Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
- mmmm....good crack
- Posts: 4119
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 5:00 pm
- Location: down
- Contact:
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
mmmm....good crack wrote:fusky clunge
Bahahaha!
- wassup rockers
- Posts: 3251
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:56 am
- Location: Auckland City
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
why can't she seem to say anything that isn't dense as FUCK...
hmm yeah i'm sure the ones that don't have jobs would fucking LOVE no accommodation supplement liz! oh they'll be more motivated to work? great, hope they do well in studies while stressing over unnecessary shit.
Liz Shaw ladies and gentlemen!

it's been great Liz but can you please just FUK OF now.
How would people feel about full time students not paying income tax while studying so they can progress with their studies and education? Of course, the offset is that students would be ineligible for any welfare payments such as the accommodation supplement? How do people feel about this?
hmm yeah i'm sure the ones that don't have jobs would fucking LOVE no accommodation supplement liz! oh they'll be more motivated to work? great, hope they do well in studies while stressing over unnecessary shit.
Liz Shaw ladies and gentlemen!

it's been great Liz but can you please just FUK OF now.
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
If she isn't just some sort of super troll then we need to take action now before she reaches Lhaws levels of douchebagery. (ie: She gets a talk back show... I think she is almost there on sheer stupidity)

- Window Licker
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:19 pm
- Location: Cnr Hoddle and Johnston
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw

We must secure the extinction of all people and no future for any children
- Window Licker
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:19 pm
- Location: Cnr Hoddle and Johnston
- Cosmo Kramer
- Posts: 9886
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:27 pm
- Location: LFH
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
fuck yeah - shove that up her arsehole


Kramer Murphy and Associates
-
- Posts: 7506
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:38 am
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
nothing wrong with being your actual weight, believe me, im topping 100kg these days and its not brawn, if shes 50kg then im the 80kg i was when i was 17years old.

“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” -Mother Theresa
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
mmmm....good crack wrote:fusky clunge
this had me in tears last night, top work
-
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:48 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
sidenote: Huey used to go out with Liz Shaw.
- wassup rockers
- Posts: 3251
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:56 am
- Location: Auckland City
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
i wonder if they started off by swapping nudezz
meflex22.jpg 4 loosevag69.jpg
meflex22.jpg 4 loosevag69.jpg
- Cosmo Kramer
- Posts: 9886
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:27 pm
- Location: LFH
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
omg
who is huey?
he is off here isnt he?

who is huey?
he is off here isnt he?


Kramer Murphy and Associates
- Dennis from Accounts
- Posts: 7757
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Third Floor, Accounts Department
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
the guy who flexes
Forums Member of the Year (28.3%)
I've seen the future brother, it is murder.
I've seen the future brother, it is murder.
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
wassup rockers wrote:i wonder if they started off by swapping nudezz
meflex22.jpg 4 loosevag69.jpg
oh god this gave me a huge unexpected laugh
Future Shock wrote:freudian slip, went downa likea sack o potatoes

0.21 6.78 3.31
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
moar history lesson for cosmos [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOIRMe17imo[/youtube]
Future Shock wrote:freudian slip, went downa likea sack o potatoes

0.21 6.78 3.31
-
- Posts: 7506
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:38 am
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
some amusing commentary on liz shaws plan to make starting school at 5 years mandatory(its currently 6, but most start at 5 anyway)
Meryl White
Starting all children at the same time will do more harm than good if one child is simply not ready to attend formal schooling and develops a dislike of school - maybe if his or her parents had waited a year the child would be enthusiastic and enjoy learning. Timing makes a big difference to a small child's life. Again I ask, what qualifies you to develop early childhood education policy? What experience do you have with small children?
Having said this, I think this is another storm in a teacup. The vast majority of children in NZ start school at age 5, not 6. For a very small minority of children who start school later, that is their parent's right to bring up their child as they see fit. How does this policy fit with your claim that you are in favour of minimal government/freedom of choice? It seems rather contradictory to me.
10 hours ago.
Liz Shaw - Candidate for Auckland Central 2011 @Meryl so by your logic some children shouldn't attend school because they lack the intelligence. That's not going to help the situation.
10 hours ago.
Meryl White What?! I'm honestly flabbergasted. How on earth was that my logic? I suggested some children were not ready for school at age five, but would be by six. In no way does that translate to "never attending school". Nor have you answered my previous questions.
9 hours ago.
Pedro Colsones
She didn't mention intelligence at all. I assume she had comparative maturity in mind, as in "will this child be disruptive attending school this early? Will starting school now impair this child's ability to adapt to the school environment?"
If you force the kid to start too early, you have a kid who resents and resists education. That could explain why a bit of leeway is allowed, giving each child a chance to start when they're most likely to adjust. Provided the leeway allowed isn't enough to make it too hard for a late-starter or early-starter to adjust and fit in with their new peers, then there's little problem with an informal 5-6ish starting age, surely
9 hours ago · 1 person.
Liz Shaw - Candidate for Auckland Central 2011 So are you suggesting all children who could be a potential problem be removed from the education system which will do more harm than good in the long run?!
Meryl White
Starting all children at the same time will do more harm than good if one child is simply not ready to attend formal schooling and develops a dislike of school - maybe if his or her parents had waited a year the child would be enthusiastic and enjoy learning. Timing makes a big difference to a small child's life. Again I ask, what qualifies you to develop early childhood education policy? What experience do you have with small children?
Having said this, I think this is another storm in a teacup. The vast majority of children in NZ start school at age 5, not 6. For a very small minority of children who start school later, that is their parent's right to bring up their child as they see fit. How does this policy fit with your claim that you are in favour of minimal government/freedom of choice? It seems rather contradictory to me.
10 hours ago.
Liz Shaw - Candidate for Auckland Central 2011 @Meryl so by your logic some children shouldn't attend school because they lack the intelligence. That's not going to help the situation.
10 hours ago.
Meryl White What?! I'm honestly flabbergasted. How on earth was that my logic? I suggested some children were not ready for school at age five, but would be by six. In no way does that translate to "never attending school". Nor have you answered my previous questions.
9 hours ago.
Pedro Colsones
She didn't mention intelligence at all. I assume she had comparative maturity in mind, as in "will this child be disruptive attending school this early? Will starting school now impair this child's ability to adapt to the school environment?"
If you force the kid to start too early, you have a kid who resents and resists education. That could explain why a bit of leeway is allowed, giving each child a chance to start when they're most likely to adjust. Provided the leeway allowed isn't enough to make it too hard for a late-starter or early-starter to adjust and fit in with their new peers, then there's little problem with an informal 5-6ish starting age, surely
9 hours ago · 1 person.
Liz Shaw - Candidate for Auckland Central 2011 So are you suggesting all children who could be a potential problem be removed from the education system which will do more harm than good in the long run?!

“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” -Mother Theresa
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
*facepalm
PILLAGE - http://www.myspace.com/pillagegppvt
Thrashing grinding powerviolence coming straight at you at the speed of death.
Thrashing grinding powerviolence coming straight at you at the speed of death.
- ghetto ninja
- Posts: 11424
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Knee deep in a suburban nightmare
Re: Building a bridge to burn- Liz Shaw
Holy fuck, she is overwhelmingly stupid. I can only imagine what she has to say about the Steiner kids that start at 7.
She shouldnt be allowed to vote let alone stand as an independant.
She shouldnt be allowed to vote let alone stand as an independant.
Martyrdamn wrote:Said 'hey baby gurl' to about seven girls tonight,
turns out girls don't like guys talking about getting up in their guts,
fagets, right.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests