Last week we featured a TradeMe user who suggested Sue Bradford should get ‘Breast cancer’ given to her as a retirement gift. The right wing fobbed this off, questioning whether we had anything to back up our claim that he/she voted for National.
This week we have taken it one step further – Our winner this week is somebody who states: “I am very well qualified and have a high paying job” and has also openly encouraged people to vote National. His comments are sickening so please be advised, parental guidance is recommended.
I wrote a blog post about a young leader who is openly bi-sexual. Adolf thought he would have a talk-fest -
Hi all
You faggots want to change the world, go back to Argentina and get your arse reamed over there. Don’t want your AIDS costing me my tax money when you get your first dodgy cock up your arse.
Yours
Adolf
Woops – Slip of the tongue was it, Adolf? What about the next set of comments -
Hi all
Ah, I am touched by your manly concerns PRick. I am not narrow minded you faggot….
Ouch, who is this guy? the National party spokesperson on Homosexual issues?
So the next question is…how do we know he is a National supporter? Well we have comments to prove he is a National fan:
Vote National!, it makes a lot more sense than Labour, the Greens are worse as they are just eco freaks who do not have a clue about science and how countries run. You will always find fruitcakes around, most vote Labour/Greens though
Wow, did I just miss-read his comment? Did he just tell me to vote National?
OMG not once but twice:
Happy New Year to you too. May you see the light and give 2 ticks to National in the General Election
Yours
Adolf
Please – Consider where you put your vote. Do you want to vote for the National Party alongside somebody who shows hatred towards fellow man kind?
Adolf Powel votes National!
Update: It appears Adolf can’t stop, take a look at the following
Also, is it wrong to not want young sodamists coming here, collecting AIDS and expect myself to pay for the consequences? Just like the Zimbabwe overstayers, where a significant amount of them have HIV infected from Africa and probaly infecting the local poplace? Or the UK, in Carlos’s case (if he is a practising sodamist).
January 7, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Congrats Adolf! You’re famous
.
January 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Hey, ive got a new name for this weekly piece, you said you were looking for suggestions.
How about: The political correctness police.
January 7, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I am so touched to be your star of the week. I came here to have a bit of a stir and got the reaction I craved.
It is a crime to be opiniated in this country.
I should go Baa, Baa like all of the sheeple.
Yours
Adolf
January 7, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Hmm and yet this week according to Mr Sleep’s post on Kiwi Blog, its acceptable to refer to immigrants as imports. (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/a_new_website.html#comments)
I wonder which party Mr Sleep supports? With such racist comments I’m sure that many here will automatically suggest that it must be National, but wait here Mr Sleep is advocating Labour.
(http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/statement_under_the_electoral_finance_act.html#comments)
January 7, 2008 at 6:58 pm
James has a somewhat conservative view on immigration but I can personally vouch for him that he is not a racist.
January 7, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Perhaps James is a racist, perhaps he is not.
Regardless of what he actually believes he chooses to express racist thoughts and ideas by referring to Immigrants as Imports while advocating support Labour.
January 7, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Well its clear what the aim of this piece is. To try and present all socially concervative views as politically incorrect and therefore wrong. You started off with Sue Bradford and have now moved on to gay rights. Taking quotes from random people and saying that they represent the opinions of the National party is a classic strawman arguement.
January 7, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Random people?
This person is not ‘random’ his name is Adolf Powel. There is no “People” in this argument. It’s about Adolf Powel.
Unless you would like to add your name to the list of homophobics in the National Party, it’s up to you young man.
Oh nice English.
‘concervative’ god thats a new one.
January 7, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Adolf was famous long before you drew even more attention to his name.
Did you consider that this is,
a) Showing your own childish behaviour by going tit for tat with people who make overly ridiculous statements that are clearly made to wind you up.
b) Opening you up to a reciprocal attack on another blog site
c) Lowering the standard or journalism that is at the heart of good blogging by “nameing” and shaming people just because the support a political party.
If you can prove they are a MEMBER of the national party you may be on less shaky ground but either way its dirty and i dare say stupid politics to be playing.
Instead of this weekly piece how about “Labours achievements this week” a far more positive line of thought and one that would garner more support.
January 7, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Sorry jeffmcg, that is not the point we are trying to make. Do people that vote National HAVE to be a member of the party?
No
January 7, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The point of these posts is not to apply one persons views to a party, but to give the public a glimpse of the kind of people who support the National party.
January 7, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Hi all
Was Margaret Wilson a member of the COMMUNIST Party in the past? Once a commy always a commy. This was when they kept a iron fist over Eastern Europe and the Gulags were everywhere? One way trip to Siberia anyone?
Maybe Sue Bradford and Keith Locke as well were also members? Was it not Locke said that the Russian invasion of Afganistan in 1979 was just.
And people want these people making our laws, bizzare place we live in.
Yours
Adolf
January 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Hey, my spelling may not be that good but yours isnt exactly brilliant either James (as Jaz regularly points out). Let he who is without typos cast the first stone.
Yay, that person it was Adolf Powel. Last week it was ‘web06′. Who knows who it will be next week. So yes they are just random people.
Homophobe is such a misused word. First of all it has no scientific meaning as the suffix “phobe” would suggest. It is a word made up by gay lobbyists. Secondly it implies irrational fear. Neither Adolf nor I fear homosexuality or homosexuals, a much more accurate word would be homonegative. Yes I oppose gay marrige. However rather then debating the merits you are just trying to discredit the idea by suggesting that anyone who takes my position is ‘homophobic’ and pulling out some obscene quote. Like I said the political correctness police.
January 7, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Yes as Jaz use to regularly point out.
I make sure I read over what I type first.
January 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Well hey, the average Labour supporter is on an unemployment benefit or probably pays no tax anyway thanks to various targeted tax cut such as WFF. So if you want to play it from that angle redbus I think New Zealand would be a lot better off if all the Labour supporters were removed as opposed to all the national supporters.
January 7, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The “average Labour supporter is on an unemployment benefit or probably pays no tax at all”? So I dreamed I was at work today nnickc? And those payslips with my PAYE amount were not real heh?
January 7, 2008 at 8:37 pm
You’re obviously a very out of touch citizen, Nick. I must have also dreamt my days work…
January 7, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Hi all
Since you work, maybe you are pised off about all the tax paid to waste on Interest Free Student Loans, WFF, hospital managers, sustainability papers, promoting minority pressure groups etc etc. But the answer will be no, because it is for the greater good.
This government spends money like it is going out of fashion. There is never any investment for the future, the future is always 3 years max.
I know I am, but wait, Kullen will let me keep some more of my money as we now have a structural surplus.
Yours
Adolf
BTW, my spelling is like me, perfect;)
January 7, 2008 at 8:55 pm
NNickc
- Many people work on the Sabbath – where is the ritual condemnation from evangelicals?
- Many people grow different crops side by side in the same field – where is the ritual condemnation from evangelicals?
- People have ritually condemned slavery – yet it is sanctioned in the Bible – why not mass uproar demanding anti-slavery laws be abolished?
- Every time someone wears clothing made from more than thread they, according to the Bible should be put to death in at a small family gathering – why don’t evangelicals demand this?
The only biblical reason to be opposed to homosexuality is that it is “sex” that doesn’t produce children. Perhaps evangelicals should also condemn women whom past the age of menopause continue to have sex, yet while having no chance of bearing future children. Or, condemn good Christians who perform pre-ejaculation abortation to prevent pregnancy? Why cherry pick homosexuality?
No – because your beef with homosexuality is not based on the Bible. Its based on bigotry. Otherwise you be equally opposed/for the issues I mentioned above – and clearly you are not.
January 7, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Hi all
BTY, the young person I referred to in:
‘You faggots want to change the world, go back to Argentina and get your arse reamed over there. Don’t want your AIDS costing me my tax money when you get your first dodgy cock up your arse.’
Sodamy at 14 in the UK is illegal the last time I was there.
This apparently is a 14 year old living in the UK from Argentina. It is good to see the owners of this blog endorsing law breaking in other countries.
Yours
Adolf
January 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
While many National supporters are encouraging civil disobedience in our own.
January 7, 2008 at 9:12 pm
What proof did you have that the young boy was sexually active, Adolf?
If you had none then it seems rather unwarranted to have said your comment and suggests that you’re only having a prejudicial rant – an offensive one at that.
January 7, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Adolf,
It amuses me that you are trying to defend yourself.
It does not matter who you were addressing it is HOW.
January 7, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Hi all
Tiger, promoting Labour’s EFB are we? Last week it was legal to do the dis-obedience, this is fredom of speech at stake.
Redbus/Carlos – sorry about that. Carlos, are you a practising sodamist? Just need to clarify the issue so I do not defame you.
Yours
Adolf
January 7, 2008 at 9:29 pm
PP you seem confused from a previous thread where I stated that Romans 1:26-27 condemns homosexuality. The point I was trying to make on that thread is different from the point I am trying to make on this one, it was to do with what God would think. My reason for opposing Gay marridge is not because of what is written in the bible but because it would undermine the whole perpose of marridge, I wont go into detail here. I have previously stated that I do not hate homosexuals (the lesson in the bible is hate the sin love the sinner). So stop attacking the messenger as is a left wing habit and focus on the crux of the message.
January 7, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Adolf, congratulations. It seems you’re the first NewZblog commentator to be desperate enough to label one commenter as another. It’s such a pathetic thing to do.
Do you have any proof that Carlos is sexually active? I’m sure you don’t, so it brings me back to the comment you are trying to defend. It was without logical or acceptable grounds to have said it. That is why it had become subject to this weekly feature.
January 7, 2008 at 10:52 pm
“Not trying to defend myself”
- that is contradictory to your following statements.
“Redbus/Carlos”
- a forward slash used in that fashion denotes that the two said names belong to the same.
“To help things along I am a sexually active hetrosexual.”
- Not relevant.
“…is it wrong to not want young sodamists coming here”
- Yes it is wrong. Because chances are those young people are largely involved in consensual sex – ie, what they do with their body is their choice. For you to judge them by their sexual preference is purely idiotic.
I might also add that there are many diseases which are contractable through heterosexual sex. Among those is aids.
Lastly, do try to stop being such a vile pig.
January 8, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Why did you remove the last comment he made?
Can we not judge for ourselves if what he said was that bad?
Ever heard of Voltare, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Guess not.
Hmmm, what was that EFB all about again? You Labour people aye, all the same.
Next weeks post should be called. “Shut and listen, we know whats best for you and dont think you can retort, we will just delete your comments”
January 8, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Yes, and now that anti-Labour website has been warned that it is illegal. The didnt spend any ‘big-money’, just set up a website telling people their opinion. This proves exactly what we all though; the aim of the EFA is to shut down opposition to the government!
January 8, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Your forgeting adolf, the law of common sense only exempts people promoting Labour, otherwise they are Nationals big bad backers.
January 14, 2008 at 4:47 pm
All the anti-Labour website needs to do is publish the name and address of the owner. That’s not shutting down free speech in my book, but then everyone knows that’s a big straw-man argument created by the right.
January 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Too right.
They are grand standers.
FFS Andy Moore just wants to get media attention, thats all he wants
January 14, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I listened to Andy Moore’s interview on ZB and was struck with how stupid he sounded.
I thought he might have been hung-over but i genuinely think the guys a can short of a six pack.
Never the less he is making an important stand
January 14, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Doesn’t take much investigation to see it’s most likely not just one guy. Quite possible he isn’t the brains behind it all.
January 14, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I know, thats exactly what I said.
Jeepers, I could even do better than that (considering I use to have a radio show and have scheduled media training on Thursday)
I was a little disapointed with his interview. Even though I totally disagree with what he was saying, I thought he could at least do a little better.
January 14, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“All the anti-Labour website needs to do is publish the name and address of the owner.”
Well thats hardly the point is it. Since when has one had to register yourself and give your name and address in order to state your opinion on the internet? Its an outrage.
January 14, 2008 at 6:50 pm
An outrage? No it just shows the owner is a coward.
January 14, 2008 at 11:19 pm
nnickc, you don’t have to register unless you are intending to spend over $12,000 from what I understnd. As a New Zealand citizen, if you wated to make a political statement a name and address has been required for some years now. As technology has evolved and advanced, it’s probably been noticed that the internet is another medium of communication, and it makes sense to me to include this form of communication in the bill to keep it relevant.
Nothing too outrageous in there boss.