Greenie hypocrites overcharge taxpayer for minister's houses [Archive]

rainman

5th October 2009, 10:32

The bastard watermelons have been caught out charging Ministerial Services double the market value for Genetic Fitsimmon's house.
Metriosis Terrorist (Greenie coleader) says it was a "simple mistake" after an attempt to hide it,before the Stupid Hippies open their books,fails.

I hold the Greens to the same standard that I hold everyone else to, and agree there seem to be some issues here to answer. However, they aren't the ones raised in this thread.

I think they may have taken too long to address this (not absolutely sure on timing though), and should have fronted up earlier to keep themselves super-squeaky clean. But the issue itself I have no problem with, and it's quite different to Billy's rip-off.

She got a proper roasting on the gogglebox this morning.

I didn't see the interview but read the transcript. Metiria did seem to be a bit on the back foot. Perhaps a few more hours in the media training gym are required.

Well we already knew that their MP's were living in houses owned by their super fund so they could charge us taxpayers the maximum to live in them (if they owned the properties themselves, they could only charge for mortgage interest under the rules).

Anyone see the difference between that and what Bill E is accused of? Anyone?

I'll bite. Bill lives in Wellington, not Dipton, so isn't entitled to an out of town allowance at all? The Greens fixed the issue (fairly rapidly, compared to Bill) without bitching about how the system didn't deal with their special circumstances?

I'm in two minds about the super fund thing. If it was an individual super fund, with individual MPs directly getting the gains, then it would probably be a rort. But it's a more communal solution, and different to what others are doing. Need to look at it more though, when I have time.

"Greens" should only be considered for the things they do best! "COMPOST" and "LOOSE BOWELS". :sick:

Why do you hate the Greens so much, and what do you hope to achieve by doing so? Are you not in favour of preserving our environment, or just against the Greens social message?

You generally seem to be a grown-up, but ranting like the above just makes you look like a jerk and a bigot. What's the point?

Yeah, we need a system where no unelected bastard gets to the beehive.

They all seem the same on the list. Even Mr. "Perk Buster" Hides lot run straight to the perks trough and start feeding.

Its really easy. Say there are 100 seats (for easy math.)

Win a seat - you get an MP, there is no other way to get there.

But, if you win 60 seats and only 55% of the vote, you can only cast 55 votes.

How do you deal with gerrymandering?
How do you keep this democratic while minimising the number of MPs? (And don't expect me to hold that FPP is optimally democratic, I don't).

Swoop

5th October 2009, 10:57

And don't expect me to hold that FPP is optimally democratic, I don't.
It has to be one of the worst options. We would return to the see-saw, two party load of crap.
Only polarised opinion or absolute disgust in a sitting government will get it changed. Look at how long we suffered under muldoon.

Bill lives in Wellington, not Dipton,
So, the house that generations of the family has owned for many years, which is on English Rd, has nothing to do with having to move to Wellytown? Perhaps taking the taxpayer-paid-for dwelling in Welly would have been better but he is a family man and wants to be with wife and kids in a "normal" family situation. Good on him.

Jantar

5th October 2009, 10:57

....

I'll bite. Bill lives in Wellington, not Dipton, so isn't entitled to an out of town allowance at all? The Greens fixed the issue (fairly rapidly, compared to Bill) without bitching about how the system didn't deal with their special circumstances?

.......

Actually, Bill's home is in Dipton. He is required to live in Wellington for his ministerial duties, so he does spend most of his time in Wellington. If he didn't live in Dipton (or some other part of his electorate) he wouldn't be eligible to stand as an electrate candidate, only as a list candidate.

MisterD

5th October 2009, 10:59

I'll bite. Bill lives in Wellington, not Dipton, so isn't entitled to an out of town allowance at all? The Greens fixed the issue (fairly rapidly, compared to Bill) without bitching about how the system didn't deal with their special circumstances?

In the rules there are a number of tests applied to determine what is and isn't "primary residence". Bill meets those tests, but admittedly fails the "common usage" test.

Bill is still the constituency MP for a place that's what, about 5 hours travel from Wellington? He therefore has to run two properties. As far as I can see Bill remaining in his Wellington house a) probably costs the taxpayer less than if he moved to the official residence that goes with his job and b) probably means Bill is out of pocket compared with what he'd make renting out his house whilst living in said official residence.

I'm in two minds about the super fund thing. If it was an individual super fund, with individual MPs directly getting the gains, then it would probably be a rort. But it's a more communal solution, and different to what others are doing. Need to look at it more though, when I have time.

The fact remains that the Green MPs are directly or indirectly both landlord and tenant...up in smoke goes the vaunted Green principles and transparency...yes just why, if the double dipping was noticed in June, was the money not repaid until September...in secret?

ManDownUnder

5th October 2009, 11:03

Bill's home is in Dipton.

Do you refer to the one he owns? The one he, his wife and kids live in would be Welliwood... along with his job, her job and their school (respectively)

It's like me owning a house in Fiji I only visit 3 weeks of the year, except I'd call it a holiday home instead of a family home, and I wouldn't have my current accommodation paid for, and I wouldn't benefit from free air travel to and from.

Pixie

5th October 2009, 11:12

I'll bite. Bill lives in Wellington, not Dipton, so isn't entitled to an out of town allowance at all? The Greens fixed the issue (fairly rapidly, compared to Bill) without bitching about how the system didn't deal with their special circumstances?
.

The greenies tried to fix it quietly,after making a big show of getting the other parties to come to account,and then finding out they were guilty of similar rip-offs:
Espener: Why didn't you tell the public?

Turier: I'm telling them now

Mully

5th October 2009, 12:10

Are there are politicians who don't have their snouts in the trough?

To my mind, they're all as bad as each other. Which explains why Labour didn't scream blue murder when Bill English got "busted" - cos they are well aware they'd been doing the same thing for the previous 9 years, and the data was there to hang them out if they tried.

What grates me is there is a reasonably proportion of the bastards who never got voted for and never seem to do any work, creaming money for sitting there. I saw a printed list of sitting MPs and there were a few that I'd never even heard of. They get, what, $100K plus a year for that?

MMP, IMO, doesn't work. You have the tail (5 MPs) wagging the dog. That's not how democracy is meant to work, but both main parties are so desperate to get into power, that they'll jump into bed and make huge concessions with whoever will agree to "work" with them.

That being said, I don't know what political system will work. Except maybe an exam for those wishing to vote.

Skyryder

5th October 2009, 12:51

"Greens" should only be considered for the things they do best! "COMPOST" and "LOOSE BOWELS". :sick:

Jest in fun ol' son. :Oops: Still it's another agreed cause. Shit this is getting dangerouse. 'Bring back Helen':scooter:

Skyryder

rainman

5th October 2009, 12:54

It has to be one of the worst options. We would return to the see-saw, two party load of crap.

Thanks to the paucity of real parties outside of the main two (Jim and Peter don't count), we're pretty close to this as it is. ACT, the Greens, and the Maori Party are the only real alternatives to the other useless bastards. What we need to make MMP work is more, stronger parties, not less MMP.

Actually, Bill's home is in Dipton.
...
If he didn't live in Dipton (or some other part of his electorate) he wouldn't be eligible to stand as an electrate candidate, only as a list candidate.

Bollocks, he owns a house there, true, but we all know he lives in Wellington.
And double bollocks about living in the electorate: how's Honest Johnny get it right to live in Parnell (when he's not in Hawaii), but be the member for Helensville, then?

yes just why, if the double dipping was noticed in June, was the money not repaid until September...in secret?

That is the crux of the issue, and the area where I will happily hold the Greens to account, same as anyone else.

...then finding out they were guilty of similar rip-offs:

I think the point is that they are different rip-offs. One possibly being nothing at all like the other, in fact. Or even a rip-off.

Jantar

5th October 2009, 13:05

......

Bollocks, he owns a house there, true, but we all know he lives in Wellington.
And double bollocks about living in the electorate: how's Honest Johnny get it right to live in Parnell (when he's not in Hawaii), but be the member for Helensville, then?

.....

From the Electoral Act 1993:

47 Registered electors may be members, unless disqualified
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person who is registered as an elector of an electoral district, but no other person, is qualified to be a candidate and to be elected a member of Parliament, whether for that electoral district, any other electoral district or as a consequence of the inclusion of that person’s name in a party list submitted pursuant to section 127.

and:

72 Rules for determining place of residence within New Zealand
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the place where a person resides within New Zealand at any material time or during any material period shall be determined for the purposes of this Act by reference to the facts of the case.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person can reside in one place only.

(3) A person resides at the place where that person chooses to make his or her home by reason of family or personal relations, or for other domestic or personal reasons.

Mully

5th October 2009, 13:25

Thanks to the paucity of real parties outside of the main two (Jim and Peter don't count), we're pretty close to this as it is. ACT, the Greens, and the Maori Party are the only real alternatives to the other useless bastards. What we need to make MMP work is more, stronger parties, not less MMP.

While I agree with the sentiment of this, we need to be realistic:
ACT will only align themselves with National
The Greens will only align themselves with Labour.
Jim will only go with Labour

Seems that perhaps the Maori Party (and perhaps Peter Dunne) are the only guys who will go where they get the best deal (ignoring the debate on whether it's the best deal for them or their constituents of course)

I think you're correct on many small parties being the go. It might be a better way of getting truly democratic representation.

This "National/Labour" argument is pointless. National and Labour have both done things I approve of and things that I disapprove of when they've been in power.
I also agree with some of the things the Greens advocate. The problem with the Greens is they have come across as well intentioned but window-licking lunatics.

Forest

5th October 2009, 13:41

From the Electoral Act 1993:

47 Registered electors may be members, unless disqualified
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person who is registered as an elector of an electoral district, but no other person, is qualified to be a candidate and to be elected a member of Parliament, whether for that electoral district, any other electoral district or as a consequence of the inclusion of that person’s name in a party list submitted pursuant to section 127.

and:

72 Rules for determining place of residence within New Zealand
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the place where a person resides within New Zealand at any material time or during any material period shall be determined for the purposes of this Act by reference to the facts of the case.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person can reside in one place only.

(3) A person resides at the place where that person chooses to make his or her home by reason of family or personal relations, or for other domestic or personal reasons.

You're misreading the Electoral Act. Re-read the section in bold.

There is no requirement under NZ law for an electorate MP to live in the electorate they represent.

JimO

5th October 2009, 16:41

Jest in fun ol' son. :Oops: Still it's another agreed cause. Shit this is getting dangerouse. 'Bring back Helen':scooter:

Skyryder

fuck helen

Indiana_Jones

5th October 2009, 16:42

the ironing is delicious....

-Indy

rainman

5th October 2009, 17:47

The Greens will only align themselves with Labour.

I think less so, at the moment.

The problem with the Greens is they have come across as well intentioned but window-licking lunatics.

LOL! Well, someone has to fight the (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/10/05/1245cd384dca) bastards (http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/green-party-fight-oil-exploration-plans-3046825) that are trying to destroy (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0909/S00349.htm) our environment. On that basis, I'll forgive the occasional bit of window-licking looneydom.

cs363

5th October 2009, 17:53

Link??

10thingies

Here you go: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2930184/Greens-pay-back-double-dip-rent-error

FROSTY

5th October 2009, 17:55

Noone has yet been able to explain to me why a country with only 4.5 million people needs more politico's and their attendant lackeys than Australia and other countries with several times our population

McJim

5th October 2009, 18:01

fuck helen

I wouldn't.:sick:

Mully

5th October 2009, 19:52

I think less so, at the moment.

Possibly - but they've come out in public and said they wont work with National

LOL! Well, someone has to fight the bastards that are trying to destroy our environment. On that basis, I'll forgive the occasional bit of window-licking looneydom.[/QUOTE]

Fuck, it was hard work removing your links from that quote.
I agree. I think actually mining these sites is stupid. And if you aren't going to mine them, why do you need to investigate what's there?

That's partly my point. In Germany (I think), they run MMP and the Greens are basically part of every government. Here, because they position themselves badly (remember, perception is fact in this case) and refuse to consider working with the party that, lets face it, was always going to run away with the last election, they've been left (so to speak) out in the cold for the next three years (at least).

So anyone who voted Green in 2008 effectively threw away their vote. The Greens would have been much better to have taken up John Key's offer to have a chat, and see if they could get a look-in.

MikeL

5th October 2009, 20:44

It would be helpful if people made the effort to distinguish policies from politicians. They are not interchangeable terms. Discrediting an MP or even a party because of dodgy behaviour doesn't invalidate the issues and concerns which those MPs and parties espouse. The Greens are an easy target because they are a varied group of individuals loosely united by a commitment to environmental protection but (a) for the most part inexperienced in Realpolitik, (b) generally unwilling to compromise their core principles and (c) relatively tolerant of diversity of opinion among their members.
Whether the Green Party as it exists in this country today is or can be an effective political force is an open question. Whether in its present organisation or not, some sort of "green" advocacy will be a force in the future. In Europe similar political parties are taken far more seriously than here. Our level of debate is typified by the reaction to the lightbulb affair last year where a legitimate environmental issue was hijacked (to a large extent by the media) and misrepresented. Does anyone care to find out how many overseas countries have already, or are planning to have, similar provisions for the phasing-out of incandescent bulbs??
Any misdemeanour by the Green Party will continue to be pounced upon by those who think that discrediting the people will somehow make the issues go away. Because that's the real problem: the most vehement opposition to Green ideas comes from those who can't accept that their familiar and cosy and profitable ways of organising society and economic life can't continue for ever. Destroy the Greens, they think, and we can get back to the real issues facing this country: paying less tax, improving business productivity, attracting more overseas investment, growing, growing...
The current Greens may make good sacrificial lambs (or scapegoats), but any victory for the business-as-usual brigade will be temporary.

Pixie

6th October 2009, 06:51

fuck helen

Eeeeeeewww:sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:

Pixie

6th October 2009, 06:54

I think less so, at the moment.

LOL! Well, someone has to fight the (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/10/05/1245cd384dca) bastards (http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/green-party-fight-oil-exploration-plans-3046825) that are trying to destroy (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0909/S00349.htm) our environment. On that basis, I'll forgive the occasional bit of window-licking looneydom.

Go live in a cave and concentrate on composting your own shit

MisterD

6th October 2009, 07:10

Fuck, it was hard work removing your links from that quote.
I agree. I think actually mining these sites is stupid. And if you aren't going to mine them, why do you need to investigate what's there?

There's a difference between mining under some standard greenish coloured bit of land on the edge of a National Park and sticking a drilling rig next to Mitre Peak...

jono035

6th October 2009, 07:16

fuck helen

Billboard Helen or real-life Helen?

To be honest though I think caring about what a prime-minister looks like is a good way to end up with the current US affliction of having elected someone who has good oratorical skills and gives the voters the ability to play the wonderfully oxymoronic 'I'm not racist, I voted for the black guy' card.

Edit: One of my issues with the greens is that by taking on a lot of nutbar social causes, they have denied the ability for me to place a vote for environmental preservation without tacitly supporting an activist-left-wing social agenda. I am a left-leaning person for the most part, but not THAT left leaning. That said, a lot of their environmental policies display some nice 'head in the sand' style thinking, too. Maybe I'm just bitter about them sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'lalalalala' whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

Skyryder

6th October 2009, 08:36

Billboard Helen or real-life Helen?

To be honest though I think caring about what a prime-minister looks like is a good way to end up with the current US affliction of having elected someone who has good oratorical skills and gives the voters the ability to play the wonderfully oxymoronic 'I'm not racist, I voted for the black guy' card.

Edit: One of my issues with the greens is that by taking on a lot of nutbar social causes, they have denied the ability for me to place a vote for environmental preservation without tacitly supporting an activist-left-wing social agenda. I am a left-leaning person for the most part, but not THAT left leaning. That said, a lot of their environmental policies display some nice 'head in the sand' style thinking, too. Maybe I'm just bitter about them sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'lalalalala' whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the Greens if they had a decent foreign policy agenda. Bradford got most of the stick but the real danger to NZ is not some smacking issue but Keith Lock's utterances and actions. He's the real looney.

As for the nuclear issue this was kicked off by the Values Party which later morphised into the Greens via Rod Donald etc. Kirk picked it up and the rest is history.

Skyryder

jono035

6th October 2009, 08:53

I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the Greens if they had a decent foreign policy agenda. Bradford got most of the stick but the real danger to NZ is not some smacking issue but Keith Lock's utterances and actions. He's the real looney.

As for the nuclear issue this was kicked off by the Values Party which later morphised into the Greens via Rod Donald etc. Kirk picked it up and the rest is history.

Skyryder

Don't know much of the background to it all but I've been in a couple of lectures where different Greenies have come along to have their say about energy generation from renewable resources. In front of a room full of Electrical Engineering students the explanation was pretty much 'hydro and wind power are great because they give us free power with no downsides' and then when asked about what kind of situation New Zealand would have to be in to reconsider our nuclear free stance got told something similar to 'we would never do that because nuclear is non-renewable, dirty evil power that results in 3 eyed fish and you've all seen what godzilla did to japan...' (I'm paraphrasing). No comments about hydro damaging rivers, no comments about the visual and audible impacts of wind power (let alone the grid stability issues) etc.

I like the idea of generating more of our power from wind and hydro, just don't try to tell me that there aren't downsides or alternatives, that is just plain old disingenuous.

I fear I may be wandering off topic slightly however <_<

rainman

6th October 2009, 09:33

It would be helpful if people made the effort to distinguish policies from politicians...

Excellent comments, particularly re lightbulbs and growth-as-usual. Unfortunately NZ's low political maturity seems to preclude rational discussion on these sorts of issues.

By way of example, I give you.... Mr Pixie:

Go live in a cave and concentrate on composting your own shit

Real grown up. What are you, like, 4?

There's a difference between mining under some standard greenish coloured bit of land on the edge of a National Park and sticking a drilling rig next to Mitre Peak...

Possibly. But do I trust Brownlee to a) understand this, and b) tell us the truth about his plans? Not so much.

I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the Greens if they had a decent foreign policy agenda.

Yeah (http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/foreignaffairs), but they are a small party, who will never (realistically) govern, other than in coalition. And many people already hit them with the "stick to the environment" message. So having a foreign policy agenda that is heavy on the environmental message isn't a bad idea.

Do you have links to the red and blue equivalents? Their websites are a bit less comprehensive on policy issues than I am (http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/full) used to (http://www.greens.org.nz/policy)...

Flatcap

6th October 2009, 09:58

Excellent comments, particularly re lightbulbs and growth-as-usual. Unfortunately NZ's low political maturity seems to preclude rational discussion on these sorts of issues.
..

Hard to stay rational when the window-licking loon's policies have a clear and present negative impact on your wealth and daily life

rainman

6th October 2009, 10:12

Hard to stay rational when the window-licking loon's policies have a clear and present negative impact on your wealth and daily life

I'd suggest the Green New Deal would have a positive impact, but that is open to debate, no doubt. What policy do you see as a big threat to your economic well being?

Besides, capitalism as she is currently practised (TBTF, bailout capitalism, corporate socialism, whatever) has both a negative impact on your wealth and the planet - unless you're a banker, of course.

MisterD

6th October 2009, 12:08

Possibly. But do I trust Brownlee to a) understand this, and b) tell us the truth about his plans? Not so much.

Well at least we've found the point at which our views differ.

Ixion

6th October 2009, 12:19

.. The Greens are an easy target because they are a varied group of individuals loosely united by a commitment to environmental protection but ..

But are they? I'm very far from convinced. In fact I'd suggest that the Greens have by and large lost interest in environmental issues and are much more interested in chasing social engineering objectives.

I'm no tree hugging sandal wearing yakaznik , but even I can see a whole lot of environmental bastardries that piss me off. I don't believe that "protect the environment" should be overarching , at the expense of "maintaining a decent standard of living". But there are a lot of things that could be done that would achieve both. I don't see the Greens pushing them. Oh, sure, token murmurs of "oh yes, certainly". But their hearts aren't in it.

Packaging, f'instance. I get uber-pissed off when I go do the shopping. Why is everything loaded up with a crap load of plastic and paper packing that I don't want and that I have to get rid of. We have some token gestures about recycling which misses the point. Get rid of the crap in the first place. I put on a new shirt this morning. After extracting it from its packing I had 9 bits of plastic and 4 pieces of cardboard (and a bit of paper, and six pins). None of them served any purpose whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. I'd have been happy with just a shirt in a recyclable brown paper bag.

Why don't we have refundable deposits on drink containers as they do in Souf Oz (and we used to here)

Why do almost all businesses have lights blazing all night long in empty office buildings.

Why do all office buildings have huge ventilation and air conditioning systems, instead of a few windows that open?

Why do we have street lights blazing all night long when there's no traffic (motor or pedestrian) ?

Why are we using up vast amounts of resources sealing gravel roads , when research shows that it does not reduce accident rates, and the traffic over the roads is mainly limited to the local farmers. And sealed roads are a crap load worse for the environment than gravel, because of the run off. ?

Why are farmers dumping (literal) truck loads of artificial nitrogenous fertiliser into the waterways ?

I could go on for pages and pages. And if an unrepentant Gaea rapist like me is aware of these things , then the general population is no don't even more so

I don't see or hear the Greens making any noise about such things. Sure, no doubt it's all in their mission statement or policy statement or such. But, manifestly, they don't really give a stuff.

If the Greens actually focused on the Environment instead of telling people how to bring up their kids, or blindly importing overseas ideas that aren't relevant to NZ (making people shower in a dribble of water made sense in Oz - they have a perpetual draught. In NZ we're more at risk of drowning!), I'd be a lot more impressed with them.

I think that the original environmentally focused Green party has been hijacked by a bunch of people with other agendas to push. Like Sue Bradford, working out the demons of her childhood, and the maori radical wing using the party as a platform for apartheid. Because, being a small party , it's relatively easy for a small dedicated cadre to hijack.

StoneY

6th October 2009, 12:27

So, the house that generations of the family has owned for many years, which is on English Rd, has nothing to do with having to move to Wellytown? Perhaps taking the taxpayer-paid-for dwelling in Welly would have been better but he is a family man and wants to be with wife and kids in a "normal" family situation. Good on him.

YOU miss the point dude- not the rest of us

I agree with 'good on him' living in HIS family home- which BTW is FREEHOLD and owned by the 'family trust' not Bill himself (if you swallow that dodge)
However the ISSUE is WE, the humble TAXPAYER were PAYING him the MAXIMUM allowance to live in HIS house on which there is NO MORTGAGE or RENT to be PAID at all

Fuckin CRIMINAL in context if not the letter of the stupid legislation, especially with more Kiwi's out of work than in any other period of the last decade (maybe Labour wasnt such a bad option after all)

Flatcap

6th October 2009, 13:08

I'd suggest the Green New Deal would have a positive impact, but that is open to debate, no doubt. What policy do you see as a big threat to your economic well being?
.

Sorry, did I say policies? I meant drug-addled jabberings

Swoop

6th October 2009, 13:57

Packaging, f'instance. I get uber-pissed off when I go do the shopping. Why is everything loaded up with a crap load of plastic and paper packing that I don't want and that I have to get rid of. We have some token gestures about recycling which misses the point. Get rid of the crap in the first place.
Totally agree Ix. I believe that the petroleum products that are used in the packaging process are of the best quality. They "cannot" use recycled stuff for this. Another waste of resources.

YOU miss the point dude- not the rest of us
Have to disagree and see both sides of the issue.
The "ancestral home" or "marae" if you like, is in a location different from his current abode. A small issue.
The rorting of the system to get the salary package as large as possible, is a bad look. I have said before in other threads, that an MP's salary should be linked to the average wage in NZ. That would give them incentive to raise the level of wages here and also (hopefully) mean that they are in the job for the right reasons. The parasites that we attract to parliament, come for the wrong reasons at times. Professional retards who have never worked in their life (school, then university, then politics...) for example.

Pixie

6th October 2009, 15:17

Don't know much of the background to it all but I've been in a couple of lectures where different Greenies have come along to have their say about energy generation from renewable resources. In front of a room full of Electrical Engineering students the explanation was pretty much 'hydro and wind power are great because they give us free power with no downsides' and then when asked about what kind of situation New Zealand would have to be in to reconsider our nuclear free stance got told something similar to 'we would never do that because nuclear is non-renewable, dirty evil power that results in 3 eyed fish and you've all seen what godzilla did to japan...' (I'm paraphrasing). No comments about hydro damaging rivers, no comments about the visual and audible impacts of wind power (let alone the grid stability issues) etc.

I like the idea of generating more of our power from wind and hydro, just don't try to tell me that there aren't downsides or alternatives, that is just plain old disingenuous.

I fear I may be wandering off topic slightly however <_<
And that's why I hate NZ Greenies .-They have made their anti-science dogma into a religion.
Greenies in European Parliaments are different-some have even supported the building of new nuclear power stations.
Our Stupid Hippies believe in an iron age fairy land that never really existed.

The fact that they fell for the Dihydrogen Monoxide scam says it all:

"LARRY BALDOCK: In the role of Minister of Health is the Minister of the opinion that parabens cause more or less of a concern for public health than dihydrogen monoxide, a potentially deadly substance used in nuclear reactors that the member for the Greens also tried to have banned until discovering that its more common name was water?"

http://www.dhmo.org/

MisterD

6th October 2009, 15:24

And that's why I hate NZ Greenies .-They have made their anti-science dogma into a religion.

But...but...the world is warming, the science is settled...:bash:

Skyryder

6th October 2009, 16:41

Don't know much of the background to it all but I've been in a couple of lectures where different Greenies have come along to have their say about energy generation from renewable resources. In front of a room full of Electrical Engineering students the explanation was pretty much 'hydro and wind power are great because they give us free power with no downsides' and then when asked about what kind of situation New Zealand would have to be in to reconsider our nuclear free stance got told something similar to 'we would never do that because nuclear is non-renewable, dirty evil power that results in 3 eyed fish and you've all seen what godzilla did to japan...' (I'm paraphrasing). No comments about hydro damaging rivers, no comments about the visual and audible impacts of wind power (let alone the grid stability issues) etc.

I like the idea of generating more of our power from wind and hydro, just don't try to tell me that there aren't downsides or alternatives, that is just plain old disingenuous.

I fear I may be wandering off topic slightly however <_<

As a fisherman and a avid anti nuclear proponent I asked myself one question.

Would I sooner lose all the rivers to Hydro or suffer the consuences of a meltdown. To me that was the choice. I tend to look at complex issues rather simplisticly. That way you get rid of chaff and eventually come down to two solutions. For or against. Basicly that's how I make up my mind. It's not something that comes instantly but I eventually arrive at a 'position.'

Many have argued that the chances of a meltdown are remote. That I accept. But the chances are even more remote if there is no nuclear station.

I could go much deeper into this but as you say this is not the thread for it but one issue that if this could be 'sorted' in a safer manner than at present is the spent fuel rods. One can put as many safety systems in place but the by-product is one that has never been solved in a manner where I would consider a rethink for myself on this issue.

Still the river issues are high on my list but if comes down to losing the rivers and a nuclear station I'd go for the river loss. And I have not come to this position lightly.

Skyryder

jono035

6th October 2009, 16:51

Still the river issues are high on my list but if comes down to losing the rivers and a nuclear station I'd go for the river loss.

I agree that this is the wrong place to debate this and I genuinely enjoy talking to other people with their own viewpoints on these things, but having researched the major nuclear incidents that have occurred and the results of them it is surprising just how many things have to be wrong from the start, how many systems be un-maintained, improperly used and simply turned off to allow the human errors that caused the disasters. There are also far worse things that have happened as a result of these kinds of situations in non-nuclear industries that are real risks here in NZ...

This is compared to technology currently being developed that make reactors practically immune to this type of cock-up.

What do we do when we have no more rivers to turn into hydro? There are only a limited subset of them that are even vaguely suited...

cs363

6th October 2009, 17:17

But...but...the world is warming, the science is settled...:bash:

Bloody well hasn't been warming the last few days.... :whistle: :laugh:

MikeL

6th October 2009, 17:46

Hard to stay rational when the window-licking loon's policies have a clear and present negative impact on your wealth and daily life

This, unfortunately, encapsulates the level of debate about environmental issues in this country. Those who want to preserve their current lifestyles (which I would argue are unequivocably destructive) see any attempts to change our attitudes as a personal threat. The reference to wealth says it all. Faced with preserving their privileged lifestyle for the short-term, or making any sacrifice, however small, for the longer-term health of our planet and society, there will always be those who put their personal, selfish interests first.

And what is the alternative to staying rational, I ask? Labelling people as "window-licking loons" and their policies as "drug-addled jabberings" does not advance the debate.

Fortunately several other recent posts have shown a much more mature approach. We need intelligent debate about nuclear energy and many other issues.

BMWST?

6th October 2009, 18:03

It has to be one of the worst options. We would return to the see-saw, two party load of crap.
Only polarised opinion or absolute disgust in a sitting government will get it changed. Look at how long we suffered under muldoon.

So, the house that generations of the family has owned for many years, which is on English Rd, has nothing to do with having to move to Wellytown? Perhaps taking the taxpayer-paid-for dwelling in Welly would have been better but he is a family man and wants to be with wife and kids in a "normal" family situation. Good on him.

NO...he claims to LIVE in Dipton,and the Hosue in wellington is for the purposes of his Parliamentary Job.The fact that himself and family have been here for years....No problem with allowances,but he has deliberatley arranged his affairs to maximise benefits,all based on a falsehood.

rainman

6th October 2009, 18:14

In fact I'd suggest that the Greens have by and large lost interest in environmental issues and are much more interested in chasing social engineering objectives.

I fear that the "watermelon green", "damn socialist" stereotype of the Greens has taken a life of it's own, and many now feel happier attacking that strawman rather than responding to the reality of where the NZ green movement is today. (And I'd be surprised with the redness of the greens bugging you - aren't you a card carrying commie?) :)

Oh, sure, token murmurs of "oh yes, certainly". But their hearts aren't in it.

Hard to tell from the outside, I'm sure.

Packaging, f'instance.
Made in China, mostly... so a pretty big ask to take on global industrial capitalism (although I'm sure almost all greenies would agree with you on this issue - as would many non-greenies). Besides, they've done a fair bit on this - notably the Waste Minimisation Act and related campaigns.

refundable deposits on drink containers
Good question. Maybe not the top priority issue though? And the Greens certainly lobby for recycling, which is the enviro-point, rather than the deposit.

Why do almost all businesses have lights blazing all night long in empty office buildings...
office buildings have huge ventilation and air conditioning systems...
street lights blazing all night long...

Yer kidding right? Jeanette has put a lifetime into energy conservation, EECA etc.

Oh, and the problem is partially safety nazis (scared of falling out of windows). And wimps who can't deal with hot in summer and cold in winter.

Why are farmers dumping (literal) truck loads of artificial nitrogenous fertiliser into the waterways ?

Yer kidding right x2? Russell Norman goes on and on about this (and long may he continue).

I don't see or hear the Greens making any noise about such things. Sure, no doubt it's all in their mission statement or policy statement or such. But, manifestly, they don't really give a stuff.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that smells a lot like diversionary bovine excrement to me. The Greens are a small party, with limited resources, but who punch well above their weight in trying to deal with the handbasket of problems in which the world is hell-ward bound. It's true they don't cover everything. But your statement that they manifestly "don't give a stuff" is um, not accurate. At all.

Besides, the Greens are hardly a monolithic set of hemp wearing/smoking anti-commerce anti-science luddites. (For one thing, I'm one, and I'm a long way from all of that - I've more in common with Jack Spirco (http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/) than that stereotype). They're the only people out there trying to deal with our most pressing concerns in Parliament. This is why they are the least-worst choice, for me. I know it's traditional in NZ to knock anyone who isn't perfect, but (assuming you do support real environmentalism) what do you hope to achieve by it? If you think they're doing it wrong, feel free to do better.

Sorry, did I say policies? I meant drug-addled jabberings

So, not keen on a real debate, then?

an MP's salary should be linked to the average wage in NZ.

Would make them even more corruptible, though.

Ixion

6th October 2009, 18:44

I fear that the "watermelon green", "damn socialist" stereotype of the Greens has taken a life of it's own, and many now feel happier attacking that strawman rather than responding to the reality of where the NZ green movement is today. (And I'd be surprised with the redness of the greens bugging you - aren't you a card carrying commie?)

Yep. But I'm red . The Greens socialism is pink. I don't see Ms Bradfords Smacking Bill being much a Great Leap Forward,

Made in China, mostly... so a pretty big ask to take on global industrial capitalism (although I'm sure almost all greenies would agree with you on this issue - as would many non-greenies). Besides, they've done a fair bit on this - notably the Waste Minimisation Act and related campaigns.

Easy enough I reckon. Whopping great tax on anything that comes prepackaged. "Oh, yes Sir, that shirt IS $20 dearer than that one. But the expensive one has PACKAGING. And watch the consumer sort it , whether it be China or Timbucktoo. Better still, fixed quotas on anything imported that has redundant packaging, if the same or similar is made in NZ WITHOUT packaging , said quotas being steadily reduced. If your problem is imposing that tax or quota, then that's why you need a Communist government .

Y'could probably also go an easier route, just pass a law that nothing may be packaged in non-sustainable (ie wood or paper) packaging. That'd get rid of most of it.

Good question. Maybe not the top priority issue though? And the Greens certainly lobby for recycling, which is the enviro-point, rather than the deposit.

Not really. Recycling is a feel good evasion. The vast majority of what is recycled is dumped. There's only so much you can do with old milk bottles. And it misses the point. Why take (mainly non renewable) resources , add lots of energy for conversion and printing etc, extra energy for transportation because of greater bulk and weight, then more energy and labour to sort things for recycling (yes, my energy DOES count) ,labour and fuel to collect it, more energy still to cart the recycled material to a sorting depot, still MORE labour energy and resources to sort it, bale it etc, still MORE energy to melt it down or scrub it or whatever (not to mention all the nasty effects of chlorine and so on) , and still MORE energy to cart it to where ever it can be used , assuming it can be at all.

As opposed to just not having it in the first place!

Yer kidding right? Jeanette has put a lifetime into energy conservation, EECA etc.

Oh, and the problem is partially safety nazis (scared of falling out of windows). And wimps who can't deal with hot in summer and cold in winter.

Not working very well is it? And how much do we hear about that, and how much effort is put into it , compared with the Smacking Bill ?

As to safety nazis , and wimps, I have a simple answer for both. "Don't like it, tough. My Kalasnikov is quite happy about it".

Bit of fresh air never hurt anybody.

Yer kidding right x2? Russell Norman goes on and on about this (and long may he continue).

Maybe he does. Unless you're one of the party faithful, you're unlikely to hear it. Once again, "going on and on " about it isn't really solving anything is it?

.. I know it's traditional in NZ to knock anyone who isn't perfect, but (assuming you do support real environmentalism) what do you hope to achieve by it? If you think they're doing it wrong, feel free to do better.

I don't. I'm no environmentalist. I just don't like seeing where I live get fucked about. Sorta "don't piss on the doorstep".

MikeL

6th October 2009, 19:58

I'm no environmentalist. I just don't like seeing where I live get fucked about. Sorta "don't piss on the doorstep".

Brilliant!
Just shows how treacherous the use of labels is. "Environmentalist" carries a load of baggage; not "pissing on the doorstep" is something we can all relate to. There are a few unnatural souls who would happily live in a polluted, desolate concrete world, but most humans if given a choice want a pleasant (i.e. natural) environment. Problem is, they also want material wealth, freedom of choice and limitless growth. If you're rich enough and powerful enough you can have your cake and eat it too (at least for a while): not many wealthy industrialists choose to live in the suburbs which their factories have turned into grimy concrete deserts, and even if they do have a house in the city, you can be sure that they escape frequently to their private island or exclusive beachfront property. They will be the last to have their own private doorsteps pissed upon. It takes a leap of imagination and a certain generosity of spirit to perceive the "doorstep" as the whole planet...

Ixion

6th October 2009, 20:30

.. It takes a leap of imagination and a certain generosity of spirit to perceive the "doorstep" as the whole planet...

Aye. A greater imagination than mine. Hubris, Sir, hubris. So, I stick to attending to my own small corner , and trust that others will attend likewise to theirs.

"You in your small corner, me in mine"

And there is a name for people who think that the fair and gentle things of the world should not be monopolised by the wealthy industrialist. We call them "Communists". Perhaps , though, New Zealand is not yet entriely given over to the dark Satanic mills.

Skyryder

6th October 2009, 21:02

Strange how any ideas that come across in an intelligent manner that opposes the powers that be, they are labeled communist or other dictatorial type of politics.

But then when there are no ideas of a counter arguement...................it's to be expected.

Skyryder

rainman

6th October 2009, 21:20

I don't see Ms Bradfords Smacking Bill being much a Great Leap Forward,

Bloody good thing too! That doesn't seem to have worked out so well...

Easy enough I reckon. Whopping great tax on anything that comes prepackaged.

Pricing in externalities gets my vote, for sure. Won't happen though - say "tax" around these parts and the me-me-meeeeeeeee whiners come out in droves. And banning things isn't well received either, last I looked. Remember politics is the art of the possible; revolution is currently out of fashion.

As to the rest of your points - I think we share the same ideal outcomes. I'm just not sure how you would hope to achieve them, if indeed you do.

So, I stick to attending to my own small corner , and trust that others will attend likewise to theirs.

Localisation is indeed a good idea. Though I suspect that's not entirely what you had in mind.

Ixion

7th October 2009, 08:55

Pricing in externalities gets my vote, for sure. Won't happen though - say "tax" around these parts and the me-me-meeeeeeeee whiners come out in droves. And banning things isn't well received either, last I looked. Remember politics is the art of the possible; revolution is currently out of fashion.

Well, banning incandescent bulbs seemed to get enough traction before the election?

And a party like the Greens does not have to, and should not be , bound by the "art of the possible" rule. Part of the purpose of such a party is to inspire - to set a target or vision that may not be possible now, which which can provide a beacon toward the future.

jono035

7th October 2009, 09:17

Well, banning incandescent bulbs seemed to get enough traction before the election?

That was a pretty weird idea to begin with really... Banning stuff is not the way to go. If an item is cheaper to buy but more expensive to deal with later in life due to disposal costs or whatever, tax the item to bring things into balance.

Incandescent light bulbs user more power, so what? We already pay for power, there are no extra costs that need to be passed on. Sure using more power means we need to upgrade the grid and provide more generation capacity, but we already pay for what we use. If that isn't covering the costs of providing the service then increase what people have to pay.

Sure people will bitch and moan, but ultimately if it's costing more, people should be charged more.

rainman

7th October 2009, 11:04

Well, banning incandescent bulbs seemed to get enough traction before the election?

And a party like the Greens does not have to, and should not be , bound by the "art of the possible" rule. Part of the purpose of such a party is to inspire - to set a target or vision that may not be possible now, which which can provide a beacon toward the future.

I keep saying this, but you're kidding, right? The incandescent ban got the hordes of anti-nanny-staters up in arms all over the place, including here. Even though it makes eco-sense - in both the ecological and economic aspects. We don't like "being controlled" by others - which is why communism and similar c 'n c approaches only "work" is isolated enclaves like Cuba.

I agree the Greens should inspire - and think they do an OK-to-average job of this, although better than the others (got any idea what Mr Key is "ambitious" for these days? Or Mr Goff's great vision for that matter?)... but every time they go a little "out there" they get panned by all and sundry: for being too red, not red enough, not green enough, for having historical opinions on drugs, for being anti-science (what a joke, they're the most scientific party there is), for being freakin' hippies, for being economically immature ('cos economics has been doing really well lately, of course), for not completely solving the woes of the world despite being a minor party in coalition arrangements at best...

They are the party everyone loves to hate. I'd suggest at least some of this is because we know that, on many issues, they're right - and don't want to think about that too closely.

Banning stuff is not the way to go. If an item is cheaper to buy but more expensive to deal with later in life due to disposal costs or whatever, tax the item to bring things into balance.

I agree. Yet the Greens are always being criticised for being the ban and tax party - even when their tax proposals are revenue neutral.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of arguing this same set of points - and I'm sure you're all getting tired of it too. My bottom line: we're in serious trouble ecologically and economically (the consensus scientific reality-based position for some time and on several fronts), and the conservative denialist response to this is, broadly, neither brave nor moral. For my money the Greens are the least worst option for addressing our woes - such that central government is useful for this at all.

Skyryder

7th October 2009, 19:42

The Greens seem to have lost their way since rob Donald died. Most of their concerns and I stress concerns, not policy, have been taken up by both the Nats and Labour. On social issues they have moved into the area vacated by Labour and the now defunct Alliance and having no one with the political skills to promote these areas the Greens have been floundering on these issues.

While their social issues may strike an accord with some, (the social inteligentsia, uni lectrers etc.) these very people do not make up enough of the population to have any impact and the masses, to which the Greens social policy is directed, will not have any sympathy with Keith Lock and his utterances. So in effect the Greens don't seem to know what the each hand is doing other than waving in different directions.

The fact that they have gone into an arrangement with the Nats along with ACT suggests to me that at present they have no idea what side of the fence they are sitting on.

The mistake they have made in doing this is that Labour will no longer trust them in the future.

Much the same thing could be said about the Maori Party in respect of trust. But the difference is the other way around. It is Turia who does not trust the Labour party. I'm getting a bit off topic here but on the surface it looks as if Labour does not have a natural coalition partner, but then with Key promising to hold a referendum on MMP they may not need one given the hostility to MMP. Just another reason I don't hold Key in high reguard as a politician. At the very time when Labour seem isolated Key comes out with his referendum promise that may.........or may not..... be Labours life saver. Dumb politics by a the Greens, the Maori Party and Key.

Skyryder

jono035

7th October 2009, 20:11

Just another reason I don't hold Key in high reguard as a politician. At the very time when Labour seem isolated Key comes out with his referendum promise that may.........or may not..... be Labours life saver.

I think a politician doing something that may not benefit themselves or their party directly is possibly a good thing?

oldrider

8th October 2009, 15:03

Why do you hate the Greens so much, and what do you hope to achieve by doing so? Are you not in favour of preserving our environment, or just against the Greens social message?

You generally seem to be a grown-up, but ranting like the above just makes you look like a jerk and a bigot. What's the point?

If you are unable to see this for your self, me trying to explain it to you won't influence you one bit!

You don't have to agree with my opinion or my comments, you have your own, that's fine with me, I just don't share yours!

Freedom of speech and democracy in action! :calm:

peasea

8th October 2009, 15:25

MisterD

8th October 2009, 15:37

That's funny, whenever I exercise my right to freedom of speech and voice my opinions on kb...... I get demerits..heaps of them.

Go figure.

You nearly got one for blatant use of an irritating americanism...

rainman

8th October 2009, 15:44

If you are unable to see this for your self, me trying to explain it to you won't influence you one bit!

You don't have to agree with my opinion or my comments, you have your own, that's fine with me, I just don't share yours!

Freedom of speech and democracy in action! :calm:

I'm happy for us to disagree, and agree this is exactly how freedom of speech and thought should work. Supporting any political party of issue is never so obvious as to be self-evident. Particularly to others...

I was just wondering why someone, who is usually reasoned and mature in their responses to a wide range of topics, should have such a bug up their butt about this one!

And I'm always keen on a good political debate - I have an open-er mind than it might seem, and more eclectic ideas than the standard received Green Gospel. But, 'tis up to you if you want to play.

Skyryder

8th October 2009, 20:42

I think a politician doing something that may not benefit themselves or their party directly is possibly a good thing?

It would be if Key knew what he was doing and why. Key's got this thing that he needs to hold a referendum on the basis of his party's promise. OK by me but that never stacked up as far as their tax policy went. Oh no now we can not afford it. And now the utterancea are coming from the Nats that the recession is all but over. Go figure that one. Now he wants to hold a referendum at precisley the time Labour are isolated and you think that is a good thing for the Nats. I know that some circles are a bit more than pissed of with this.
Don't believe me??; Why it was just the other day Key was saying that he did not see himself as a long term politician. Now why is that...............his short attention span?? I don't think so.:girlfight:

Skyryder

ynot slow

8th October 2009, 21:22

Don't believe me??; Why it was just the other day Key was saying that he did not see himself as a long term politician. Now why is that...............his short attention span?? I don't think so.:girlfight:

Skyryder

And didn't him and all his mates jump on Melissa Lee for saying she was running for 2nd in MtAlbert bi-erection.Mind you any leader is only as good as their last term,whether in power or opposition.

peasea

8th October 2009, 22:26

You nearly got one for blatant use of an irritating americanism...

What? "Freedom of speech"?

peasea

8th October 2009, 22:30

And didn't him and all his mates jump on Melissa Lee for saying she was running for 2nd in MtAlbert bi-erection.Mind you any leader is only as good as their last term,whether in power or opposition.

bi-erection? Have you seen that bitch? I couldn't get a hard-on once, let alone twice.

SARGE

8th October 2009, 22:33

Vote to get rid of MMP and the damn green bludgers will be gone. Some more limpet mines and we could loose a whole useless Greenpeace and probably Sea Shepherd too if we're clever. BBQ whalemeat! Who wants some? Mmmmmm....tasty!

i prefer baby seal.. freshly clubbed and smothered in a nice Pukeko gravy

MikeL

9th October 2009, 10:09

I was just wondering why someone, who is usually reasoned and mature in their responses to a wide range of topics, should have such a bug up their butt about this one!

It's too easy to agree to disagree. In trivial matters, and questions of simple taste, it is a social courtesy (if you like tripe and I loathe it there is no point getting into a heated argument; however, as a tripe-loather I will still listen politely as you describe a new recipe, and you may even convince me to try it...)
In important matters it is a different story. I do not have to respect an opinion that is based on ignorance or prejudice, simply because it is your democratic right to hold such an opinion. It is fair to ask you to explain the basis of your opinion, the arguments and evidence leading to the conclusion you have arrived at. If you won't do this, or your arguments are illogical, ignorant, or based on emotion rather than reason, don't expect me to accord you the courtesy of respecting your views.
If you hate the Greens, you must have reasoned arguments. You must be willing to reveal the ideological basis of your opinion.
A good example is Garth George, whose weekly column the Herald, to its shame, continues to publish. Mr George denies climate change, ridicules the whole environmental movement, and makes it clear that he will resist any attempt to make him change his lifestyle. At least he is (reasonably) honest in showing where he derives his opinions. He believes, as a committed Christian, that God made this earth and everything on it for mankind to exploit. He clearly sees no wrong in the extinction of fisheries or the disappearance of rainforests. Presumably it is all part of God's plan, and Armageddon will come before complete environmental collapse. It is clearly not a view which I can accept, but at least he doesn't try to dissemble it.
As I have written before, the virulent attacks on Green politicians and policies by ordinary people are based on the fear of losing our comfortable and profitable ways of doing things. It is the child putting his hands over his ears and saying "I don't want to hear this". As for those wealthy and greedy people with more than an average amount to lose, they will fight tooth and nail to delay any change. It's going to get ugly.

jono035

9th October 2009, 10:27

In important matters it is a different story. I do not have to respect an opinion that is based on ignorance or prejudice, simply because it is your democratic right to hold such an opinion. It is fair to ask you to explain the basis of your opinion, the arguments and evidence leading to the conclusion you have arrived at.

Pffft try debating gun control in this country. No matter how well reasoned your opinions are and based in solid fact based upon reliable evidence then you still get accused of being some kind of rambo wannabe by people whose opinions are rooted solidly in the 'guns are bad because they kill people, if there were no guns then the world would be a happy place full of bunnies, kittens and rainbows' brand of naivety.

MikeL

9th October 2009, 10:42

Pffft try debating gun control in this country. No matter how well reasoned your opinions are and based in solid fact based upon reliable evidence then you still get accused of being some kind of rambo wannabe by people whose opinions are rooted solidly in the 'guns are bad because they kill people, if there were no guns then the world would be a happy place full of bunnies, kittens and rainbows' brand of naivety.

So what is the alternative to reasoned argument and debate? You can fight prejudice with prejudice, and reason with violence, but even if your cause is just your victory will be hollow.

And don't you think your last remark deliberately distorts the reasonable arguments put forward by many advocates of gun control, thus showing just the sort of prejudice that you complain of?

jono035

9th October 2009, 10:50

So what is the alternative to reasoned argument and debate? You can fight prejudice with prejudice, and reason with violence, but even if your cause is just your victory will be hollow.

And don't you think your last remark deliberately distorts the reasonable arguments put forward by many advocates of gun control, thus showing just the sort of prejudice that you complain of?

I didn't say there was an alternative, just saying good luck with questioning someone on their motivations and reasoning in the hope of getting a coherent answer....

I do think it does. I am not in one of those discussions now, nor did I suggest anywhere that all proponents of stricter gun laws have opinions based in that stereotype. I said that in this country you still get labelled and bashed with all sorts of ad hominem rubbish by people who are unable to profess any sort of reasoned basis for their opinions and will resort to stating their opinions as fact and get angry when you try to question them.

Edit: I'm not sure if you realise this, but I wrote that post in agreement with you, perhaps I could have worded it a little better.

rainman

9th October 2009, 17:11

It's too easy to agree to disagree..... It's going to get ugly.

Apparently I have given you too much rep already. But well said.

Pffft try debating gun control in this country. No matter how well reasoned your opinions are and based in solid fact based upon reliable evidence then you still get accused of being some kind of rambo wannabe by people whose opinions are rooted solidly in the 'guns are bad because they kill people, if there were no guns then the world would be a happy place full of bunnies, kittens and rainbows' brand of naivety.

Sounds like you've had some bad experiences with irrational people. For the record I'm happy to debate gun control, and promise I won't call you Rambo. I'm not vehemently anti-guns though (in fact I didn't think the gun control argument was that hot around here), so it might be a bit of a boring argument...

jono035

9th October 2009, 18:51

Sounds like you've had some bad experiences with irrational people. For the record I'm happy to debate gun control, and promise I won't call you Rambo. I'm not vehemently anti-guns though (in fact I didn't think the gun control argument was that hot around here), so it might be a bit of a boring argument...

Heh, no worries, we enjoy a good preach to the choir every now and then, too ;)

Not so much on here, although there was a run in a month or 2 back in a couple of threads with people who seemed to me to be a little irrational about the whole thing. It was more a comment on life in general.

I also gave up reading comments on the herald website, it makes me want to start gnawing on my desk with frustration.