(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

I should really update this thing properly- ie, without stupid spam and memes...

So, okay. I'm still
-sixteen
-single (anyone looking? XD)
-on holiday
-housesitting
-looking for a more regular job with flexible hours and good pay willing to hrie a relatively inexperienced girl who's leaving town in about six or seven monts...
...yeah, right.
-broke.

I'm not
-happy with my schoolwork. >.< I'm lying and telling everyone that it's great but it's so not; it's not under control At All. *sigh* I'm gonna work really hard for te next two terms, so you may see less of me; I want to get dux, so... yeah. Gonna kill myself, I think it's worth it, plus then I get scholarship $$s. Along that note, NZScholarship work just started; I'm really looking forward to it, although I'm worried I'm going to spaz out and fail at the end of the year... still, I think the work will be good. Challenging.
-unemployed. Working next saturday, yay, money...
-obsessing about anything. That's wierd.

I'm reading Almost Like a Whale:The origin of species Updated by Steve Jones, and All Things Bright and Beautiful by James Herriot. o.O holy fuck, two non-fiction at once, what's wrong with me? Anyway, AlaW is good. Interesting, plus since I'll probably never actually read the origin of Species it's educational. Some really chilling/wierd stuff about AIDS in there.

I'm listening to the Beatles a lot at the moment.

Um, what else is there? not sure.

Oh! yes! I might be getting a viola!!!111! <3! *is excited* going to look tomorrow. *bounces* XD! Plus, getting my violin back from mending wich will be Excellent.

Comments

[decado.livejournal.com]

I don't know... Older. My girlfriend's little sister just turned 16 and she's such a child. I could never have an intelligent conversation with her.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Aww, blush. I am flattered by the implication you have had intelligent (or at least intelligible) conversations with me. ;)

I dunno, for some reason I find that wierd... I don't think that, IRL, I come across as either particularly adult or particularly mature. *shrugs* Mebbe I just write well.

[decado.livejournal.com]

Well I don't know if I'd consider someone who supports Labour intelligent, but oh well, you'll grow up! :P

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Go carefully. I spnt a day arguing with someone who said, in all seriousness and without the little :p at the end, that "labour supporters are in general less intelligent than those who support national." *sighs* not stupid because they disagreed with her, but stupid because Labour's policies are apparently aimed at stupid people- that is, the poor, who are obviouly way less intelligent than the rich.

Now, that was a REAL WTF? moment for me.

XD anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence, I think.

[decado.livejournal.com]

Well in all seriousness I would tend to agree, if only in a general sense. That being, in general, people who are intelligent are going to earn more money than people who are less intelligent. And in general, wealthy people are more likely to support a national government. Therefore you can surmise that a less intelligent person is more likely to vote labour. It's not too silly a point to make really.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

... I think it is. Because
- intelligence (or working hard) does not mean you're going to earn more money. it helps, quite a lot. But it is not a guarantee.
- and other points. Um.

[decado.livejournal.com]

Ahh, see, you can't argue it. No, it's not a guarantee, but to have a high paying job, 99% of the time, requires high intelligence. Any CEO of a large company is going to have to have high intelligence and have worked hard to get to the top, most people with successful businesses will be the same, sure you might have the odd dumbass who gets lucky, but it is the exception not the rule.

That is of course not to say that all rich/intelligent people will vote national, or all dumb/poor people will vote labour, but the averages I'm sure wouldl show that the average national supporter is more intelligent than the average labour supporter, that is, if there were a reliable scale for measuring intelligence!

Added to which, national are playing all the right cards to target their voters, ie, Maori are mostly Labour supporters, so by playing the whole race thing can only increase their support, added to which, national supporters - by the rich/poor arguement are less likely to have commited crimes, or know people who are in jail etc, so by having a tough law & order policy they only can increase their support. They are playing it smart, and it will be damn tight come the next election, pity you wont be voting! :P

Anyway, back to work... Got to make some dollars to give to other people who are less intelligent than me. ;)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Mmm... first paragraph....Alright. Some problems there but hey, I can't argue them, but that's okay, I don't have to. XD I believe. *takes communist oath*

Second paragraph, though, I disagree with. You have to be _smart_ to be a CEO. That is not the same as inteligent. Also, just because you have to be smart to be rich, if that is tru, does _not_ mean that if you're poor, you're dumb. it's like a venn diagram: because rich people are smart it does not follow that poor people are dumb.
(hah. Wasted. logic!! XD)

Third paragraph: you know, there are actually pakeha who like maori/are not utter racists. Speaking as a pakeha, I have to say that nationals' policies have _not_ increased my affection for national. Admittedly it's unlikely that they _lost_ National votes, but- you know, not all National voters are reacist either. For example a friend of mine who's extremely right wing but alos loves the maori culture/interests and got annoyed with the national race policies. Come election time, when she _will_ be voting, those policies may change her vote. or maybe not; she's a fairly staunch Nat... but she definitely doesn't like them.

besides, politically smart policies are not neccesailry the right ones. if you know that, say, [random group] is less likely to commit violent crime and is also in need of better medical care, yet you also know that the public really dislikes [random group], and you consequentially decide on a campaign vilifying [random group] as criminals to get votes of the public majority... okay, so you're politically sensible. But you're still lying. And I think that's wrong, and the intelligent would agree with me. Of course that's ;cause I think politicians, you know, have an obligation to actually _be good people_, unlike most. But eh. That's a battle I';m never going to win.

"They are playing it smart, and it will be damn tight come the next election, pity you wont be voting! :P"
Don't I know it. However *influences violently* I have friends who will be voting! And I can sway them!! I hope!!!

"Anyway, back to work... Got to make some dollars to give to other people who are less intelligent than me. ;)"
You say that like it's a bad thing.

[decado.livejournal.com]

First Paragraph: Glas you agree with me.

Second: I never actually said poor people are dumb did I? I said dumb people are poor.

Third: Racist? Where did that come from? People don't have to be racist to like Nationals new policies, and even if they don't like them, it's not going to turn away people who arn't effected, ie Pakeha.

Forth: Right? So now you can judge what is right and wrong, mighty impressive I must say!

Five: Good luck!

Six: Of course it's a bad thing! I've not eaten lunch the last two days because I've been working my butt off at work, and haven't had time to eat. You think I'd be doing that if I didn't think I'd get extra financial reward? No way. Why should I work harder than someone else and then give them money I earned?

Ahh well, we'll never agree, we should meet for coffee some time, I'll talk you over to the dark side. :D

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

3: See, there you mistake me: I think that National's policies will turn away some Pakeha. Sure, they might not be directly affected- but some of them _will_ be interested. Some of them will actually have opinions that differ to brash's on this one because I repeat, not all Pakeha are disinterested in Maori politics or think that the current race relations policies are bad. you don't have to be maori to want to uphold the treaty of Waitangi; likewise you don't neccesarily need to stand to gain from it to support it.

4. That's quite right, I can, and so can you. We just might have different ideas of some of them. You obviously thought i was a little heavy handed there, but I have to say that moral considerations come into play for me. If I think a policitian is doing something that i think is wrong- which i reserve the right to judge for myself, thanks- I won't vote for them. And if you think a politician's doing soemthing wrong, you shouldn't either.

5. Thanks for your well-wishes. XD

6. Well, you see, mostly when you pay taxes they don't go to people who aren't working hard. They go right back to you- in little neccessary things like roads, and public hospitals, and library services. You know, all the stuff our government provides for us? When they do go to people, they go to people who haven't got enough money. Not becase they're not working hard; they might be working their asses off holding down two jobs and still not earning enough to support their families. Most people who get benefits are not "dole bludgers." there are some, but the majority of them aren't.

Xd you'll never convert me. *waves flag* For the people!!!

[decado.livejournal.com]

"Not becase they're not working hard; they might be working their asses off holding down two jobs and still not earning enough to support their families."

I know this sounds harsh, but it's your own fault if your family outgrows your ability to support them. Why should I support someone who keeps popping out sproggs and doesn't have the dough to keep them fed?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Ummm....

yes, but, on the other hand, if every family had the good old national average, our population would be decreasing, Actually, it _is_ decreasing. People who have chilren should be supported, because frankly there is not greater contribution to society.

[decado.livejournal.com]

What? Why? How does pumping out brats contribute to society? In fact, the people who are having all the kids are the ones who are going to be least likely to contribute in any way. We should be incouraging wealthy and intelligent people to have kids.