by frog
Published in THE ISSUES by frog on Sun, September 5th, 2010
Tags: general debate
General debate, September 5, 2010
Published: September 5, 2010
Comment via Facebook
132 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Re SCF are all our ducks in a row yet?
http://thestandard.org.nz/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comments
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Here are some questions the Opposition should be asking:
1. Why was the scheme rolled over in April 2010 and why was “interest” included when the company was clearly in trouble?
2. What questions were asked about the huge expansion of SCF’S loan book from the start of the scheme in November 2008?
3.Why did the government just “hand-over” $1.7 billion when the amount of their obligations was not clear? Wouldn’t it be more usual business practice to unwind the company then decide who is obliged to pay what.
4. Where is the $1.7 billion coming from – borrowing, cuts in public expenditure, increased taxes?
5. Why have the government paid money to people they are not even obliged to ($20million to foreign investors)? Imagine the uproar from MSM if they paid extra money to the unemployed to stop them being a nuisance at the benefits office.
6. Why was Kerr given preferential treatment?
7. Who’s behind the “sharks” that are now circling the carcass?
8. Finally, where are the skeletons? as there are bound to be some.
There’s a stink around this matter and it crosses the political divide. Many of the right ideologically oppose the states involvement, many others will smell a big fat rat and don’t like their money being wasted.
I do hope Labour/Greens are keeping there powder dry rather than rolling over. This issue will not go away and expect some real skeletons to show up in the run-up to the next election.
Believe me, Winston will be all over this, it’s playing on his home ground. Didn’t issues of trust and honesty, whipped up by NAct, bite him at the last election? Revenge is sweet as they say.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
foz, I agree that:
– there are questions to ask
– the line Phil Goff took is stupid
I’ve heard independent comment that, since SCF was rushed/bent into the government guarantee, its (and by extension, the crown’s) debt has grown by about a third.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
from the standard
here’s an angle: the same amount of money needed to rebuild our second largest city after its ravaged by a massive earthquake is being spent on English’s southland farmer mates and Key’s financial speculator mates. 2 billion for each. think that might fly in the media if either Lab or Grn could give a fcuk?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
12 (-10)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
14 (-10)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
7 
17 (-10)
:jhisafuckwit:
Like or Dislike:
8 
6 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
15 (-10)
Is Annette Sykes a Green?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
JH… there are limits to what I will let pass around here. You can’t insinuate that sort of cr@p here, ascribe it to our membership, and then pretend that the resulting hostility you get back is not your own fault.
We don’t support terrorism. You need to apologize. I reckon Valis could be more polite but I understand EXACTLY why he has decided to take the line he has with you. The temptation is real enough.
Now maybe you have some actual point to make that is worth making, I can’t really tell. All I know is that you have chosen not to make it, instead choosing to drop disinformation into this communications channel.
We welcome opposing views, but the views have to oppose US, not some made-up group which believes things we never accepted. We won’t actually argue with you because straw-men of your design have nothing to do with our policies or political beliefs.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
what bj is actually saying is..
‘f..k off troll..!’
(and i always thought valis was a she..
(not that there’s anything wrong with that…!…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
6 
18 (-12)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
13 (-11)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
16 (-14)
jh can only cite a discredited accusation, but anything that fits with his preconceived notion is just fine.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Frog answered you comprehensively THEN, and you have the nerve to repeat the same distortions here now.
Clearly you don’t listen and won’t learn. Neither Keith, nor the Greens, support terrorism. Got it?
Trying to tar us with that particular brush is typical of right wingnuts who don’t have anything more substantive to offer and for whom the truth is often inconvenient and certainly not of any value.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Phil
Actually I have no notion of Valis’ gender.
My error.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Male, as I have stated on different occasions.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
foz says “is being spent on English’s southland farmer mates and Key’s financial speculator mates.”
First – a geography lesson. Time to get out a map and look where South Canterbury and Southland are, then figure out is there is another whole province between them (clue – look for one that starts with O and ends with tago).
Second – it’s not the farmers lent money who are being paid out. It’s 35,000 investors who put money into SCF, who paid the govt for a guarantee.
“Keys financial speculator mates”? Wow- 35,000 mum and dad investors are now all the Prime Ministers financial speculator mates.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Valis,
To be fair, despite knowing your gender, the source of the acronym that is your alias, and that your writing is rather masculine, I often find myself thinking of you as a female commentator. I am convinced that it must be the alias.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I liked Foz’s comments on NAT/ACT’s priorities when it comes to dishing out public money ( $1.7 billion) to bail out South Canterbury Finance.
Wouldn’t that money go a long way to fix up all the earthquake damage?
However, I dont think that Foz should have any doubts as to where the Greens stand on the issue.
When you ask “Why was Kerr given preferential treatment?” did you mean Rodger Kerr of the Business Round Table?
Keep up the good work. you are asking the right sort of questions.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
a knighthood for hubbard…?
sir lost-a-lot…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
oh yeah..!…the drugs-thing…
http://whoar.co.nz/2010/britain-looks-at-portugals-success-story-over-decriminalising-personal-drug-usedavid-cameron-and-nick-clegg-stated-their-support-for-drug-law-reform-before-entering-frontbench-politics/
“…British officials are examining a pioneering Portuguese anti-drugs programme that decriminalises possession of substances including heroin and cocaine.
Controversial when it was first introduced almost a decade ago, the move has turned possession into an “administrative offence” …
… which sends those caught with drugs for personal use to a so-called dissuasion board rather than having them prosecuted.
The board, which consists of social workers and psychologists who interrogate users on their drug habit, has the power to impose a variety of sanctions ..
… including fines … or recommend treatment.
Users caught with drugs more than once are ordered to appear at police stations or a doctor’s surgery.
According to a senior official at the institute for drugs and drug dependency at Portugal’s ministry of health …
… it was approached by the UK government about a month ago for advice on how it had managed its drugs programme since 2001.
Home Office sources said yesterday they were looking at various models and programmes during a consultation period over a new drugs strategy …
… and that the government was talking to a number of experts to ascertain what worked.
The consultation had been expected to lead to a more abstinence-based approach to tackling drug use.
It follows the recent resurgence in the debate over Britain’s drug policies which saw Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, who recently stepped down as head of the Royal College of Physicians …
… call for the government to reconsider “decriminalising” all drug possession.
His comments followed similar remarks by Nicholas Green QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales …
… who said it was “rational” to consider “decriminalising personal drug use”.
He added that he had also been persuaded by an article in the British Medical Journal …
… which argued that the prohibition of drugs had been “counterproductive” … making many public health problems worse.
Officially, however, ministers remain resistant to the idea of decriminalisation.
A Home Office statement yesterday said: “The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach.
Our priorities are clear; we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug-related crime and disorder, and help addicts come off drugs for good.”
David Cameron and Nick Clegg stated their support for drug law reform before entering frontbench politics.
As a member of the home affairs select committee inquiry into drug misuse in 2002 …
…. Cameron voted in favour of a recommendation that the then government moved to discuss alternative policies …
… “including the possibility of legalisation and regulation”.
In the same year, Clegg also supported the legalisation of drugs – including measures for heroin to be made available under medical supervision –
- while he was a member of the European parliament.
The approach to Portugal, which has seen a fall in levels of petty crime associated with addicts stealing to buy drugs …
… as well as a drop by a third in the number of HIV diagnoses among intravenous drug users … is significant.
Despite decriminalisation, it levies more fines than the UK …
… and drug use has not increased.
Those opposed to similar moves in the UK have used the same arguments as the opponents of decriminalisation in Portugal…” (cont..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
“…“Keys financial speculator mates”? Wow- 35,000 mum and dad investors are now all the Prime Ministers financial speculator mates…”
um..!..no..!
what is being discussed is those ‘clever-dicks’ (politicians included..?..)
who piled into that ‘gummint-guaranteed-earn’..
(i understand labour and the greens are ‘getting their ducks all in a row’ on this issue…
and will soon be up on their hind legs…howling…
i mean…if not..why not…?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
17 (-13)
Photonz1 – with your own NZ atlas open in front of you, see if you can work out how far up the island Bill English’s electorate extends, remembering that it is titled CLUTHA/Southland.
Oh, and your ” 35,000 mum and dad investors” line is just not emotional enough for us hard-hearted Greenies. You should say, “Mummy and Daddy”, or “Sweet Innocent Smells of Lavender Mummy and Dearest Honest as the day is long Daddy”
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
fly…farrar has instituted a new demerit-system..
..and everyone is back to zero…
you should be able to buzz around/annoy there again…
i look forward to reading yr droppings….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
“a knighthood for hubbard…” Good idea. Much more deserving than Douglas or Myers. Selling your country down the river and selling drugs to kids.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
so..sir lost-a-lot…sir sold-a-lot…and sir pushed-a lot..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Come on bj, it’s clear that an anonymous blog commentator says that he read a rabid anti-leftist publication that says that people said that Keith Locke smiled at the same time as somebody else expressed ambivalent feelings about the September 11 attacks.
If you don’t consider this proof that Locke supported the Septembed 11 attacks you are clearly a terrorist sympathiser out of step with both jh’s reality and the modern judicial principals as defined by his right holiness Mr George Bush. Better shut up or the boys will be around to check your closet and if they find any inflammable materials in your garage – it won’t look good for you, if you get my drift…
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
jh – why are you here? Mostly I skip over your nonsense, but you put such a lot up it’s hard to avoid. I don’t know what you are on about.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
jh = Trevor Loudon, Valis?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Lets hope the foreshore and Seabed stays in Crown ownership (= the people), so that all of the boys and girls are special.
BTW what does the green party submission on the 2010 Foreshore and seabed Repeal Act say?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
The Star-Times, which broke the story on Fairfax Media’s Stuff website last Monday, understands the police have seized more than 20 guns, including AK-47s and other military-style semi-automatic rifles, as well as stab and bullet-resistant clothing, camouflage netting, bomb-making recipes and an IRA manual.
A man interviewed wearing a balaclava on Campbell Live on Friday night said the camps were to train young men to carry out security work overseas for big money.
Intelligence agencies researcher and journalist Nicky Hager believed last week’s police raids may have been the result of increased police and SIS staffing and resources aimed at anti-terrorism, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
“There were a whole lot of new units and equipment and resources brought in for anti-terrorism, where New Zealand hasn’t had an indigenous terrorist threat,” Hager said.
But they have headed down the track of seeing things in those terms and, for example, interpreting radical bravado talk as preparation for murdering people.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/38759
.
Keith would feel more at home with any one of the arrestees than many of his fellow MP’s
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/09/green-party-file-3-keith-locke-supports.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
13 (-9)
I guess that answers you toad. No right-wing lunatic raves too much for jh.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
15 (-10)
jh, it was the Solicitor General, not the Attorney General, and those comments were made on the police evidence alone, without any evidence having been given on behalf of the defendants in that matter.
I think Keith is being very sensible in not saying too much about that issue until court proceedings have been finalised.
I might say though, that I am concerned about what I consider to have been some “very disturbing activities” by the Police in relation to that matter. However, I cannot tell you what the allegations against the Police are because they are currently subject to a suppression order by the court.
Hopefully we will all have a better understanding of what went down in Te Urewera, by both the defendants and the Police, when the court proceedings are concluded and suppression orders lifted.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
15 (-12)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
16 (-13)
I suspect there is an elite who are keeping mum about changes to the foreshore and seabed , but that’s because their opinions are superior, as they were about smacking where they were shown to be in a select 15% who knew best!
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
That would be the National govt, along with thier support partner the Maori Party. Yes, they both voted for the repeal of s59.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
To be fair, despite knowing your gender, the source of the acronym that is your alias, and that your writing is rather masculine, I often find myself thinking of you as a female commentator. I am convinced that it must be the alias.
Sap, as the source of the alias is an extra-terrestrial intelligence in a Philip K Dick novel, I’m curious why you think it female?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Valis. Latin= strong robust able
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Interesting JH, that the only thing you respond to at all is the question of what Annette Sykes said, not what Keith said, nor what he said later. Nor is there any indication that PC was capable of doing any better in that exchange. You have your prejudices and we are not going to change them with anything so mundane as facts and truth.
Not sure what your problem really is… besides being besotted by the dream that all of us are somehow rabid redicals, you pick and choose what parts of our statements you care to hear.
Mostly you waste my time.
Weary of it I am.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
THE NEED TO RE-INVENT THE BRICK!!!!!!
Just to offer a refreshing change to jh’s problem It was just as well nobody was killed on Saturday’s big shake.
However I did lament the destrustion of the most historic and characteristic of buildings in Christchurch.
Can they rebuild them to their original glory? Or will the Phillistines of the insurance world raize them to the ground and replace them with utilitarian expediency? In other words a glass box?
To worship the great Mamon of architecture, – - – - Bauhaus!!!
Bauhaus has a lot to answer for! (Tom Wolfe would agree) It is even a contributing factor to our leaky roofs!
I see that the way to re-build those architectural treasures to their former glory is to re-invent the brick.
And so it has been re-invented courtesy of Leggo !
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Robert says “Oh, and your ” 35,000 mum and dad investors” line is just not emotional enough for us hard-hearted Greenies. You should say, “Mummy and Daddy”, or “Sweet Innocent Smells of Lavender Mummy and Dearest Honest as the day is long Daddy”
That’s the second time a greenie has spewed forth verbal vomit for using the term “mum and dad investors” just like Russel does…
see
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/greens-argue-soes-better-funding-growth-through-debt-issues-share-floats
Does Russel realise are Greens who think that simply by using the term “mum and dad investors” you are not a real person.
Robert – you clearly think it’s pathetic for people to use this term. Are you merely spouting total b/s – or does that apply to Russel?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Rest your fevered head on your goose down pillow photonz1 and I’ll tell you a story. It’s a story that’s pink and fluffy and you’ll just love it!
“I speak of the mythical “mum and dad investors”. For some reason we’ve been hearing a lot about them recently. Bill English and John Key – shall we know them as the Brothers Grim? – have been invoking them ever since Bill went off at the mouth about the possibility of flogging what remains of the family silver if his party is re-elected next year.”
“I’m beginning to suspect the mum and dad investor is a fairy story to help us go to sleep”
“Yes, come to think of it, that’s where I last heard of the fabled mum and dad investor: in newspaper stories that also contained the words “Blue Chip”, “Hanover” and “Bridgecorp”. Tales of woe indeed, in which the innocent little people lost their life savings and retirement incomes to the goblins of risk and speculation. They believed the stories they were told, and look where it got them.”
“Heck, everyone’s a mum and dad investor when you think about it!
And if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/opinion/3754317/Mum-and-dad-investors-latest-fairy-tale-from-Brothers-Grim
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
bj Says:
“Interesting JH, that the only thing you respond to at all is the question of what Annette Sykes said, not what Keith said, nor what he said later. Nor is there any indication that PC was capable of doing any better in that exchange. You have your prejudices and we are not going to change them with anything so mundane as facts and truth.
Not sure what your problem really is… besides being besotted by the dream that all of us are somehow rabid redicals, you pick and choose what parts of our statements you care to hear. ”
………
The problem I have is that I don’t believe Keith even though he has to say the right thing as in his other reference to the World Trade Center. His support for the arrestees in the Ureweras (despite statements by the solicitor general) is what I would expect from Keith.
As for everyone being redicals, I would hope not but it sure looks like the redicals piled into the Green Party. Toad confirmed that people who found labour too moderate joined the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10 (-7)
So Keith Says Anette Sykes didn’t say those things????? And consequently, he didn’t nod his head in agreement and lead the applause?
But he did say I know all (or most) of the arrestees and I would feel more comfortable in their company than many of my fellow MP’s (despite the wire taps and they, having been denounced by Chris Trotter and bomber Bradbury, as the video clip is on line.
PS I see a post was deleted…..
Like or Dislike:
2 
11 (-9)
Valis,
Despite its origins, it is just one of those names that ‘feels’ feminine. Which is odd, considering that its use as a name always relates to a shortening of a masculine name and that the words similar in pronunciation or spelling are all neuter or masculine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Funny, to me it sounds masculine, like maybe the name of the evil guy in the next Bond movie
But I don’t know what longer name you refer to?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
funny..to me it sounds like the name of an avon sales-’lady’…
‘good evening..my name is valis….’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
bj Says:
“Interesting JH, that the only thing you respond to at all is the question of what Annette Sykes said, not what Keith said, nor what he said later. Nor is there any indication that PC was capable of doing any better in that exchange. You have your prejudices and we are not going to change them with anything so mundane as facts and truth.
——
I take it if Keith did behave as claimed you would be disgusted?
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
phil
I see you copped a suspension at frogblog while I was away.
Shame on you.
I do note however that the comments sections are now much more legible, comprehensible and a lot more intelligent.
So I guess you get some appreciation for your effort.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Hey that down tick wasn’t from me, phil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Valis,
A number of Germanic names and, more commonly, Valentine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
robert quote “Heck, everyone’s a mum and dad investor when you think about it!
And if you believe that, you’ll believe anything”
So the 75% of the population who have investment savings when they retire, don’t really exist.
Robert – here’s a clue.
When you are using a delusional fairytale to try to make your point, it’s time to question yourself.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
I just had an interesting discussion relating to my views on eugenics, more related to my use of language than anything. Because of this I would like to note that when I have said that I do support eugenics I do not mean that I support it based on the present state of knowledge but that I would support eugenics if the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that it would be of a substantial net benefit to pursue such a path. That is, I support the idea as valid rather than the implementation of such at the present. Additionally, I should clarify that by no means do I consider the NAZI ‘kill-em’ style eugenics as valid.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“Robert – here’s a clue”
Photonz1 – you don’t have a clue (to give).
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Well, it reminds me of vaseline!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Is jh alright?
He seems unhinged.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Phil
Re my comment @ 4:16
I obviously meant kiwiblog. My mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Robert – if you want a definition of clueless, you can’t go past people who deny the existance of mum and dad investors when 75% of people who retire have got investment savings.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“..I obviously meant kiwiblog. My mistake..”
yeah…the traffic/comment-action there has dropped right off..
..and it’s become a rightwing circle-jerk…
that’d be why farrar has wiped all the demerits…
(and you’ve ‘been away’..?..who noticed…?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
pentwig – kiwiblog isn’t your mistake, it’s Farrar’s and anyone who comments there.
Don’t beat yourself up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
S’okay photo – I formed my definition some time ago – not looking for another.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Is jh alright?
He seems unhinged.
He’s very, very afraid. It is unhealthy
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
robertguyton
It is a sad and silly person who doesn’t look at all alternatives.
Extreme zealotry is plain stupidity.
Rather than beat myself up I keep an open mind about everything and keep on educating myself with knowledge I learn being a blogging butterfly.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Admirable pentwig!
What have you learned, oh butterfly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
It isn’t that i mind you having a different opinion to me it is the way you package it in a green label. Let’s see what the rest of NZ think of your stand on the foreshore and seabed; it won’t figure much in the election campaign that’s for sure.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
That’s simply petulant, even worse in some ways than your fear of discussing the Treaty.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Well, if you believe that a ‘radical’ is anyone who doesn’t like the Labour party (i.e. you don’t agree with over-regulation, privatisation, free trade deals, military adventurism, commercialisation of GM, the state spying on its citizens, welfare payments for business, etc. etc.), then sure – The Green Party IS full of ‘redicals’.
“Interesting JH, that the only thing you respond to at all is the question of what Annette Sykes said… Weary of it I am.”
Yes, BJ, but jh understands that in the political arena, the winner is not the person with the best arguments or the most supportive facts, but the person who keeps shouting the same thing over and over until their opponents give up, or the point has been repeated so often that it slips into the popular mind as a fact.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
And that is really the only reason I ever bother to respond to jh anymore. The dialogue is certainly fruitless, I just want others reading to know his views are extreme and a (often deliberate) perversion of Green policy.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
I cant talk for JH but many of us are NOT afraid to discuss the treaty.
Problem is no one in the Green party can paint a picture of what New Zealand society will be like under the aims of Green party policies.
For example,
Not a single person in the Greens can describe what “decolonisation” is, what changes are envisaged to implement it and what the desired outcome is.
In the Keith Locke discussion on republicanism I asked the question of where the treaty would sit in a constitution. Guess what.
Not a single Green party activist ventured forth a definitive answer.
Till there are definitive answers what “decolonisation” means and what its outcomes are, you will always have interpretations from all ends of the spectrum.
At the moment we have the situation like Whale Bay near Raglan, where barbed wire keeps non-maori of the beach.
Is this what is meant by “decolonisation”?
If not what is?
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
I don’t think anyone, even tino rangatiratanga fans, have a clear idea of what decolonisation means. They want to work with the country to find out! It’s about the journey, not the destination.
As far as I can tell.
But if people are too afraid to trust each other, that conversation can’t begin.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
So lets start the conversation by having the Green party provide a clear pathway and description of the desired outcomes of “decolonisation”.
Good starting point, no?
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
I don’t agree, Gerrit. The dialogue has to be between tangata whenua and tangata tiriti to establish common ground on what those outcomes should be. For the Green Party, which is primarily non-Maori and currently represents only 7% or 8% of the population to provide that description would be completely inappropriate. We want to start the dialogue, not (as other primarily non-Maori parties do) define its parameters and draw lines in the sand before it starts.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
Green party policies have a strong tino rangatiratanga favour.
Your party co-leader called for “decolonisation”.
The Green party has drawn a line in the sand so lets start to talk.
What is the desired outcome of decolonisation and what is the pathway to achievement?
Or are the Greens too scared to discuss?
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Sam b Says:
“Yes, BJ, but jh understands that in the political arena, the winner is not the person with the best arguments or the most supportive facts, but the person who keeps shouting the same thing over and over until their opponents give up, or the point has been repeated so often that it slips into the popular mind as a fact.”
….
Kerry Tankard will be well known to some readers.
She is a Wellington based anarchist, connected to the 128 Abel Smith Street crowd. She also worked with three of the “Urewera 17″ Simon/Rongomai Bailey, Emily Bailey and Marama Mayrick, on the anarchist/Green Party supported radical environmentalist film Kotahi Ao.
Tankard, is also a Green Party activist and often posts on Green Forum under the name Katie.
She posted this on Green Forum, the day after the October 15th anti terror raids.
Location: Aro Valley, Wellington
Activist arrests in Wellington Posted: 16 Oct 2007 21:36
In the interests of supporting those who have been arrested, discussions were held last night at 128 Able Smith St.
I am re-posting a statement verbatim from Indymedia Collective, as a response to those who are concerned or confused about what is being said in media and local gossip.
Quote:
This morning I opened the herald to see what the bullshit the media were spinning about the raids and saw a comment allegedly from a flatmate of one of the activists arrested yesterday in Auckland.
I thought it would be obvious not to comment to the media but apparently not.
I guess I just want to remind people not to talk amongst themselves and speculate and especially do not talk to the media. They are not your friends and they will use you to get the inside scoop.
This was obvious in another article I got forwarded this morning from Bomber’s blog. He was sniffing around last night at Unite and had cornered some less experienced activists and was asking them what was going on…
As someone quite rightly put it last night….’if not one talks, everyone walks’.
It is not gossip it is fucken serious and some of our comrades are facing a long time behind bars, it would be good if people could remember that.
Now is an important time to remember AND PRACTISE those good old rules about security culture and solidarity!
The media are easy to ignore however the filth is a different story and it is likely that they will want to ‘talk’ to some people. If you are concerned about this and don’t know what your rights are etc… please seek the advise of an experienced activist who you TRUST. Maybe we need to have a workshop around this sometime in the next few days so that everyone is confident.
Love and solidarity!
Please respect the very serious position that the arrests have put some of our very dear friends in.
We have already seen a former policeman, Detective John Dewar, convicted for perverting the course of justice in the Shipton/Schollum/Rickards case; we know they lie.
The case at hand is under District Court strictures, there are suppression orders in place. We would prefer activists not to be branded as terrorists, in the face of Police PR and dubiously executed search warrants, and media clutching at straws to create a “good story”.
To all who have offered support, thanks on behalf of activists who do not have access to these forums. A legal fund has been started, and practical support for the arrestees on remand has begun.
Kerry Tankard
(Katie)
Member
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2007/12/evidence-of-green-partyanarchist.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
Gerrit Says:
“I cant talk for JH but many of us are NOT afraid to discuss the treaty.”
…..
I’m always riveting on about the treaty, but I’m not a Green “treaty educator” (= propagandist). I’m not the sort of shiella who “holds te tiritti in (ones/ my) heart” like Catherine Delahunty (who is a te tiritti tooti pooty).
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Valis Says:
“And that is really the only reason I ever bother to respond to jh anymore. The dialogue is certainly fruitless, I just want others reading to know his views are extreme and a (often deliberate) perversion of Green policy.”
…..
I heard Meteria going on (Waatea News) about the foreshore and seabed and Maori. Whereas she’s talking (I am corrected) about some foreshore and seabed and some Maori (perhaps a $trillion worth of iron sands). You look at the Green Party website you see the FAQ on the FSSB and see aboriginal title continues when soveriegnty is ceded (but are told there is a strong case that it wasn’t) to become customary title (a property right) under common law and Meteria tells us Maori shouldn’t have conditions imposed, that the govt is interferring but I am informed this is only about areas where Maori have lived continuously adjacent to the coast. Meanwhile the Greens will be talking about “us” and the environment and equality while also talking about “power sharing” (where the one man one vote is an out limited concept of conservative Pakeha)…etc
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
Clearly it’s difficult for some to hold more than one concept in their head at a given time.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Maybe you need leaders who have a consistent message and talk sense.
Several Green MP’s talk the max on treaty issues but the party wants to be seen as on the side of the whole population. On the FSSB your out batting for Maori while calling anyone racist who dares to suggest Maori may not always display exemplary behaviour towards other people on “their” beach. Catherine Delahunty is particularly scathing of “the Pakeha Nation” and can’t wait for it’s demise. The most appropriate metaphor (she says) for colonisation is “sewage”. She is 6th (?) on the Green party list. Judge for yourselves:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00068.htm
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Trotter is correct (Sir Trotter):
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/05/taking-greens-seriously.html
P.S this is how I imagined Valis might look:
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/07/arrogant-left.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Clearly it is difficult for the Greens to have a debate about what the co-leader means by “decolonisation”.
No takers from the Greens on outlining this concept by presenting desired outcome and how this might be implemented?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“”The Maori Party will never stop trading votes to future governments in return for the bar being lowered even further until eventually the whole foreshore and seabed is under Maori control. Then they will turn their sights on the exclusive economic zone out to the 200 nautical mile limit. Tribes and the Green Party are already saying that the foreshore and seabed area should be given to them out to the 200 nautical mile limit.”
“Under the National Government’s new bill, the government expects 2,000 km of coastline to be transferred to corporate iwi – that’s the distance from North Cape to the Bluff wrapped around the coast and extended out to the 12 nautical mile limit. In these areas, iwi will have stronger powers than local authorities and even central government agencies. The National Government is giving away New Zealand sovereignty to iwi on the Foreshore and Marine area” Dr Barr said.
“National is selling out the democratic rights of all New Zealanders to the Maori aristocracy with it’s racist bill. We will be vigorously opposing it”, Dr Barr said.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1009/S00088/coastal-coalition-on-foreshore-act-changes.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
Odd:
“The likelihood that this customary title continues in some areas of the foreshore and seabed has just been raised by the Court of Appeal decision. It has come as a surprise but should not have. Pre-dating the Treaty, customary title to the “wet” area of the beach – between high and low tide and under the sea – has always been recognised to have existed in 1840 and has not been extinguished by nation-wide legislation, though it may have been extinguished locally in some areas by other means. The Court of Appeal decision finds only that hapu and iwi have the right to seek clarification of their title in their local area from the Maori Land Court – *hardly a radical decision*.
………
people feared that the court of appeal might find that:
“customary title to the “wet” area of the beach – between high and low tide and under the sea – has always been recognised to have existed in 1840 and has not been extinguished by nation-wide legislation, though it may have been extinguished locally in some areas by other means.”
as Chris Trotter puts it;
“For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities? ”
http://www.greens.org.nz/features/foreshore-and-seabed-can-customary-title-co-exist-commons
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
The Greens seem to have bought the fallacy that they can have radical positions without radical consequences.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Sam Buchanan Posted September 8, 2010 at 12:33 PM “Well, if you believe that a ‘radical’ is anyone who doesn’t like the Labour party (i.e. you don’t agree with over-regulation, privatisation, free trade deals, military adventurism, commercialisation of GM, the state spying on its citizens, welfare payments for business, etc. etc.), then sure – The Green Party IS full of ‘redicals’.”
Well said! and let’s be joyful about it. And many Labour supporters, and even Nats agree with us, so we can win a lot more support with a good campaign. We have great MPs and real, workable policies that need to be concisely drawn up and widely distributed. Issues based meet the candidate gatherings that are welcoming to the general public. Good catchy Green mottoes. James Shaw for campaign manager! Why not even let candidates go all out for seats instead of just limiting it to wanting party votes only?
People have had enough of the right wing whitewash: (again Sam, well put)
“in the political arena, the winner is not the person with the best arguments or the most supportive facts, but the person who keeps shouting the same thing over and over until their opponents give up, or the point has been repeated so often that it slips into the popular mind as a fact.”
Let’s keep the main facts straight and have fun this election.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Cows eat Pizza? Who knew?
http://live.psu.edu/story/48055
…and was this discovery held back by
A. The horrific common mispronunciation of the oREGano by New ZeaLANDers?
B. The fact that you have to ask for oREGano when you want a pizza here?
C. The fact that you get Barbecue Sauce instead of oREGano if you aren’t QUITE forceful enough with the pizza maker (I usually have to make threats).
I reckon ‘C’ is a crime against nature and needs the perpetrators to be sent back to sauce school, but wadda-I-know. I’m just a New Yauk boy from a wop naybawhood.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
On Decolonization… I don’t know exactly what was meant. It isn’t described in our policies and I have no definition that would serve in this case.
To me it could mean what would happen if we had a constitution that incorporated Maori and Pakeha in a manner that honored the treaty but without the vagueness and distortions that the simple document introduces in our single tier government. I don’t imagine that I know what was meant though and I do wish that clarity about this could be found before we get into the next election cycle.
It is the sort of misunderstanding that bites us on the butt every time it comes up.
Which is a form of decolonization as well, but an extremely ugly image indeed
Gawd… and I haven’t had breakfast yet.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Strategically the Greens really need to clear this up. From the outside it looks like the Maori faction inside the Greens is trying to out Maori the Maori party.
There is a feeling out in the electorate that Maori sovereignty means as a race they are to held apart (heid is a rough translation of afrikanaars for held – thus apartheid) from the rest of New Zealand society.
Greens need to be careful how to combine Maori ambitions of apartheid and how the voting electorate sees that vision.
Currently it would seem by the radical Maori vision that apartheid is the best option. The phase “uber alles’ comes to mind when reading and interpreting radical Maori desires.
Keith Locke quite rightly raised the republican issue but it seems to have died by being ignored by the rest of the Greens.
Can a republic support Maori seperatism and aloofness? Can a republic with a written constitution support racial seperatism?
Still think the timing is way to early for a republic, we need another 50 years before we are ready. This will be when the population demographics are khaki coloured and asian/indian/oceania influenced.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
The Greenz have been hijacked by the brownz.
The public perception is that the only time Met opens her mouth is to espouse her racial agenda.
WTF
The greenz should be advocating for the Foreshore and Seabed itself, not the pathetic egos who would believe that they might dare to ‘own’ the unownable.
Who are these aliens that have abducted an environmental party?
So sad when government sooo desperately NEEDS a vibrant advocate for sustainability.
I despair!
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
@samiam 8:47 AM
The Greens are not and never have been an environmental party, so there is no hijack at all. One of the foundation principles of the Greens is appropriate decisionmaking.
Denying the common law right of people to go to Court to determine whether the ownership of property that is in dispute is totally repugnant to that principle. The fact that the people whose rights have been denied happen to be Maori (making the FSA racially discriminatory) is an aggravating factor, but not the fundamental basis of the Greens’ objection to the FSA.
The irony is that the Greens are often attacked by those on the political right as being “socialist”, but on this issue the Greens and ACT are the only parties standing up for property rights and the rule of law.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
toad,
Surely you forgot the word ……”only” been an environmental party?
or are you saying the Greens are morphing into something else?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
bj…the oregano/oregano thing depends on which school you went to…
(esp. in christchurch…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
lord stern is on national radio…(nine to noon)..
(their archives will have it..if you miss/ed it..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oops, yes I did mean “only” or “solely” Garret. Bad typo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Garret! Bad type you mean!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I don’t think anyone, even tino rangatiratanga fans, have a clear idea of what decolonisation means.”
I think that’s a bit of a generalisation – I feel pretty clear about what decolonisation mneans – but I don’t know how the Green Party can make it fit with the capitalist/social democratic framework they also champion.
I said: “jh understands that… the winner is… the person who keeps shouting the same thing over and over until their opponents give up,” and jh responded by posting this link:
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/05/taking-greens-seriously.html
Which is about the umpteenth time he’s posted this link on this blog. Which I guess proves my point.
By the way, jh, why on earth did you start going on about Kerry Tankard?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Another way of saying what Meteria has been saying? [yes/no- if not why?... don't want to play?]:
.
“Rather than legislating to extinguish customary title as had been initially stated by Helen Clark, which would have been outrageous enough, this has instead been achieved by stealth. The proposals have simply written customary title out, taking away the jurisdiction of Iwi and Hapu as part of the authority of tino rangatiratanga and subjecting their authority to the whim of the government.
As stated in the paper ‘Some Core Values for Resolving the Foreshore and Seabed Issue’, circulated earlier today:
“The concept of a subordinate ‘customary title and rights’ is an unjust and illogical remnant of a racist and colonising jurisprudence which has no place in a Treaty-based discourse of the 21st century;” and “The consequent notion of a Crown right to extinguish the tupuna title and rights of Iwi and Hapu, and the assumption that such extinguishment can be consented to, also has no place in the discourses of the 21st century.” (Te Hau Tikanga, the Maori Law Commission)
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/infssub.htm
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
photonz1
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2010/09/ma-and-pa-investors.html
Overladed general Debate Frog!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
By the way, jh, why on earth did you start going on about Kerry Tankard?
……
That was in relation to Toad (Keith, Meteria) claiming there was nothing to see here. Unfortunately I can’t post it as frog will remove it, but it is on record [taken from the Green Party Forum].
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Sam
What is your interpretation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
roberts link says
“Always wonder why they don’t just call them what they are…..
White middle class well monied whinos who mainly made their “wealth” getting lucky buying and selling tax free capital gained houses.”
robert – you link to someone who is foaming at the mouth about the 75% of the population who have savings when they retire.
It undermines your own arguement that there is not such thing as mum and dad investors.
Here’s a question. Why did you attack me for using the term, but no big attack on Russel Norman when he uses it?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Sam
I feel pretty clear about what decolonisation mneans
What is your interpretation?
………
Sam sees decolonisation as life before industrialisation while still producing the wealth (food, necessities) of an industrial society. He (might see) the “polynesian economy” as a model and therefore be sympathetic to tino rangitiratanga.
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
“What is your interpretation?”
Well that’s a big question (I’m in the middle of writing a pamphlet that addresses some of the issues, but that’s rather more than I could post here).
Very briefly, I see a need for decentralised decision making that will allow local communities to choose rules and customs based on their own heritage and preferences. To do that you need an acceptance of multiple overlapping centres of power. You can’t do it in a system that’s hung up on individual property title or the ultimate authority of the state.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
jh,
in other words a return to tribalism?
Problem there is it looks good on paper and sounds all romantic, but the model has no answer when one tribe gets envious of anothers assets and takes militant action.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
“Sam sees decolonisation as life before industrialisation while still producing the wealth (food, necessities) of an industrial society. ”
Complete rubbish – when have I ever opposed industrialisation per se?
BTW – I still don’t see what Kerry Tankard’s comments have to do with Keith, Metiria and Toad.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“the model has no answer when one tribe gets envious of anothers assets and takes militant action”
Tribes are just states on a small scale. Much that same could be said about the current state system. I don’t support tribalism by the way.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
So what is your “decolonisation” for Maori model Sam?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sam,
Sorry I did not see your earlier post.
Maori are “hung up” about seeking title to the foreshore so your decolonisation model is no good.
And is the Treaty of Waitangi not an agreement between two states?
So in your model “decolonisation” means an end to the treaty surely?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“Maori are “hung up” about seeking title to the foreshore so your decolonisation model is no good.”
Some may be, some aren’t. Therte is no single ‘Maori viewpoint’. The FSSB debate is taking place within a context of property rights as defined by European tradition and capitalist preference. In essence, the government has put into place a system based on a European conception of property rights and now is all upset that some Maori are trying to uphold their rights within that framework – so obviously the whole thing is flawed and difficult.
“So in your model “decolonisation” means an end to the treaty surely?”
Absolutely.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Sam,
Thanks for your comments.
Interesting point of view, a view I dont disagree with.
And yes I can see why the Greens are reticent to discuss decolonisation uder those terms as much Green policy has to do with honouring the treaty first and foremost.
And as toad said in an earlier post The Greens and Act parties are the only ones defending property rights.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
BTW – I still don’t see what Kerry Tankard’s comments have to do with Keith, Metiria and Toad.
….
To me those comments (she’s quoting Indymedia) look incriminating “if no one talks, everyone walks” “don’t talk to the filth ” (police), “this is f’n serious and some of the comrades could be going down for a long time”. Meteria, Keith and Toad would have been aware of this (and more to boot) yet Keith and meteria spun the “nothing to see here line”.
They would have been aware of Nandors post about knowing Maori who see the future as “permanent revolution” also. Plus the solicitor generals comments re bring to an end “some very disturbing activities”. Meteria: “we are winning the media war”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Sam Says:
“The FSSB debate is taking place within a context of property rights as defined by European tradition and capitalist preference. In essence, the government has put into place a system based on a European conception of property rights and now is all upset that some Maori are trying to uphold their rights within that framework – so obviously the whole thing is flawed and difficult.”
Whereas Maori are seeking property right that don’t have claws?
““The concept of a subordinate ‘customary title and rights’ is an unjust and illogical remnant of a racist and colonising jurisprudence which has no place in a Treaty-based discourse of the 21st century;” and “The consequent notion of a Crown right to extinguish the tupuna title and rights of Iwi and Hapu, and the assumption that such extinguishment can be consented to, also has no place in the discourses of the 21st century.” (Te Hau Tikanga, the Maori Law Commission)
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/infssub.htm”
What is happening is that an argument is being used that says as original inhabitants Maori own everything (after all we didn’t have a war as such), but we have the moral high ground because we are only asking for areas where Iwi or Hapu have lived adjacent to the coast. In fact some Maori seem to be asking for quite a lot (Ninety Mile Beach, etc, etc) but this is about political realities.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
jh – it is, or should be, a process of mutual respect. Historically, as Sam has pointed out, there has been only one way of doing things imposed on everyone. Worse, within that model, Maori have frequently been excluded as they have in this FS issue. Yet, if wider concepts of ‘ownership’ were examined and discussed honestly and if we had better ways of discussing contentious issues there would be less fear on all sides.
Ultimately, if as a society we could work in good faith towards mutual respect and shared processes and ideals, we wouldn’t need a treaty and we certainly wouldn’t need a monarchy. Until we are grown-up enough to understand this, we need to honour the one legal agreement we do have and to apply that imposed law fairly.
Meanwhile, despite your fears, there are many people engaged in those discussions of law and custom with good will and mutual respect. It isn’t about a final solution, but a shared process.
I can’t be bothered dealing with your more absurd misstatements.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Your familiar with the term “waffle” Janine?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Toad Says:
The Greens are not and never have been an environmental party.
……
Thanks for pointing that out Toad but is it honorable to use the “green” label given it’s conotations… Might you all not be accused of “green wash?”
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
toad
Posted September 9, 2010 at 9:10 AM
@samiam 8:47 AM
The Greens are not and never have been an environmental party, so there is no hijack at all. One of the foundation principles of the Greens is appropriate decisionmaking.
………………………….
A ha! No more the watermelons? Now you’re the reds (with a green name)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Greens out of the closet:
toad
Posted September 9, 2010 at 9:10 AM
@samiam 8:47 AM
The Greens are not and never have been an environmental party, so there is no hijack at all. One of the foundation principles of the Greens is appropriate decisionmaking.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/09/05/general-debate-september-5-2010-2/#comment-150391
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
If you want I could pick you up and try to make something of your many typos and unintentional omissions but it would get rather tedious and boring for everyone else, don’t you think?
Do try to keep up.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Down with Toad.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
jh…why on earth do you comment @kiwiblog as hj…?
multiple-personalities….?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
For some reason I couldn’t log in as jh.
….
I didn’t see your correction Toad. I did a google of green politics after reading the above and it made no more sense than last time.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
“Maori are “hung up” about seeking title to the foreshore so your decolonisation model is no good.”
I should have pointed out that the FSSB issue concerns property rights within the current framework – it hasn’t got a lot to do with decolonisation which is about changing the framework.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“There is a feeling out in the electorate that Maori sovereignty means as a race they are to held apart (heid is a rough translation of afrikanaars for held – thus apartheid) from the rest of New Zealand society.”
I think there are some Maori who would choose to work with other Maori, speak Maori, and live in a Maori cultural environment. Likewise there are some Pakeha who would choose to work with Pakeha, speak English, and live in a European-derived cultural environment.
However, there’s very few Pakeha, and extremely few, if any, Maori who want to exclude the other race from entering those environments. In other words the seperation (or “aloofness”) is cultural rather than racial.
And nobody (save a handful of white power nutcases) wants to legislate to keep the races, or cultures, apart – any seperation is a matter of choice. So likening it to “apartheid” is kind of silly.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“[decolonisation] is about changing the framework.”
what might the first incremental step toward changing the framework look like?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
like a good quizz..?…like drugs…?
(have i got a link for you…!..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2010/pop-quiz-how-much-do-you-really-know-about-drugs-and-the-drug-war/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Froggo dear?! Can I suggest another General Thread is in order? – there is a lot happening in the world, and no one is served by topical focus.
But I’ve drawn up Waitangi 2 – along with a few other duffle-coat manifesto’s.
c’mon Frog – loosen up eh?
Nothing to fear ‘cept fear itself!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)