J: Hi Dave.
D: The conference is going well.
J: Yes, Michelle was right when she said it was tidy. We’ve managed to crush every last whimper of dissent in the ranks. All go on the flag. Damn poncy Conservative godwhacks!
D: God. Ooops, I mean Good. What can I do for you?
J: What do your polls say about Auckland housing?
D: It looks like Labour’s moaning about thousands of cashed up commies from the PRC exploiting NZ’s lax overseas purchase laws might win them a few points with the chattering classes. Even in Parnell.
J: OK, well, we’re going to head them off with some feel good shit that should bring the polling back our way.
D: What’s that?
J: Oh just the usual smoke and mirrors crap. You know we can’t reduce immigration. That would be the end of our “good economic managers” stunt. And there’s those Chinese donors as well. Not to mention the Real estate guys. So we’ll just make some noise.
D: I get it. Something that makes it look as if we’re doing something but really does nothing.
J: Exactly. We’ll introduce some of the usual poorly written legislative crap and tell the punters it will make immigrants keener to go to country centers.
D: Excellent. Who thought of that?
J: I did Dave. You know that. I think of everything.
D: Yes, OK, of course. But why won’t the PRC immigrants go to the country?
J: Hell Dave, these are people who have been living under the yoke of Communism all their lives. You think they give a damn about regulation?
D: I get it John. They’ll just fill in the right forms, laugh their heads off and go live in Auckland anyway.
J: You’re on to it Dave. We’ve checked it out with our donors already. The real estate guys are sweet too. Give it a couple of weeks and then call me with a poll update.
D: Sure will John. In the meantime, Cam and I will smear Labour as much as we can. We just love using those word “racist”, and “xenophobic”. So damn easy, and we don’t even have to think about a rational argument.
J: OK, excellent work. I see those dumb MSM bastards are all running the same line too.
D: Yeah, they’re eating out of our hands.
J: OK, bye Dave. Keep up the good work. Oh, wait, will I see you at the fundraiser at Bill Liu’s place?
D: I’ll be there. Someone mentioned Bill might be on that Chinese most wanted list.
J: He was actually, but I’ve fixed it. Those Chicom Generals in Beijing owe me a few favours.
D: You’re a genius John.
J: OK, make sure Cam doesn’t turn up at Bill’s, I can’t be seen with that tub of lard for a while yet.
D: I’ll fix it John. BTW, I lost another 2kg this month.
J: Great work. How’s the hair loss treatment going?
D: Given up on that. Hey, one thing, can you see that my March account is paid, its still outstanding.
J: Gotta go Dave, Hillary is on the other line. Wants some advice on dealing with Trump. See you at Bill’s place.
19 thoughts on “Dave and John have a telephone conversation”
Brilliant. Excuse my ignorance. Who’s this Dave bloke?
r1016132nzblogger, David is David Farrar, who does kiwiblog.
Ta. Another bloke on the take aye???
There is another blog spot that I have strong suspicions are on the payroll. I won’t name names here, I’ll leave it for ya’ll to figure out
Something tells me it is Cameron Slater.
Him too but wasn’t the blog I was thinking about
r1016132nzblogger, you got me, I only know a few blogs. But while I’m on the topic, I’m pretty sure Griff on kiwiblog is on the payroll. He’s one of those constantly shoving global warming taxes and euthanasia down people’s throats. Fortunately though he has taken a big step back on global warming taxes after I showed him time after time, these global warming taxes are not doing a jolly thing to help the environment. So EAD, if you still are having difficulty with Griff, take a look at how meatloaf on kiwiblog has taken Griff down, then bring up the global warming tax, and see what he has to say for himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sidesplitting funny – great way to start the week although depressingly accurate! Keep holding the b*st*rds to account Reddy:
– “I get it. Something that makes it look as if we’re doing something but really does nothing.”
– “OK, well, we’re going to head them off with some feel good shit that should bring the polling back our way”
– “Oh just the usual smoke and mirrors crap. You know we can’t reduce immigration. That would be the end of our “good economic managers” stunt.,,,,,,So we’ll just make some noise”
– “We just love using those word “racist”, and “xenophobic”. So damn easy, and we don’t even have to think about a rational argument.”
The Gnats modus operandi is so blatant yet still the drones don’t see they are being played like a fiddle. The drones moan and complain about as they get pissed all over by their party with things like scaffolding laws yet still convince themselves that JK is on their side.
Their cognitive dissonance they must suffer is mind boggling when they are constantly forced to defend all sorts of radical left wing policies (mass immigration, “green policies”, flag change, gay marriage etc.) from rational argument from those on the right.
PS: Got to laugh at the GD progressive bottom feeders who spend their time on your blog looking for comments they don’t approve of. Their faux outrage says much more about them than they realise……
That dirty little straw chewing hillbilly Nasska you mean? On GD everyday with the same obsessive narcissistic refrain. “The god botherers are trying to force me to do things I don’t want to..wah wah wah!!!
When really no one gives a damn about him and his run down backwoods hideout with his ever preggers sister and all of the twelve fingered kids running about.
He’s like one of those endless cassette tapes you used to find on answering machines. Fits in pretty much with the Kommieblog crowd tho. If they’re not kissing Key’s arse they’re running down Christianity or pretending to be Indians while they jump from one side of the political divide to the other depending on what brings them the most attention.
I really don’t know why the few sane ones there bother. Who needs to combat line after line of narcissistic drivel from the Christchurch psychopath broken only by the idiocy of Arab losers like Kea, the brain damaged Grief and the manchild Stephieboy? And that’s only when the conversation isn’t focused on Penny Bright. Its got so bad she frequently seems to be one of the more sane voices on there.
I post at KB occasionally but I rarely engage with the many trolls and spammers that reside there. The signal-to-noise ratio over there seems to be increasing exponentially. GD is just a sea of regurgitated crap and it’s becoming too tiring to swim through just to reach the odd nugget or gem.
Winston Peters has political instinct. John Key has David Farrar.
The Key/ Farrar combination hasn’t been working so well lately. For example wrong on the favourablity of the flag change project, and wrong on gauging the feeling about the Auckland situation. Farrar was also badly wrong on Trump “imploding” too. Its that same old progressive bubble they live in.
Don’t want to be a nay sayer.
But as a Country we are in deep do do’s
The state of our manhood is also in big trouble.
How did we get to this, a bunch of Nancy boys and special interest groups running the Country.
Yes, Mr Blobby, we have third plank Marxist/Communists running the country. One of which is David Cunliffe, saying I’m ashamed to be a man. What does the third plank of the communist manifesto say? An end to inheritances. This means the state having control over the family purse, and not the father. This is such a huge issue, that I am taking action now. Maybe your not aware of it, but if men are more physically violent, what about women who play games with your head. Their’s got to be a solution and their is one, you just wait till my book comes out. Oh and I’ve already taken action against the white ribbon society.
They’ve toned it down, after I put 850 fliers in people’s mailboxes saying this is why we must take action, and this is how you can take action. And a month after, those white ribbon signs all went down. And later on when they put new signs up, they were much much nicer.
So, watch out for me, what I’ve done is nothing compared to what I will do in the next few months. Once I’ve done it, would you be interested in having a look at what I’m going to do.
Looking forward ti it.
We are a Nation of talk not action.
I to have had some success against the system. Mainly the Police and Council over their road TAX masquerading as road safety.Ant the occasional obnoxious Government department.
The Civil servants have become the Masters.
Re your Book.
I know several people who have written books about their experiences with the Family Court.
Non have been able to publish because of suppression laws.
So the nonsense continues.
Hi Mr. Blobby, actually, a few books have been written on it. I have a book by David E Robinson, called the Matrix as it is. In it, it explains what the marriage licence is.
I also have the book they own it all including you. In the last book that I mentioned it explains how when we use Fiat money, the money is loaned into existence, and everything that, that money touches slimes up the life of it. That the money is loaned into existence, and it comes with a price.
With those two books it explains that the minister is a licensed agent by the state, and when you get that marriage license, a license is permission granted by the state to do something that would otherwise be illegal to do. So what this means, is that the money that is loaned into existence, is backed by your ability to earn. This means the government is able to borrow money based on the fact that the child has earning potential. Because the child has earning potential, the government can grant support to the parents if certain conditions are made. CYF’s motto used to be ‘our children are our greatest treasure’, so when their is a divorce, the government cares about the fact that the child is taken care of. A divorce is notifying the court that you are no longer capable of keeping your promise to take care of the child as a married couple.
The court than makes sure the mother has money to take care of the child, which means the man must pay what he can. Family court is bankruptcy court. Your in default of keeping your promise to stay together and take care of the child, as in this case:
In that case, the mother could not forego her settlement money, the money was for her to take care of the child. Finally their is another book by David E Robinson, explaining that all courts, are bankruptcy courts, you haven’t kept your obligations and BARisters (British Accredit Regency), are sworn to uphold this bankruptcy secret. So anytime somebody goes to court, with a way of settling it, they don’t record it. Its paid for and that’s it.
That book explains how, in the 1930s countries were in a depression, and were told that if they met certain conditions they could have money for programs. But part of the deal is that the lawyers would keep things a secret.
Mr Blobby, actually their are a few books I have in my shelf which explain what really happens. In the Matrix as it is by david E robinson he explains that a marriage license is a licence. And a licence is permission granted by the state to do something. That in the case of a marriage split, the court views it like this:
The child needs to be looked after, the mother’s job is primarily to look after the child, so therefore the man must pay what he can. They were married they promised to be their for each other, which also means they will look after the child, they owe that to each other and the child. Now they have told us they won’t be able to keep their promise. They are wanting to be divided. We will not absolve them of their commitment. And a court case cited was Van Koten v Van Koten, where the court said we must make sure the mother has money. Why must the mother have money? Because her role is primarily to look after the child. See sections 4 to 6.
Then in the books ‘They own it all including you’, and ‘extreme plight’ by David E Robinson. It explains that after the depression in the 1930s countries made an agreement with those lending to the governments, and that has meant that all courts are bankruptcy courts. That whenever you are in default, to what you have agreed to, you must pay. For instance drive in a law dictionary means to be paid to carry passengers and cargo. So if your not driving professionally, they can fine you, because in a law dictionary it defines it that way. It also explains that the marriage license was created as a part of the deal. Before marriages were recorded in the church, the licence turned it into the courts business. And that BARister (British Accredited Regency) lawyers are loyal to the banking system in Britain. And that they must keep these things a secret.
So just those three books explain a lot. Then if you read more books by David E Robinson, you find that the fiat money system is backed by your ability to earn money, and pay income tax. And as an accountant I can confirm, all the income tax that is paid goes to the people who lent money to the government.
Just look at sections 4 and 5, the Reserve bank collects the money from the taxpayers, and pays it to the IMF. Now that is just one piece of the proof. Anybody who’s filed a business income tax return through a tax agent will have another piece of the proof. Our lenders have a right to know how much income tax we are paying before they lend to us.
If you type in ‘divorce court’ in Amazon.com it will give you more tips about trumping the family court.
So what I’m saying is just from 3 books I have, I know what the family court is after.
So, as I was saying, the book I’m going to write probably will have a chapter or two explaining how the legal system looks at things. For instance CYFs used to have on their building (until of course I let it out on kiwiblog), our children are our greatest treasure, ministry of social development. This means the state sees your child as a future tax payer and that’s it, that’s why they must develop the child socially.
Now after nailing that hard to people. The point to this, is make sure when you date, you are very careful and very critical. If she is a manipulator, then if you decide one day this isn’t for me, she has the law on her side, unless you pick it up quickly and just dump her. So the point to this, is don’t marry a manipulator. But how can you know this for sure. All women have needs, and if they want things to be different, their are 182 ways they will address this. And so the question is, are you happy with the way the person you are dating is addressing their disappointment.
Do they know how to negotiate. Do they listen to why you do things a certain way? Because ultimately what they are not getting is what they want. And some women will play head games, and others know how to be fair. While others pretend to be happy, and their disappointment gets even worse, till one day they can’t take it anymore.
But that’s just one wheel of variables. Their are 9 other wheels of variables which interconnect with that one wheel of variables. I’ve been using this method for years and years, and have yet to be in a situation where I didn’t know what to do, I have yet to meet someone who didn’t fit into one of those categories. 70% of the time, when I play my games back, they come crawling back to me, which is why I have 6 stalkers, 3 of which came from 1 year. The other 30% of the time, I know that it won’t be a happy relationship, and when I look at the way I’ve classified them, I throw up, and don’t need to drink diesel to get over them (diesel is a form of woodstock).
So I know that you’re probably thinking yeah right, but I have explained a bit of the method to others, and they say well that explains my situations, or that is how us women think.
For instance, I explained ‘the grounding approach’, that some girls are grounded in friendship, and if its solid, works out fine, they take the next step, they give little clues that they want more. And these women who I’ve described say that the safe way to do it. If they aren’t interested then no harm, because its not too obvious that I’m in love. But at the same time if something’s really their something will come out of it.
So this is one of the approaches that non manipulators do. They pick well, by taking them time, and give you friendship.
Anyhow, this is just the short version of what the book is about, and the whole family court. If you’re totally lost, I might be able to explain things better, although at the same time, I want to keep what this movement is about sort of secret, but giving you an idea. And their is a part of the movement which I haven’t said anything about, once the book comes out everything will be clear, and we can take action.
I’m also wanting to push for the merit based pension. Which says those who’ve been on the DPB for 20 years won’t get anywhere near the same pension as an engineer who’s never been unemployed. Your pension should be based on your overall contribution. That is how it started in the 1930s, until they changed the rules to a universal pension, for those on the DPB. Going back to a merit based pension will help put a stop to these impossible ladies who take advantage of the DPB.
But ultimately men knowing the law isn’t on their side, means they will only proceed once they know they are not dating a manipulator. Best of all, everything about these principles and my experiences over the last 20 years agrees with the book of Proverbs. Sorry if I hogged up to much space.
Comments are closed.