demanding they shut up and live with it.
How can you call us "a free people" when you fully support socialist
regimes?
>>> I cannot disengage the two when its a tag team, one is honest,
>>> the other dishonest. I have to attack the dishonesty of today.
>>
>> They are both dishonest because they are both socialist.
>
> There is nothing socialist about the network effect.
But there is something socialist about tax-and-spend policies. And both
Labour and National have plenty of them.
> That to get good roads, peaceful suburbs, people need to
> own their space, feel they have control over their lives,
> they cannot do this if every carefree I'm all right jack
> doesn't understand basic society economics.
They cannot do that with a nanny state.
> Basic
> social interactions require for any group to cohere as
> one there is the need for trade, gift giving, and mutual
> understanding, but when we can just pull the rope and
> then them rot on the end of a hang man noose because they
> "don't pay their way".
> Is it any wonder crime amongst
> the poor is common, that its the sickness benefit who
> murders a good Samaritan, they have no repsect because YOU
> have no notion apart from ignoring your own obligations
> to level the playing field.
You level the playing fields by protecting our freedoms. Not by destroying
them.
>>>>> The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
>>>>> a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
>>>>> flowing through John Keys veins.
>>>>
>>>> What "financial leprosy"? That's a nonsense expression.
>>>
>>> The face of market capitalism is despoiled by the US cheap
>>> credit syndicate.
>>
>> You mean the "free market" that was never really free.
>
> A market should regulated well enough so that traders can
> be free to move about without fear.
The only regulation is that which ensures the protection of consensual,
uncoerced contracts. Without contract law the system would fall to bits.
> Not free of regulation.
Yes - free of state regulation.
> No market can be free since participates self-regulate
> at a minimum, well until they blow the frigging fuse of the
> global economy, when they get dumber that dumb.
Self regulation is natural. Markets naturally regulate themselves. That's
the way it should be. Not through the state, but through the people.
>>>>> John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
>>>>> why would you not concede he still is.
>>>>
>>>> "Fudging"?
>>>
>>> Buy low, sell high, talk up a stock or currency that you are
>>> selling, DUH. You put a gloss on the company accounts, picking
>>> the good numbers fudging the bad. How do you think they blew the
>>> whole financial fuse! By ignoring the fact that there was nothing
>>> to back their derivatives trading. It could be argued that
>>> once they knew they had no clothes every day of trading
>>> was criminal nakedness, that authorities should be seizing
>>> corporate emails while bailing them out.
>>
>> All in a non-free market.
--
A.
hellicopter
Now you sound almost communist. Value isn't decided by the
work, yes it give it a scale but intrinsic value is defined
by demand. A farmer planting a crop nobody wants is less
valuable that a farmer not planting anything. Land left
intentionally vacated in cities forces the price up of rent.
Markets have a supply and a DEMAND side. A level playing
field has to level BOTH sides. So access of every citizen to
services they have subsidies is a essential right. Corporates
should not receive corporate wealth and expect to not serve
everyone. Schools should not receive government funding if they
are restrictive, i.e. private schools must provide subsidies
places for poor students, religious schools that only target
one group should not get government funding (now if religious
schools ganged together, catholic provide catholics, protestant
protestant kids, atheist schools support atheist/secular, then
maybe the approach could work but they'd all have to get the
same funding, same access to land, etc no heirarchy).
People who put in an effort and are over compensated and
are then found to have done an awful job of looking after
investor interests should not be able to continue their
mantra that the deregulated market is perfect. It isn't,
its communism when the politicans, media and market makers
had their collective "cheap credit will make us all rich",
which was rich for themselves not the rest of the world.
>
>> Then to blame those the playing field fails for
>> not paying their share, and reinforcing the failure creates
>> a under class.
>
> "Paying their share"? What share is that?
Markets function for people, all the people, of
the people, by the people. Your fascism is showing again Allister.
>
>> I welcome the Maori parties wisdom in recognizing
>> that welfare is an abomination, that a free people cannot
>> be free when locked into dependency, that lowlife cannot be
>> allow to get away with shafting people off the playing field
>> and then demanding they shut up and live with it.
>
> How can you call us "a free people" when you fully support socialist
> regimes?
Whose socialist? Equal opportunity maximizes the efficiency
of markets, its the rich that have been socialist!
Socializing the risk and privatizing the profits.
I have it with the commies with all the money, let
everyone be a capitalist!
>
>>>> I cannot disengage the two when its a tag team, one is honest,
>>>> the other dishonest. I have to attack the dishonesty of today.
>>>
>>> They are both dishonest because they are both socialist.
>>
>> There is nothing socialist about the network effect.
>
> But there is something socialist about tax-and-spend policies. And both
> Labour and National have plenty of them.
When a person breaks a bone, two types of cells get to work,
one fix the mess and cause a huge bulge in the bone, the
other cells then get to work to smoothing out the bulge.
When the two work together we find a workable bone at the
end. But when Labour grows necessary government, it also
grows unnecessary government, when National cuts it sometimes
cuts necessary excess, sometime cuts too much. The debate
about what is good governance does not serve the National
or Labour party, because it would create measures of their
competence, an audit of their management, so they don't.
And we have to suffer extra costs from move government
change than is necessary, bloated government, misappropriate
government and counter-productive government. Now we
can throw out all incumbents each time, or we can keep
in incumbents as long as possible. Bush regime has lied
into wars, overseen massive fraud, is going in the wrong
direction, however Labour have been tending to limit the
ravages of the rich in the times of cheap credit, so
it seems reasonable to keep in Labour and dump Republicans
in the US. When National can find real reason to dump Labour,
showerheads are not a reason, then I'm for cutting costs
and keeping Labour in 3 more years.
>
>> That to get good roads, peaceful suburbs, people need to
>> own their space, feel they have control over their lives,
>> they cannot do this if every carefree I'm all right jack
>> doesn't understand basic society economics.
>
> They cannot do that with a nanny state.
But National don't offer more, they offer less.
Yes Labour is big government but at least its
better than National "markets are perfect, let them work
unsullied", we know that doesn't work and fuels
profiteers carving up every last morsel of profit for
themselves.
>
>> Basic
>> social interactions require for any group to cohere as
>> one there is the need for trade, gift giving, and mutual
>> understanding, but when we can just pull the rope and
>> then them rot on the end of a hang man noose because they
>> "don't pay their way".
>> Is it any wonder crime amongst
>> the poor is common, that its the sickness benefit who
>> murders a good Samaritan, they have no repsect because YOU
>> have no notion apart from ignoring your own obligations
>> to level the playing field.
>
> You level the playing fields by protecting our freedoms. Not by destroying
> them.
Yes. That's why the Human Rights Commission must be abolished.
We must fight for out rights and not have this some nanny state
entity push disputes under the carpet.
>
>>>>>> The world has changed, the politics of distraction is now
>>>>>> a distraction to the hard reality of the financial leprosy
>>>>>> flowing through John Keys veins.
>>>>>
>>>>> What "financial leprosy"? That's a nonsense expression.
>>>>
>>>> The face of market capitalism is despoiled by the US cheap
>>>> credit syndicate.
>>>
>>> You mean the "free market" that was never really free.
>>
>> A market should regulated well enough so that traders can
>> be free to move about without fear.
>
> The only regulation is that which ensures the protection of consensual,
> uncoerced contracts. Without contract law the system would fall to bits.
Collectives must be broken, unity between politicans,
media and the market who collective ignored the huge
destructive force of derivatives because they were making
so much money out of them. That we have all become poor
in relative terms because of the easy cheap credit used
to find even more effective ways to weaken our individual
buying power, workplace effort.
>
>> Not free of regulation.
>
> Yes - free of state regulation.
No. to create a field you must clear brush and then
keep weeds down, regulation is keeping weeds down.
Unregulated markets will spin weeds as profits if you
let them, by buying out the media and slamming politicans
for being anti-market for attacking the new profits from
weeds.
>
>> No market can be free since participates self-regulate
>> at a minimum, well until they blow the frigging fuse of the
>> global economy, when they get dumber that dumb.
>
> Self regulation is natural. Markets naturally regulate themselves. That's
> the way it should be. Not through the state, but through the people.
People regulate themselves yes, but they can't be everywhere.
That's the problem with self-regulation, everyone was looking
to their own self-regulation but nobody was looking at the big
picture, those that were had their character assassinated as
socialists, but it turns out the communtarists were the insiders
racking in the profits from unreal derivative trading.
Instead of companies plowing profit back into high wages,
back into better core investments, they were using their
profits in highly speculative schemes to get rich without
real effort (paid for by borrowing mainly from China).
It wasn't just dumb, it was stupid, consumers saw credit as
cheap and were more willing to accept inferior products
because they couldn't see the downside.
Now we will move back to a world where hard work isn't
cheapened by cheap credit.
>
>>>>>> John Key spent his career in finance fudging numbers to look good,
>>>>>> why would you not concede he still is.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fudging"?
>>>>
>>>> Buy low, sell high, talk up a stock or currency that you are
>>>> selling, DUH. You put a gloss on the company accounts, picking
>>>> the good numbers fudging the bad. How do you think they blew the
>>>> whole financial fuse! By ignoring the fact that there was nothing
>>>> to back their derivatives trading. It could be argued that
>>>> once they knew they had no clothes every day of trading
>>>> was criminal nakedness, that authorities should be seizing
>>>> corporate emails while bailing them out.
>>>
>>> All in a non-free market.
>
Actually the governments of the day now know they should have
been regulating, that free markets are bad in the long term.
That just as a market can under shoot efficiency, it can also
over shoot and balloon into a massive bang. Just as government
need to clear away weeds, they also need to fertilize and
keep soils fit and SUSTAINABLE.