http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>I think the answer is obvious!
wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Kiwiblog.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, Whaleoil,
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Kiwiblog.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, Whaleoil,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>I think the answer is obvious!
wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
Tony
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:41:42 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you. >Tony
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
Slow learners.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
I'm not sure what you were not able to understand.
JohnO gave a link to a National blogger who had published a graph of
the polled popularity of Labour leaders. Farrar did not give the
equivalent for the National party leader.
You observed that the answer was obvious - although you did not
explain why.
I agreed with you - of course Farrar would not have called attention
to the declining popularity of John Key!
Does that help your understanding?
I suspect that popularity of politicians largely reflects visibility -
most New Zealand Prme Ministers are more popular on that measure than
Leaders of the Opposition.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:41:42 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI misunderstood nothing at all.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you. >>Tony
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
Slow learners.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>>
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
I'm not sure what you were not able to understand.
JohnO gave a link to a National blogger who had published a graph ofSo?
the polled popularity of Labour leaders. Farrar did not give the
equivalent for the National party leader.
You observed that the answer was obvious - although you did notNecause it was obvious but to humour you I will explain - because the popolarity of the Prime Minister is of zero cobsequence compared to the total lack of popularity for Labour and it's leaders. Got it?
explain why.
I agreed with you - of course Farrar would not have called attentionYour penchant for sarcasm is clear to all and it is still the lowest form of wit - or in your case half way there.
to the declining popularity of John Key!
Does that help your understanding?
I suspect that popularity of politicians largely reflects visibility -Another straw for you to clutch at but again wihout managing to hold on.
most New Zealand Prme Ministers are more popular on that measure than
Leaders of the Opposition.
On 4/13/2016 3:41 PM, Tony wrote:They need leadership first, and I hope that happens, before they can produce policy they need a leader with vison, stamina and intelligence. Can you name one?
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>>
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
Tony
Not so obtuse as mentally obese
Key dropped 1%.
Not much of a decline when measured against Mr 7%.
Even Winnie got a higher liked mark...
So when are they going to dump the angry little man and start producing >policy and start to look like a possible government
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I apologise. I clearly misunderstood what you meant by your use of the
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:41:42 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI misunderstood nothing at all.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:I know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you. >>>Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
Slow learners.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>>>
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
I'm not sure what you were not able to understand.
So it appears to be a partisan comment, repeated by a partisan posterSo?
JohnO gave a link to a National blogger who had published a graph of
the polled popularity of Labour leaders. Farrar did not give the
equivalent for the National party leader.
Actually no - I regard the polling for popularity as of littleYou observed that the answer was obvious - although you did notNecause it was obvious but to humour you I will explain - because the >popolarity of the Prime Minister is of zero cobsequence compared to the total >lack of popularity for Labour and it's leaders. Got it?
explain why.
Your penchant for sarcasm is clear to all and it is still the lowest form of >wit - or in your case half way there.
I agreed with you - of course Farrar would not have called attention
to the declining popularity of John Key!
Does that help your understanding?
I don;t know why you deliberately try to be insulting - at best your
I suspect that popularity of politicians largely reflects visibility -
most New Zealand Prme Ministers are more popular on that measure than >>Leaders of the Opposition.
Another straw for you to clutch at but again wihout managing to hold on.
I know it bores you but why doesn't your party look at being a real opposition >party instead of being whingers and criticising people instead of policies and >performance?Yet another unsupported assertion on your part.
Like the American Republican party Labour is a bunch of people without a >manifesto!
Tony
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:41:26 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netAccepted
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I apologise.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:41:42 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI misunderstood nothing at all.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:I know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you. >>>>Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
Slow learners.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>>>>
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about >>>>>his declining popularity.
I'm not sure what you were not able to understand.
I clearly misunderstood what you meant by your use of theNo!
word "obtuse". With hindsight, were you indicating that while you
understood my request, others may not?
So do the Labour bloggers and so?So it appears to be a partisan comment, repeated by a partisan posterSo?
JohnO gave a link to a National blogger who had published a graph of
the polled popularity of Labour leaders. Farrar did not give the >>>equivalent for the National party leader.
to nz.general. Weren't you the person who called for more balanced
posts?
Actually no - I regard the polling for popularity as of littleYou observed that the answer was obvious - although you did notNecause it was obvious but to humour you I will explain - because the >>popolarity of the Prime Minister is of zero cobsequence compared to the total >>lack of popularity for Labour and it's leaders. Got it?
explain why.
practical use - except of course for spin by partisan comentators.
Farrar of course has a vested interest in making polls of all sorts
look more important than they really are.
Once more - the answer to that question is obvious!Your penchant for sarcasm is clear to all and it is still the lowest form of >>wit - or in your case half way there.
I agreed with you - of course Farrar would not have called attention
to the declining popularity of John Key!
Does that help your understanding?
What sarcasm?
No insult, just a commentary - if I was insuling you it would be obvious and not at all subtle.
I suspect that popularity of politicians largely reflects visibility - >>>most New Zealand Prme Ministers are more popular on that measure than >>>Leaders of the Opposition.
Another straw for you to clutch at but again wihout managing to hold on.I don;t know why you deliberately try to be insulting - at best your
comment is off-topic.
Nonsense - you are always criticisng the man and not the policy - read one of many manuals on good communication and try to undrstand why that is stupid!I know it bores you but why doesn't your party look at being a real >>oppositionYet another unsupported assertion on your part.
party instead of being whingers and criticising people instead of policies >>and
performance?
As is Labour!Like the American Republican party Labour is a bunch of people without a >>manifesto!
Tony
You could of course compare Labour policies now with those of National
at the same time before the 2008 election - or indeed before any
election since . . .\I could but there is no similarity.
The American Republican party is of course having its own problems . .
.
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:51:51 UTC+12, morriss...@gmail.com wrote:Anything like comrade little in the house today. Not very well. http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/42727
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, Whaleoil, Kiwiblog.
Hello Morrissey.
I guess you'll need to add Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan and anyone else without your world view to your list above?
How's your boy Corbyn getting along these days?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:27:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:What an incredible diatribe aimed at a person and not one piece of policy or substance. Labour is tragically short of intelligent and capable people.
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:51:51 UTC+12, morriss...@gmail.com wrote:Anything like comrade little in the house today. Not very well. >http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/42727
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, >>>Whaleoil, Kiwiblog.
Hello Morrissey.
I guess you'll need to add Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan and anyone else without >>your world view to your list above?
How's your boy Corbyn getting along these days?
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11543038
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:27:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>What an incredible diatribe aimed at a person and not one piece of policy or >substance. Labour is tragically short of intelligent and capable people.
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:51:51 UTC+12, morriss...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Anything like comrade little in the house today. Not very well. >>http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/42727
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>> >
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, >>>>Whaleoil, Kiwiblog.
Hello Morrissey.
I guess you'll need to add Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan and anyone else without
your world view to your list above?
How's your boy Corbyn getting along these days?
Tony
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:10:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netwrote:
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:27:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
without
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:51:51 UTC+12, morriss...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>> >
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, >>>>Whaleoil, Kiwiblog.
Hello Morrissey.
I guess you'll need to add Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan and anyone else
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11543038What an incredible diatribe aimed at a person and not one piece of policy or >substance. Labour is tragically short of intelligent and capable people. >Tonyyour world view to your list above?Anything like comrade little in the house today. Not very well. >>http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/42727
How's your boy Corbyn getting along these days?
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:11:07 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:41:42 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>I think the answer is obvious!
wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
Tony
I'm not sure what you were not able to understand.
JohnO gave a link to a National blogger who had published a graph of
the polled popularity of Labour leaders. Farrar did not give the
equivalent for the National party leader.
You observed that the answer was obvious - although you did not
explain why.
I agreed with you - of course Farrar would not have called attention
to the declining popularity of John Key!
Does that help your understanding?
I suspect that popularity of politicians largely reflects visibility -
most New Zealand Prme Ministers are more popular on that measure than
Leaders of the Opposition.
Unless it's John Key vs PM Helen Clark, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ_opinion_polls_2005-2008_-PPM.png
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:10:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11543038
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:27:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:What an incredible diatribe aimed at a person and not one piece of policy >>or
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:51:51 UTC+12, morriss...@gmail.com >>>>wrote:Anything like comrade little in the house today. Not very well. >>>http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/42727
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>> >
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, >>>>>Whaleoil, Kiwiblog.
Hello Morrissey.
I guess you'll need to add Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan and anyone else >>>>without
your world view to your list above?
How's your boy Corbyn getting along these days?
substance. Labour is tragically short of intelligent and capable people. >>Tony
On 4/13/2016 3:41 PM, Tony wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>>
Slow learners.
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about
his declining popularity.
Tony
Not so obtuse as mentally obese
Key dropped 1%.
Not much of a decline when measured against Mr 7%.
Even Winnie got a higher liked mark...
So when are they going to dump the angry little man and start producing policy and start to look like a possible government
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:27:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:What an incredible diatribe aimed at a person and not one piece of policy
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:51:51 UTC+12, morriss...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Anything like comrade little in the house today. Not very well. >>http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/42727
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>> >
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, >>>>Whaleoil, Kiwiblog.
Hello Morrissey.
I guess you'll need to add Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan and anyone else >>>without
your world view to your list above?
How's your boy Corbyn getting along these days?
or
substance. Labour is tragically short of intelligent and capable people.
Tony
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:41:26 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I apologise. I clearly misunderstood what you meant by your use of the
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:41:42 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI misunderstood nothing at all.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:42:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:I know you have a weird sense of numour but that is obtuse even for you. >>>>Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:I think the answer is obvious!
Slow learners.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>>>>>
Why did the dingbats not give the equivalent graph for John Key?
Tony
Indeed - I suspect that if asked, John Key would be 'relaxed' about >>>>>his declining popularity.
I'm not sure what you were not able to understand.
word "obtuse". With hindsight, were you indicating that while you
understood my request, others may not?
So it appears to be a partisan comment, repeated by a partisan posterSo?
JohnO gave a link to a National blogger who had published a graph of
the polled popularity of Labour leaders. Farrar did not give the >>>equivalent for the National party leader.
to nz.general. Weren't you the person who called for more balanced
posts?
Actually no - I regard the polling for popularity as of littleYou observed that the answer was obvious - although you did notNecause it was obvious but to humour you I will explain - because the >>popolarity of the Prime Minister is of zero cobsequence compared to the >>total
explain why.
lack of popularity for Labour and it's leaders. Got it?
practical use - except of course for spin by partisan comentators.
Farrar of course has a vested interest in making polls of all sorts
look more important than they really are.
Your penchant for sarcasm is clear to all and it is still the lowest form >>of
I agreed with you - of course Farrar would not have called attention
to the declining popularity of John Key!
Does that help your understanding?
wit - or in your case half way there.
What sarcasm?
I suspect that popularity of politicians largely reflects visibility - >>>most New Zealand Prme Ministers are more popular on that measure than >>>Leaders of the Opposition.
Another straw for you to clutch at but again wihout managing to hold on.I don;t know why you deliberately try to be insulting - at best your
comment is off-topic.
I know it bores you but why doesn't your party look at being a real >>oppositionYet another unsupported assertion on your part.
party instead of being whingers and criticising people instead of policies >>and
performance?
Like the American Republican party Labour is a bunch of people without a >>manifesto!
Tony
You could of course compare Labour policies now with those of National
at the same time before the 2008 election - or indeed before any
election since . . .
The American Republican party is of course having its own problems . .
.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:10:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYour point is?
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11543038
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:27:45 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>What an incredible diatribe aimed at a person and not one piece of policy or >>substance. Labour is tragically short of intelligent and capable people. >>Tony
On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:51:51 UTC+12, morriss...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Anything like comrade little in the house today. Not very well. >>>http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/42727
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/houston_we_may_have_a_problem.html >>>>> >
Slow learners.
Lies, damned lies, ACT Party statements, National Party statements, >>>>>Whaleoil, Kiwiblog.
Hello Morrissey.
I guess you'll need to add Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan and anyone else >>>>without
your world view to your list above?
How's your boy Corbyn getting along these days?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:02:48 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,680 |
