Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
Sky is doing the ring-around at the moment, pushing
The first time I signed up to Sky it was a person contracted to go door-to-door, probably on a pay-per-signup deal I guess.
I was interested but not keen to commit at the time. He told me to fill in and sign the form, and that would add me to their database and they would be in touch with more information. And that it wouldn't commit me to anything. I didn't believe him, but found the situation interesting enough that I did so.
Sure enough, they contacted me, but not for more information, but having received the contract, they now wanted money from me and to come install sky.
By this time I had decided to get Sky, but I did mention that their sales reps were lying to people to get them to sign up.
-
I'm referring to someone who has previously been given a printer for Christmas, verses someone who is using a printing company, and the the vast differences in output the two are capable of for $12,000.
The difference in output would be, the person who had a printer, bought $12,000 of ink and paper, would get far less leaflets, at a much worse quality than someone who went to a professional printer. Ink jet cartridges are the most expensive way to print.
To the third post, Fact 1 big parties have bucket loads to spend, plus the advantage of many supporters each of whom can spend up to $12,000 campaigning on their behalf. Fact 2 a start up party may or may not have bucket loads to spend, and will have less people willing to spend $12,000 to campaign on it's behalf.
That was my point. Removing limits won't aid new parties, because they don't have a financial support base. Existing large parties will be the ones to benefit.
-
They've also sold out of West Wing boxed sets (every episode, plus two discs of special features we got screwed out of in New Zealand) for $125...
OK, now I'm angry.
-
why isn't it going to be new parties who have lots of money to spend?
Because unless they've got a consortium of rich donors, each of whom is going to donate vast amounts of money, they're not going to get up to the millions of dollars that National and Labour take in every year.
-
Re: Shell. If Shell's advertising budget was limited to the number of New Zealanders they employeed. then they would definitely have an advantage over Gull.
Electoral spending isn't limited by employees. It's a hard cap.
Political parties are limited to 1 million plus $20K per electorate candidate.
-
re: the portion of the EFA you linked to. It's all down to spending, by gifting the necessary resources to make things, it could be sidestepped.
You need to go read the bill or an explanation of it and come back.
Gifts or donations are recorded at their actual value. If someone was to donate a bunch of advertising to a political party, that donation would have to fit under their cap.
-
The fact that one particular person's mind may not be changed by advertising, doesn't mean that advertising doesn't change minds.
Shell could spend billions advertising, I still wouldn't buy petrol from Shell. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect other people.
-
See, that's just not going to work.
Yeah. It has a double-meaning, which might work for the next couple of months, but hopefully not after that.
-
Ansell Breaks,
Sticky Comments Leak.
Long Morning After Regretsew. ur gross.
-
Another thing I find illogical is; say you have a guy, raped 5 free range hens, spends $12,000 on advertising for the National Party, and sure, you know who he is, where he lives and how much he spent on advertising, and you vote National accordingly. You even tell people you voted National because of his advertisements.
Not long after the election, he is found guilty and his name suppression is lifted, You found your decision to vote was directly influenced by a hen f$cker, you have egg on your face, because while you knew his name, address, political stance and how much he legally spent, you didn't know dash all else about the guy. Fortunately he wasn't your candidate, but he's as good as, at least in getting her elected.
I was going to respond.
But this last post led me to conclude you're an idiot, so I'll give up on that. Take your beastiality argument elsewhere.