The Prime Minister has announced Saturday, September the 17th as the date for this years General Election. If you haven't enrolled to vote in this years General Election then check your details at www.elections.org.nz.
American Idol Finalists: Alexis Grace | Michael Sarver | Danny Gokey | Allison Iraheta | Kris Allen | Adam Lambert | Lil Rounds | Scott MacIntyre | Jorge Nunez | Jasmine Murray | Megan Corkery | Matt Giraud | Anoop Desai
Throng New Zealand | TV Guide | Throng Australia | Throng UK | Throng Canada | American Idol | Australian Idol | Canadian Idol | NZ Idol | Shortland Street
Beijing Olympic Games | blog design by cre8d and hosted by Optimum New Zealand
Who will win American Idol? | American Idol Tour | American Idol Winner | voting numbers | American Idol Links
I can't wait till the election is *over*
Yeah, everytime I see Winston Peters' Billboard Mobile in town it always ruins my day. argggg
Ugh, same. I'm sooo sick of it all already! Not that I really know much about the parties and stuff lol.
I think the way Labour is going on about student loans now when they've had however-long-as-government and not done a thing about it is pretty low. And [no offense anyone] if students are going to vote for them PURELY because of that, then that's pretty...I don't know. But stuff I've heard [off Idolblog that is] is that heaps of students are voting for Labour purely because of this policy now! And not looking at the bigger picture. *shrugs*
Not that I know anything
It's called parental influence 
haha
Ummm, actually Labour cut interest on loans during study. That was a policy they fulfilled two elections ago. Can you tell me what any other party's done?
What I find interesting is that a few months ago when we had the budget, Labour told us there was no money left. For anything.
Mysteriously, $300m was found for roading, or what ever it was, and now they've come up with at least another $300m per year they can afford to lose.
It's hardly a secret that Labour have had a $1bn slush fund up their sleeve for using as part of pre-election policy announcements.
I doubt these sorts of bribes would be coming out, however, if they hadn't fared so poorly in the polls after the (lack of) tax cuts in the budget, Cullen being such a scrooge and all - Helen and Trevor are no doubt twisting his arm to get him to cough up some of their cherished cash from the coffers...
Did no one tell you Helen Clark anally excretes money, but only when it's absolutely necessary?
hmmmmmm interesting. An excellent strategic move by the Labour Party.
Yes. "let us lie to the people of New Zealand and tell them that we don't have any money then, when they're all angry and don't like us any more, click our heels together and just say 'Just kidding kiddies'".
haha lol
I was being sarcastic. LMAO
*Randomly*
I'm sick of all the dissing everyone too.
I found it funny how Helen Clark went on about Don Brash and the distorted images being used of her, when she gets airbrushed pictures of herself in magazines. *shrugs*
I like the National billboards, they make me laugh. On the one in Wellington outside Thorndon New World [Starzy you seen it?] someone has painted a moustache and goatee on Don Brash. It looks funny.
Anyhoo...
i can not wait 2 vote
Critic I know they're advertising on Idolblog and all, but don't ya think Elections threads should stay out of NZ Idol-related areas?
I don't like how Labour/Helen Clark's campaign is all about dissing National/Don Brash. I'd rather hear her vision for NZ than why we shouldn't vote for the other guys.
Nationals campaign is also very much dissing Helen Clark and Labour.
*chuckles* ha ha ha. i couldnt help but see that. Brash on his best one....
Kiwi/Iwi. i was reading in DomPost that Labour intends taking Don Brash/Nats to human rights Court sighting racial division. ie; if your in a Iwi then your not a Kiwi. but thats Brash at his best just trying to seek the RedNeck sypathy vote lol. Then again Don has did a complete flip-flop by saying that NZ Parliament doesnt need the Maori seats. National back in the 90's who were the ones that instigated quite a few things for Maori.
Im am so glad that i wont be voting neither RedNeck party.
Well they ARE the opposition. That IS their job. Actually I've been somewhat impressed by Don Brash not engaging in personality politics thus far. So far he appears to be sticking to the policy issues, but it's early days yet.
Probably but I didn't hear that when I heard the debates on the radio yesterday and today.
Note: I am an undecided voter.
I am also, I was refering to the billboards (i quite like them) of national with red on one side and blue on the other.
Oh yep, both sides are dissing each other with those for sure!
Yeah, I think it needs changing cuz it doesn't seem to be working for them.
Her vision for NZ - hmmm, Russia...?
Below is a quote from the link I gave earlier -
--snip--
In Washington however, Investigate has learned,
the NZ Prime Minister’s nickname was “Red Helen�, a moniker earnt not
just from her anti-nuclear stance but also her decision to support the
communist Government in Nicaragua in 1986. The then Labour Party president,
Margaret Wilson, was also chairing Labour’s Nicaragua Support Committee, and
both she and Clark detoured to the communist nation to pick coffee beans in
support of the regime, while en route to a meeting of the globalist group,
Socialist International, in Peru.
Even more telling, perhaps, is a report by New Zealand
journalist Bernard Moran which says:
“When Filipino Intelligence officers raided an
underground safe house in Manila on the night of March 24, 1988, they not
only captured leading hard liners of the Communist Party of the Philippines
New Peoples’ Army, but also 97 computer discs.
“I have in my possession,� continues Moran, “a
photocopy of a three-page document from one of those discs. It is headed
‘Workshop 1: Party to Party Relations, June 13, 1986’.
“It deals with overseas work and those who are in
consultation with the International Department of the Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP). On page three, line eight, Helen Clark is listed as the
‘individual link’ for New Zealand.�
--snip--
Full article http://www.investigatemagazine.com/nov03paradise.htm
It'll scare ya!
lol music fan, i was just about to say when are we going to be a terror target by Islamic Terrorists when we start supporting Bush's War against Moslems. Brash's own words.....
He equivocates on whether New Zealand’s nuclear free legislation would be replaced by a National government. But there was no such equivocation when he told a group of visiting US senators that it would be ‘gone by lunchtime'.
“On the issue of Iraq, Dr Brash has stated ‘I would have done what President Bush did’ and reiterated on several occasions that he supported the invasion of Iraq.
“Now he equivocates on whether he would, if Prime Minister, commit young New Zealanders to fight in Iraq. The question is not, as he alleges, now just a matter of history. The conflict with Iraq is on-going and in recent months has got worse. Australia earlier this year was prevailed upon to send further troops to Iraq and did so.
“There is a real prospect that Dr Brash, having repeatedly expressed his support for the war in Iraq, would as Prime Minister be asked to turn his words into action and put New Zealand troops into Iraq.
Those aren't Brash's "own words." Thats a Labour party press release.
Um, I'm more on the side of Bush/Blair than not.
I'm not sure totally whether the war was the right thing, but you can't just leave a mad dictator there who has a history of attacking and gassing his neighbours and own people. Something had to be done. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not there doesn't help. That's what Chamberlin (the British PM of the time) did when he went visit Hitler and assumed everything was OK. He goes back to England and says, "we will have peace in our time", and the next thing, Hitler is attacking Poland.
A famous quote - all that it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing...
What scares me is people using Investigate as any kind of credible source, because it's really really not.
Um, no, they really, really ARE. It's the most open unbiased mag I've ever read. No spin, just the facts. All their stuff is very well researched - eg, in the latest mag how condoms don't prevent STD's apart from HIV (in direct contradiction to what is on the Hubba Hubba site). They interview the Health Minister, and he pretty much doesn't have an answer...lol
In the latest mag they have the facts about how many police are assigned to traffic, and how many to crime - pretty bad..
If you have any evidence to suggest that are not accurate in their reporting, I'd be interested to hear. I have a friend how knows Ian Wishart who writes for the mag, and he is a great reporter.
I don't know much about them, except their article/interview with John Tamihere... what's your main issue with them? Misreporting? Quality? Sources? Are they a conspiracy-theory mag? (Excuse my ignorance...
They're a total conspiracy theory magazine. Ian Wishart pushes his right wing Christian agenda hardcore, and while yes, that's the antithesis of my personal views anyway, it's articles like "Helen Clark's secret lesbian conspiracy" that really take the cake for utter stupidity and so-what value.
Conspiracy theory? Rubbish....
Never seen anything about Helen Clark and a Lesbian conspiracy...
Sure, u may not agree with everything he says, but I've bought 3 copies of the mag so far, and it has the least spin and most accurate reporting of any mag I've bought.
It's about time somebody wrote about what's really going on in this country.
..Still waiting for evidence of any untruths from you...
Admin, I guess you can only buy one or look at one from the library and see what you think.
Try this link.
If you want to read an relatively unbiased magazine, I suggest North and South. It remains some sense of centrality. Wishart is well known to push the far right agenda. As a politics and media major I can assure you most publications have a left or right leaning. The ones that we think are neutral are the ones that we agree with, because what you believe is what you deem to be the truth. In reality, we only believe something to be unbiased when the writing is on the same side as our personal beliefs. It just the way it is.
actually, now I've read down the thread further, I can see you have read that article I've quoted from. How can you truthfully say then, that you've "Never seen anything about Helen Clark and a Lesbian conspiracy..."
Also from the Investigate Nov 03 edition...
Of you mean the thing about Helen and the feminists frmo the 70's? Wishart has papers sent to him by a woman who actually used to attend those meetings and is now a little old lady.
Unless you want me to actually prove that he has them, I have to go on his word. Just like everything you read in the Herald, you have to believe it, or you don't.
It's the same with anything you read in the media. I'm more inclined to believe Wishart than many of the other media. The story in question also appeared in Sandra Patterson's Herald coulmn, which is where I first heard about it.
Looking at the things the Labour Govt have done recently, it explains a LOT.
Why are you more inclined to believe him?
"Looking at the things the Labour Govt have done recently, it explains a LOT"
Like what?
So you'd back the Investigate claim that...
Abortion causes Breast Cancer?
...and that...
That Helen Clark is gay?
I haven't read the thing about Abortion causing breast cancer, so I can't comment. Maybe it does! Have you read it? Maybe they have the data to support it. You'll notice it has a question mark after the title.
Re; Helen being gay - does it say that? I don't think it does - it contains a quote by Helen saying that she has been accused of being gay and the article also says she is well-disposed to gay people and TV shows (which she is).
And one her own friends at the end of the atricle alludes to it with the remark "She may have
desires, but they’re not acted upon"
I am sure the magazine would have been sued by now if it had had any untruths like that in it - espcially directed towards the PM.
It infers it constantly.
What else could they be referring to?
As you point out, they'd be sued if they published out and out lies, so they use innuendo to get their point across without actually making the claim outright. But you'd be one of the few people around who could read that article and not surmise that it was accusing Helen of being a the leader of a cohort of lesbian politicians.
Oh yeah, and Ian Wishart says soy milk makes you gay.
Oh? In reading the article myself, I did not come away with any thoughts at all with respect to Helen being gay. In fact, I was more worried about the social policies she seems to be pushing.
Re: Soy Milk - no, I hadn't read that before. I also haven't seen any scientific reports on the matter and neither have you. It seems absurd, yes, but I've read more things seemingly as absurd that turned out to be true. I will have to read them first in order to make up my mind.
I know that i have read that in Third World countries, soy is sifted and used to induce an abortion. If it can do that, I would be wary of it. I also know that soy sauce has gotten a bad name in the past for something that is in it and stories were going around about it maybe being banned here.
I would suggest that you don't really want to know, but are keen on just just Googling for anything to discredit what I am putting forward.
It's the same as any media - you either believe it or you don't
As far as helen and her agenda, the moves she's made over the past year (legalizing prostitution, Civil Union, etc) support the claims made in the report on her little agenda. If you genuinely want to find out more, I suggest finding a copy of the magazine. You can tell a tree by it's fruit, etc - the things they wanted to do in their agenda have all but been accomplished, whatever the intended result is supposed to be
There are no scientific reports on the matter. It. Is. Absurd. I would like to hear more about the absurd things that did turn out to be true, however. Feel free to enlighten.
I would suggest that when you asked "..Still waiting for evidence of any untruths from you...", and were given some, that you had to fall back on the old 'well, it might be true, prove me otherwise' argument. In which case, you're in good company with Intelligent Design proponent Ian Wishart.
As johubris points out, just because something can't be disproved, doesn't make it the truth.
I've read that there are little goblins inside my television who act out the scenes that I see. Doesn't make it true. And even if it was, how is something that could bring on an abortion anywhere near something that could 'make' a person gay?
Yeah, I'm glad that she's achieved some things that feminists want - ie: making the lives of women better.
And these things are?
The Civil Unions Bill. The Prostitution Reform Bill.
The prostitution bill, I see as very anti-feminist. It legalizes a man taking advantage of women. And The Civil Union Bill only seems aimed at gay people, rather than feminists. Less than one percent of people in this country are gay.
If it had been put in a referendum and the result acted on, it wouldn't have gone through. Yet another instance of the Govt pushing through policy that the majority of NZers don't want. How impudent!
They are supposed to be there to do the will of the people, not push through their own little agendas. Read more about Tim Barnett and Stonewall (his gay group) here - http://www.investigatemagazine.com/april4civil.htm
He came to NZ specifically to promote this.
.
Prostitution wasn't illegal before hand - you could still accept money for sex - you just couldn't ask for it. You should check out this article - which I wrote after talking to three sex workers about what conditions were like for them if you want more information about the discrepencies in the previous laws, which meant things like massage parlours weren't able to display any information about safe sex because that information could be used as evidence in brothel-keeping charges. Now that they can, it's a much safer working environment for the women and men involved in the sex industry.
Umm, gay people and feminists are not mutually exclusive, you know. And where did you get your 1% stat from?
They did my will.
That seems nitpicking - ok, *part* of it was illegal, *all* of it immoral - fair enough?
--snip--
There is little information available about gay, lesbian, bisexual, fa’afafine, takatapui, intersex, transgender and transsexual communities in New Zealand, or their size in relation to the total population.
Some information about same sex couples who share a residence was
collected in the 1996 and 2001 population censuses. The 2001 Census
recorded just over 10,000 adults living with a partner of the same sex,
making up 0.6 percent of all adults living in couples. This is a larger
number than the 6,500 recorded in the 1996 Census, when they made up
0.4 percent of all couples. However, it is difficult to know whether
the change in numbers represents a real increase in the number of same
sex couples living together, or a greater willingness on their part to
report living arrangements and partnership status. According to
Statistics New Zealand,
it is likely that the figures understate the actual number of same-sex
couples because of inconsistency in the way people have responded to
the census question.
--snip--
..but not by much, I'd say..
The source is The Social Report, published by the Ministry of Social Development.
The statistics are correct, but your interpretation is wrong. As it says, the figures are a likely undercount of same-sex couples who live together. There is no good data on the number of gays and lesbians who do not live with partners, or who do not have partners, but together with same-sex co-resident couples, gays and lesbians would constitute a good deal more than 1 percent of the population.
And I wouldn't regard Brian Tamaki as an authority on this.