Well, the first things are."Re"-define? Since the current government has denied it exists in New
Redefine childhood poverty
AndNational have already defined it - do you have a problem with their
Redefine homelessness.
Two problems solved immediatelyPerhaps repeal this law that made it nearly impossible for any other
Then find some excuse as to if women are paid less than men why are
firms not employing women only to make a greater profit?
Then they can lose the lippy and get back to the basic pig.I agree - no-one else can make things up like you do.
I can see it now---- Clark for president and the tubby Wellington foot >cushion vice ..
You couldn't make it up
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 08:01:38 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Well, the first things are."Re"-define? Since the current government has denied it exists in New Zealand, but suddenly when depserate promises to halve childhood
Redefine childhood poverty
poverty, perhaps it is National you should ne asking to define what
they are promising . . .
AndNational have already defined it - do you have a problem with their definition? They take it to mean not having any cover - sleeping
Redefine homelessness.
rough, living oin the streets. They also call it poor personal
choices, but they had an answer which was to get the police to take
them off the streets, except that didn't work so well so we don't hear
about that any more.
Here is a picture of what they are talking about - but I guess you may believe that they are not really holess if they have the ptorction of
a sign from National . . . http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918292
Two problems solved immediatelyPerhaps repeal this law that made it nearly impossible for any other
Then find some excuse as to if women are paid less than men why are
firms not employing women only to make a greater profit?
group to make similar claims :
"Association professor Alex Sims, head of the commercial law
department at the University of Auckland, said the lost ability to
compare with other industries was a key problem.
"This is in direct contrast to the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bartlett versus Terranova where the court was clear that comparators
did not need to be confined to the employer and sector of the
employees bringing the claim." "
But there is hope for a solution to your problem, george - it relies
however on employers being able to tell whether an employee is male or
female - do yu think they could manage that? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11918763
Then they can lose the lippy and get back to the basic pig.I agree - no-one else can make things up like you do.
I can see it now---- Clark for president and the tubby Wellington foot
cushion vice ..
You couldn't make it up
On 8/09/2017 10:52 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 08:01:38 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Well, the first things are."Re"-define? Since the current government has denied it exists in New
Redefine childhood poverty
Zealand, but suddenly when depserate promises to halve childhood
poverty, perhaps it is National you should ne asking to define what
they are promising . . .
Got a cite for Nationals denial of poverty Rich? Besides which now that National are getting surpluses you should be congratulating them on
doing something. Like Jacinta did to English during the first debate :)
AndNational have already defined it - do you have a problem with their
Redefine homelessness.
definition? They take it to mean not having any cover - sleeping
rough, living oin the streets. They also call it poor personal
choices, but they had an answer which was to get the police to take
them off the streets, except that didn't work so well so we don't hear
about that any more.
As always you chose to demonstrate your total lack of comprehension
Rich. National didn't define it. It's a list of things that define the current definition of poverty. Something you have NEVER ever given a definition of. But guess when you lack as much comprehension as you it's
hard to define anything.
Here is a picture of what they are talking about - but I guess you may
believe that they are not really holess if they have the ptorction of
a sign from National . . .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918292
Two problems solved immediatelyPerhaps repeal this law that made it nearly impossible for any other
Then find some excuse as to if women are paid less than men why are
firms not employing women only to make a greater profit?
group to make similar claims :
"Association professor Alex Sims, head of the commercial law
department at the University of Auckland, said the lost ability to
compare with other industries was a key problem.
"This is in direct contrast to the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bartlett versus Terranova where the court was clear that comparators
did not need to be confined to the employer and sector of the
employees bringing the claim." "
But there is hope for a solution to your problem, george - it relies
however on employers being able to tell whether an employee is male or
female - do yu think they could manage that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11918763
That's getting harder and harder to do Rich. Are you suggesting all job applicants should strip for their interviews so their true gender is
exposed?
Then they can lose the lippy and get back to the basic pig.I agree - no-one else can make things up like you do.
I can see it now---- Clark for president and the tubby Wellington foot
cushion vice ..
You couldn't make it up
As always Rich: WRONG! YOU are the king of lies in this ng.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 08:14:02 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 9/9/2017 12:42 AM, Pooh wrote:Oh I am sure I have made posts with worse typographical and spelling
On 8/09/2017 10:52 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 08:01:38 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Well, the first things are."Re"-define? Since the current government has denied it exists in New
Redefine childhood poverty
Zealand, but suddenly when desperate, promises to halve childhood
poverty, perhaps it is National you should be asking to define what
they are promising . . .
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
errors george - but all fixed now - you now have no excuse not to
think about what I actually wrote . . .
Perhaps a denial of the ability to measure poverty, and an assertion
Got a cite for Nationals denial of poverty Rich?
that poverty is low would be easier for you to find. Certainly the
u-turn from Bill English was a dramtic change of direction - good on
him for recognising reality - except he still hasn't explained how he
will reduce poverty, or what measure he is using . . .
easier to claim that the future will be better than to acknowlegeBesides which now that
National are getting surpluses you should be congratulating them on
doing something. Like Jacinta did to English during the first debate :) >Getting surpluses? Plural? How much was the surplus at the end of each >financial year over say the last 20 years, george? Like most things, >National never talks about actual results - they realise that it is
their failures.
They have always acknowledged that speepig rough is a problem that
AndNational have already defined it - do you have a problem with their
Redefine homelessness.
definition? They take it to mean not having any cover - sleeping
rough, living on the streets. They also call it poor personal
choices, but they had an answer which was to get the police to take
them off the streets, except that didn't work so well so we don't hear >>>> about that any more.
As always you chose to demonstrate your total lack of comprehension
Rich. National didn't define it.
needs to be dealt with - but on reflection you are right that they
refused to see this as influenced by poverty - they claim it is all
untreated mental illness or poor personal choices and that charities
will solve it . . .
It's a list of things that define theFixed as well, just for you. I apologise for having caused you extreme >difficulty in working out what I had written.
current definition of poverty. Something you have NEVER ever given a
definition of. But guess when you lack as much comprehension as you it's >>> hard to define anything.
Here is a picture of what they are talking about - but I guess you may >>>> believe that they are not really hopeless if they have the protection of >>>> a sign from National . . .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918292 >>>>
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
"yu" for "you"? Sorry to have inadvertently caused you to totally lose
Two problems solved immediatelyPerhaps repeal this law that made it nearly impossible for any other
Then find some excuse as to if women are paid less than men why are
firms not employing women only to make a greater profit?
group to make similar claims :
"Association professor Alex Sims, head of the commercial law
department at the University of Auckland, said the lost ability to
compare with other industries was a key problem.
"This is in direct contrast to the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bartlett versus Terranova where the court was clear that comparators
did not need to be confined to the employer and sector of the
employees bringing the claim." "
But there is hope for a solution to your problem, george - it relies
however on employers being able to tell whether an employee is male or >>>> female - do you think they could manage that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11918763
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
the plot . . .
Our new LGBTI world must be very confusing to you george. Is that whatThat's getting harder and harder to do Rich. Are you suggesting all job
applicants should strip for their interviews so their true gender is
exposed?
you would do as an employer - ask them to strip? Would that be the
best approach in your view with a transvestite? If unsure, did you get
taught to ask?
Treasury have done a difficult job under trying circumstances. It mustIt's his job.
Then they can lose the lippy and get back to the basic pig.I agree - no-one else can make things up like you do.
I can see it now---- Clark for president and the tubby Wellington foot >>>>> cushion vice ..
You couldn't make it up
As always Rich: WRONG! YOU are the king of lies in this ng.
Otherwise why would he ignore his ladies knowledge that National has
kept the books in good order
be harder when the Minister of Finance cannot read accounts, and
doesn't ask for advice. Poor Bill English was also lost in trying to
find one person other than Stephen Joyuce that believed there was any
11 billion hole . . . Stephen Joyce has shot himself in the foot for
taking over from Bill when they lose the election though . . .
On 9/9/2017 12:42 AM, Pooh wrote:Oh I am sure I have made posts with worse typographical and spelling
On 8/09/2017 10:52 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 08:01:38 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Well, the first things are."Re"-define? Since the current government has denied it exists in New
Redefine childhood poverty
Zealand, but suddenly when desperate, promises to halve childhood
poverty, perhaps it is National you should be asking to define what
they are promising . . .
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
Perhaps a denial of the ability to measure poverty, and an assertion
Got a cite for Nationals denial of poverty Rich?
National never talks about actual results - they realise that it isBesides which now that
National are getting surpluses you should be congratulating them on
doing something. Like Jacinta did to English during the first debate :) Getting surpluses? Plural? How much was the surplus at the end of each financial year over say the last 20 years, george? Like most things,
They have always acknowledged that speepig rough is a problem that
AndNational have already defined it - do you have a problem with their
Redefine homelessness.
definition? They take it to mean not having any cover - sleeping
rough, living on the streets. They also call it poor personal
choices, but they had an answer which was to get the police to take
them off the streets, except that didn't work so well so we don't hear
about that any more.
As always you chose to demonstrate your total lack of comprehension
Rich. National didn't define it.
It's a list of things that define theFixed as well, just for you. I apologise for having caused you extreme difficulty in working out what I had written.
current definition of poverty. Something you have NEVER ever given a
definition of. But guess when you lack as much comprehension as you it's
hard to define anything.
Here is a picture of what they are talking about - but I guess you may
believe that they are not really hopeless if they have the protection of >>> a sign from National . . .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918292
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
"yu" for "you"? Sorry to have inadvertently caused you to totally lose
Two problems solved immediatelyPerhaps repeal this law that made it nearly impossible for any other
Then find some excuse as to if women are paid less than men why are
firms not employing women only to make a greater profit?
group to make similar claims :
"Association professor Alex Sims, head of the commercial law
department at the University of Auckland, said the lost ability to
compare with other industries was a key problem.
"This is in direct contrast to the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bartlett versus Terranova where the court was clear that comparators
did not need to be confined to the employer and sector of the
employees bringing the claim." "
But there is hope for a solution to your problem, george - it relies
however on employers being able to tell whether an employee is male or
female - do you think they could manage that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11918763
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
Our new LGBTI world must be very confusing to you george. Is that whatThat's getting harder and harder to do Rich. Are you suggesting all job
applicants should strip for their interviews so their true gender is
exposed?
Treasury have done a difficult job under trying circumstances. It mustIt's his job.
Then they can lose the lippy and get back to the basic pig.I agree - no-one else can make things up like you do.
I can see it now---- Clark for president and the tubby Wellington foot >>>> cushion vice ..
You couldn't make it up
As always Rich: WRONG! YOU are the king of lies in this ng.
Otherwise why would he ignore his ladies knowledge that National has
kept the books in good order
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 08:14:02 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 9/9/2017 12:42 AM, Pooh wrote:Oh I am sure I have made posts with worse typographical and spelling
On 8/09/2017 10:52 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 08:01:38 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Well, the first things are."Re"-define? Since the current government has denied it exists in New
Redefine childhood poverty
Zealand, but suddenly when desperate, promises to halve childhood
poverty, perhaps it is National you should be asking to define what
they are promising . . .
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
errors george - but all fixed now - you now have no excuse not to
think about what I actually wrote . . .
Perhaps a denial of the ability to measure poverty, and an assertion
Got a cite for Nationals denial of poverty Rich?
that poverty is low would be easier for you to find. Certainly the
u-turn from Bill English was a dramtic change of direction - good on
him for recognising reality - except he still hasn't explained how he
will reduce poverty, or what measure he is using . . .
Getting surpluses? Plural? How much was the surplus at the end of each financial year over say the last 20 years, george? Like most things, National never talks about actual results - they realise that it isBesides which now that
National are getting surpluses you should be congratulating them on
doing something. Like Jacinta did to English during the first debate :)
easier to claim that the future will be better than to acknowlege
their failures.
They have always acknowledged that speepig rough is a problem that
AndNational have already defined it - do you have a problem with their
Redefine homelessness.
definition? They take it to mean not having any cover - sleeping
rough, living on the streets. They also call it poor personal
choices, but they had an answer which was to get the police to take
them off the streets, except that didn't work so well so we don't hear >>>> about that any more.
As always you chose to demonstrate your total lack of comprehension
Rich. National didn't define it.
needs to be dealt with - but on reflection you are right that they
refused to see this as influenced by poverty - they claim it is all
untreated mental illness or poor personal choices and that charities
will solve it . . .
It's a list of things that define theFixed as well, just for you. I apologise for having caused you extreme difficulty in working out what I had written.
current definition of poverty. Something you have NEVER ever given a
definition of. But guess when you lack as much comprehension as you it's >>> hard to define anything.
Here is a picture of what they are talking about - but I guess you may >>>> believe that they are not really hopeless if they have the protection of >>>> a sign from National . . .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918292 >>>>
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
"yu" for "you"? Sorry to have inadvertently caused you to totally lose
Two problems solved immediatelyPerhaps repeal this law that made it nearly impossible for any other
Then find some excuse as to if women are paid less than men why are
firms not employing women only to make a greater profit?
group to make similar claims :
"Association professor Alex Sims, head of the commercial law
department at the University of Auckland, said the lost ability to
compare with other industries was a key problem.
"This is in direct contrast to the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bartlett versus Terranova where the court was clear that comparators
did not need to be confined to the employer and sector of the
employees bringing the claim." "
But there is hope for a solution to your problem, george - it relies
however on employers being able to tell whether an employee is male or >>>> female - do you think they could manage that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11918763
That has to be the worst example of spelling rich has demonstrated
the plot . . .
Our new LGBTI world must be very confusing to you george. Is that whatThat's getting harder and harder to do Rich. Are you suggesting all job
applicants should strip for their interviews so their true gender is
exposed?
you would do as an employer - ask them to strip? Would that be the
best approach in your view with a transvestite? If unsure, did you get
taught to ask?
Treasury have done a difficult job under trying circumstances. It mustIt's his job.
Then they can lose the lippy and get back to the basic pig.I agree - no-one else can make things up like you do.
I can see it now---- Clark for president and the tubby Wellington foot >>>>> cushion vice ..
You couldn't make it up
As always Rich: WRONG! YOU are the king of lies in this ng.
Otherwise why would he ignore his ladies knowledge that National has
kept the books in good order
be harder when the Minister of Finance cannot read accounts, and
doesn't ask for advice. Poor Bill English was also lost in trying to
find one person other than Stephen Joyuce that believed there was any
11 billion hole . . . Stephen Joyce has shot himself in the foot for
taking over from Bill when they lose the election though . . .
The LGBTI world is just another facet of the pc world idiots like you
and the loopy left have foisted on us Rich. It's about time the crap you believe in was trashed and we got back to reality!
On 9/11/2017 4:21 PM, Pooh wrote:
The LGBTI world is just another facet of the pc world idiots like you
and the loopy left have foisted on us Rich. It's about time the crap you
believe in was trashed and we got back to reality!
Looks like we've found a facet of rich that he's washing in denial...
I like reality.
And taking people at face value.
Who cares who does what to who and with what in the privacy of their
bedroom !
But there is hope for a solution to your problem, george - it relies
however on employers being able to tell whether an employee is male or
female - do you think they could manage that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11918763
That's getting harder and harder to do Rich. Are you suggesting all
job applicants should strip for their interviews so their true gender
is exposed?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:06:40 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 9/11/2017 4:21 PM, Pooh wrote:Snipping does lose context. In respose to a comment from you I said:
The LGBTI world is just another facet of the pc world idiots like you
and the loopy left have foisted on us Rich. It's about time the crap you >>> believe in was trashed and we got back to reality!
Looks like we've found a facet of rich that he's washing in denial...
I like reality.
And taking people at face value.
Who cares who does what to who and with what in the privacy of their
bedroom !
But there is hope for a solution to your problem, george - it relies
however on employers being able to tell whether an employee is male or
female - do you think they could manage that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11918763
To which Pooh commented:
That's getting harder and harder to do Rich. Are you suggesting all
job applicants should strip for their interviews so their true gender
is exposed?
I should have looked more carefully - we know that Pooh is idiotic and
a troll. I had of course not suggested anything like a strip search,
but clearly Pooh at least thought it a real possibility. I will not
waste your time or mine further with the fantasies of an authoritarian far-right troll.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 68:59:55 |
| Calls: | 2,097 |
| Files: | 11,144 |
| Messages: | 949,063 |