The Obama deception, HQ full length version! Fact or fiction? [Archive]

oldrider

31st July 2010, 00:02

Political deception where A fights B for the benefit of "C"!

Is this "C" exposed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

New World Order? Fact or fiction, you be the judge! :shifty:

Owl

31st July 2010, 06:36

Sorry, but 1hr53min:shit: I managed 1 minute before dying of boredom:zzzz:

scissorhands

31st July 2010, 08:49

No boredom here!!

Thanks for the link Oldrider!

heres a 8 minute montage of stupid rhetoric from george bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKSUlDaNAxs

Milts

31st July 2010, 10:56

Fact or fiction? He's a politician, you can just about guarantee it'll be a mixture of both.

Sorting out which part is which is the real trick!

mashman

31st July 2010, 13:06

Sorry, but 1hr53min:shit: I managed 1 minute before dying of boredom:zzzz:

lol, they mention you in the film, several times over in fact :shifty: :jerry:

Edbear

31st July 2010, 13:30

There is definitely a desire for a so-called "New World Order" within the UN. From a sincerely motivated desire to put a stop to the divisions and fighting and bring some real stability to the world.

The rise of terrorism has put a spoke in the works that the world leaders have to find a way to deal with. There is, apparently a document or documents on file which will be activated at a suitable time to outlaw religion, but these are now complicated by the fact that terrorism has become random and fragmented beyond religious and cultural divides.

There is a struggle between the major world powers, read: Capitalism and Communism, as to how to unite the key players and this is going to play out more yet. Each wants to ensure their sovereignty unchallenged so countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, (with it's mineral wealth), and North Korea, will become key pawns in the game.

Pakistan is in danger of descending into civil war and that worries everyone due to the nuclear capability of both Pakistan and India. India is trying to remain neutral and avoid the terrorism growing next door, but her closeness to, and her close involvement with, Pakistan is going to make that difficult.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but the reality is that the modern world is too open and there are too many willing to talk and challenge for much to be done in secret these days. Politicians and even world leaders, are only people, just like you and me and subject to the same frailties and uncertainties as we are. Imagine you being in Obama's position. You'd have the same influence and the same human disadvantages as any 44 year old.

mashman

31st July 2010, 14:47

There is definitely a desire for a so-called "New World Order" within the UN. From a sincerely motivated desire to put a stop to the divisions and fighting and bring some real stability to the world.

But they're going about it the wrong way, using the incorrect "tools" (financial system) to reach their outcome, which can only be for all of our benefits eh? BUT, there will always be a financial divide and that's just one flaw. With that comes all of it's social consequences. We see it every day. And we see the next generation coming in behind us and they ain't pretty to look at. Oh how enlightened we've all become blah blah blah :)

The rise of terrorism has put a spoke in the works that the world leaders have to find a way to deal with. There is, apparently a document or documents on file which will be activated at a suitable time to outlaw religion, but these are now complicated by the fact that terrorism has become random and fragmented beyond religious and cultural divides.

People should be allowed to believe what they believe, exercise as much caution in their daily danger deeds as they feel fits the situation and on and on... Since when did outlawing "behaviour" promote innovation, insight, equity, spiritual understanding, one great step etc...? The wrong "tools" to reach the goal?

There is a struggle between the major world powers, read: Capitalism and Communism, as to how to unite the key players and this is going to play out more yet. Each wants to ensure their sovereignty unchallenged so countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, (with it's mineral wealth), and North Korea, will become key pawns in the game.

both capitalism and communism breed mistrusting populations, primarily because people laud money :)... there's an easy fix for that :)

Pakistan is in danger of descending into civil war and that worries everyone due to the nuclear capability of both Pakistan and India. India is trying to remain neutral and avoid the terrorism growing next door, but her closeness to, and her close involvement with, Pakistan is going to make that difficult.

Why? because they believe in different things? pretty childish. Can't the presidents just go at it in a pool of jelly instead of hiding behind their people and sending them out to die :)

Conspiracy theories are fun, but the reality is that the modern world is too open and there are too many willing to talk and challenge for much to be done in secret these days. Politicians and even world leaders, are only people, just like you and me and subject to the same frailties and uncertainties as we are. Imagine you being in Obama's position. You'd have the same influence and the same human disadvantages as any 44 year old.

There's enough evidence there to show that the NWO conspiracy is probably where we're heading. Make your own mind up. But would you trust someone that lied to get the biggest job in the world? failing on huge issues and noone caring WTF? that's a team effort :), but that's just what I think and i'm glad that they are there to raise those concerns.

Antonio

31st July 2010, 15:00

Never mind

oldrider

31st July 2010, 22:34

Further New World Order viewing you "may" wish to ponder! :shifty:

The Fall of the Republic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU&feature=youtu.be

Interesting if you have an open mind. :yes:

NighthawkNZ

31st July 2010, 23:20

Like I have always said ... they are all puppets... you have to cut the strings and find the puppeteers...

oldrider

31st July 2010, 23:59

So do we all know and understand about "money", one of the greatest influencing factors on our very own lives?

This "may" be of interest to you! http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/prosper.html

The source is not necessarily as important or as interesting the message! :shifty:

mashman

1st August 2010, 13:44

So do we all know and understand about "money", one of the greatest influencing factors on our very own lives?

This "may" be of interest to you! http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/prosper.html

The source is not necessarily as important or as interesting the message! :shifty:

tis a single point of failure :)

"Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes

That's only partially correct and fixed for him to reflect this day and age

"Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million cares to diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes

and why would we... some like the games that we pay for :)

pete376403

1st August 2010, 19:56

So do we all know and understand about "money", one of the greatest influencing factors on our very own lives?
This "may" be of interest to you! http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/prosper.html
The source is not necessarily as important or as interesting the message! :shifty:

Thats a really interesting read - particularly this bit" On June 4, 1963, President John Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 in defiance of the Federal Reserve (Central Bank) which held a monopoly on American currency, returning to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. The order gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. It seems obvious to some that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance," and his assassination was likely a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money.

Within days of Kennedy's assassination, the Federal Reserve issued its new notes with the obligation clause, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank," replaced with only, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."

Obviously pays not to upset the power brokers.

AD345

1st August 2010, 20:03

Further New World Order viewing you "may" wish to ponder! :shifty:

The Fall of the Republic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU&feature=youtu.be

Interesting if you have an open mind. :yes:

Open mindedness is not something I would equate with that drivel

NinjaNanna

1st August 2010, 20:20

I thought when the GFC hit that the next war would likely be fought over debt.

At the end of the day if you are big enough you can say, "Sorry I won't be paying that back" I would have no doubt that America is not above this.

The really scary thing is you can't sanction against them either - countries will still trade with them - though they may expect payment up front.

I guess the important thing would be to do it before their military might has time to depreciate.

oldrider

1st August 2010, 21:15

Open mindedness is not something I would equate with that drivel

You just did, the "open mindedness" is the freedom of the reader to exercise their own choice and form their own opinion!

There are powers surrounding us that would take that right away from us!

Death by a thousand cuts!

The individual freedoms that I have seen whittled away just in "my" lifetime are very concerning to me! :yes:

mashman

3rd August 2010, 13:43

Open mindedness is not something I would equate with that drivel

I curious as to why... would you explain further?

SPman

3rd August 2010, 16:27

Perhaps he prefers the drivel espoused by the likes of CNN, Fox News, any Murdoch media outlet, increasingly the BBC, etc.......

Perceptions of severe bias and info worthiness depend on which direction you are coming from.....Alex Jones and Co. do tend to run away with severe paranoia at times, and latterly have seemed to get more and more into the realms of "the world is all a big conspiracy and the elite are going to turn us all into slaves" mode - treating everything with a cynicism that even a hardened cynic like me finds hard to take at times.
It's a pity because some of the earlier films were really excellent - particularly the one on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty off Gaza in 1967.
His films may be perceived of as "drivel" in many quarters, but there is some interesting and disturbing stuff buried away in most of them....and labelling is often a convenient way of dissing something without having to put up a counter argument!

If he could cut them down to 15 mins, they would be a better watch.

NighthawkNZ

3rd August 2010, 16:48

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=159216125164

puddytat

3rd August 2010, 22:44

....and labelling is often a convenient way of dissing something without having to put up a counter argument!
.

So very very true & far to often used by the ignorant.....or the brainwashed.
Funny thing is most of us have this weird feeling that "something" is up but let political bias stop us from working with others of a different"colour", or we get caught up in the drivel that is mainstream media or consumerism.
What amazes me is that so much emphassis is placed on the Fed. Reserve bank....its no more a reserve bank than kiwi bank, as I understand it was set up by Rothschilds etc who were the masterminds of one or 2 other collapses like the one in 1929.
Funny thing too is I feel more inclined to listen to a conspiracy theory than politicians....they just seem more plausible.
Makes sense to set us up to fail then use it as a reason to "assume" control.Fuck then lets also remove one or 2 rights at the same time for our own good & for the sake of public order.....

shrub

4th August 2010, 08:56

my take is that we are indeed heading for a "new world order", but not one run by shadowy figures in the UN, government, the Vatican or any of the other traditional sources, but in fact a new world order where our affairs are managed by a small number of immensely powerful corporate entities because money is ultimately the source of all power. The UN may be able to pass resolutions, form research bodies and host conferences, but in reality is not only powerless but lacking any influence. Take climate change: the science is unequivocal, but the money is behind the sceptics, and even though their arguments are ultimately spurious, they're the ones who are believed. And they're believed because the best funded and most comprehensive PR campaign in history has told us that there is doubt about the science (without presenting anything substantive to support that argument) and that climate change is a scam to take our money from us.

No, the new world order will be managed by Mobil Exxon, Walmart and Shell; all of whom are bigger economicaly than Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Portugal and New Zealand. It will be reported and spun by the six media giants that own over 90% of all media worldwide and it will benefit a very small number of men. A number that is decreasing every day - survival of the fittest.

If you want a conspiracy theory, how about the one where the BP oil spill was the work of Mobil/Shell to remove a competitor and if you want to see a vision of tomorrow, Rollerball is actually better than most stuff on Youtube.

oldrider

4th August 2010, 16:59

A select group of international bankers have the history and track record for type to be the most likely candidates for establishing a NWO, expressly for their own benefit! (IMHO!)

Quote: Give me control of the finances of the world and I care not who makes the laws! (Rothschild/international banker)

International bankers "create, control, distribute and cancel money at will", the rest of the world are simply pawns in their game!

Ask always, "who benefits" and it always comes back to the same source, the same select international banking fraternity! :yes:

Quote: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely! :doh:

When you really think about it, who the hell else, other than these bankers, needs a New World Order anyway? :mellow:

mashman

4th August 2010, 17:36

A select group of international bankers have the history and track record for type to be the most likely candidates for establishing a NWO, expressly for their own benefit! (IMHO!)

Quote: Give me control of the finances of the world and I care not who makes the laws! (Rothschild/international banker)

International bankers "create, control, distribute and cancel money at will", the rest of the world are simply pawns in their game!

Ask always, "who benefits" and it always comes back to the same source, the same select international banking fraternity! :yes:

Quote: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely! :doh:

When you really think about it, who the hell else, other than these bankers, needs a New World Order anyway? :mellow:

The cancellation of money being as easy as clicking enter. All you will have is the cash in your pocket. What do you, all, think will happen? No money, no food, no petrol, no electricity any more?

These guys make politicians look like choir boys.

As to whether anyone, or anything could do that?

pete376403

4th August 2010, 19:56

[QUOTE=shrub;1129827533]my take is that we are indeed heading for a "new world order"... where our affairs are managed by a small number of immensely powerful corporate entities QUOTE]

I reckon we're there already.

SPman

5th August 2010, 20:45

oldrider

6th August 2010, 00:46

SPman's "Jefferson" quote:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs
.I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

It wasn't much better 200 yrs ago..........

Exactly what the New Zealand "Social Credit party" was saying and gaining >21% of the vote but only one or two seats in the house due to the inequality of the "first past the post" voting system!

Imagine what 21% of the vote would have meant under proportional representation, even MMP!

(who then was the real threat to the comfortable status quo?)

On the pretence of combating and competing with "Robert Mulldoon" and his failing National party, Robert Jones formed the "New Zealand Party" to offer a more acceptable (to the shadowy status quo) alternative for dissatisfied swinging National and Labour voters!

He disbanded the party following the 1984 election, mission accomplished and was "Knighted" for his effort!

Why was he knighted? Why was Robert Mulldoon knighted?

Who benefited most from the destruction of the Social Credit threat?

(IMO)The only real casualty "was" the "Social Credit party", the old Labour/National coalition club carried on unchallenged until under immense pressure by the electorate at large for "proportional representation", a series of "referendum" were offered!

The shadowy backers of the status quo manipulated the introduction of MMP!

In the end MMP was the only offer on the table, take it or leave it, even I voted MMP rather than retain FPP!

STV was always my personal preference of those on offer in the first referendum!

MMP has proved to have disenfranchised the voters further from the decision making process than did FPP and clearly allows the politicians to choose a government among themselves and only accountable to their coalition members irrespective of the wishes of the bewildered and powerless electorate!

Next years election will give us another chance to get a proportional system that holds the politicians responsible to the "electorate", rather than to each other at the expense of the electorate, as they do under MMP!

I recommend STV (single transferable vote) as a more suitable system to make the politicians responsible to the electorate (the voters) once again!

All I ask is that you all think about it before the referendum rather than repent in sorrow after the event!

eelracing

6th August 2010, 02:02

Next years election will give us another chance to get a proportional system that holds the politicians responsible to the "electorate", rather than to each other at the expense of the electorate, as they do under MMP!

It won't come soon enough,you watch Nationals' Australian PR firm spin it's bullshit to the great unwashed.And like indifferent KFC scoffing/reality TV watching sheep they'll lap it up.

SPman

6th August 2010, 12:58

irrespective of the wishes of the bewildered and powerless electorate! Bewildered...yes. ....but only because most people still don't really know how to use the MMP voting system to best advantage.
Powerless......because they are content to be so. If the majority of voters stopped being scared of life.....politicians or police only have to go Boo!, and the majority of people seem to run squealing behind doors happy to put up with whatever shit the assumed overlords dump on them. As long as they don't have to actually do anything..........

cold comfort

8th August 2010, 17:31

SPman's "Jefferson" quote:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs
.I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

STV was always my personal preference of those on offer in the first referendum!

MMP has proved to have disenfranchised the voters further from the decision making process than did FPP and clearly allows the politicians to choose a government among themselves and only accountable to their coalition members irrespective of the wishes of the bewildered and powerless electorate!

Next years election will give us another chance to get a proportional system that holds the politicians responsible to the "electorate", rather than to each other at the expense of the electorate, as they do under MMP!

I recommend STV (single transferable vote) as a more suitable system to make the politicians responsible to the electorate (the voters) once again!

All I ask is that you all think about it before the referendum rather than repent in sorrow after the event!

Totally with you on these issues. I was not surprised to see, after being offered the carrot of MMP, we then got the one that suited the pollies! Re Obama -its a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" forever the puppet of the financial institutions! As the force behind Kennedy's assassination, its the most plausible.

cold comfort

29th May 2011, 22:19

It won't come soon enough,you watch Nationals' Australian PR firm spin it's bullshit to the great unwashed.And like indifferent KFC scoffing/reality TV watching sheep they'll lap it up.

Heads up chaps- Anthony Hubbard reports in Sunday Star Times "A group of activists with links to Act and National" are preparing a campaign against the electoral system, the details of which are becoming known. Those who don't want a return to FFP will need to make their voice heard.

short-circuit

30th May 2011, 07:35

Heads up chaps- Anthony Hubbard reports in Sunday Star Times "A group of activists with links to Act and National" are preparing a campaign against the electoral system, the details of which are becoming known. Those who don't want a return to FFP will need to make their voice heard.

We should have gone with STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) when we rejected the abortion that was FFP...that's not what these bastards are are trying to tee up however

oldrider

30th May 2011, 10:07

We should have gone with STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) when we rejected the abortion that was FFP...that's not what these bastards are are trying to tee up however

I saw on TV the other night, a comment about what choices we will be given and I did not hear STV even mentioned!

I don't think it will be even offered this time ..... the bastards! :wait:

imdying

30th May 2011, 10:52

Those who don't want a return to FFP will need to make their voice heard.

we rejected the abortion that was FFPWhat's FFP?

Oscar

30th May 2011, 11:09

Exactly what the New Zealand "Social Credit party" was saying and gaining >21% of the vote but only one or two seats in the house due to the inequality of the "first past the post" voting system!

Imagine what 21% of the vote would have meant under proportional representation, even MMP!

(who then was the real threat to the comfortable status quo?)

On the pretence of combating and competing with "Robert Mulldoon" and his failing National party, Robert Jones formed the "New Zealand Party" to offer a more acceptable (to the shadowy status quo) alternative for dissatisfied swinging National and Labour voters!

He disbanded the party following the 1984 election, mission accomplished and was "Knighted" for his effort!

Why was he knighted? Why was Robert Mulldoon knighted?

Who benefited most from the destruction of the Social Credit threat?

(IMO)The only real casualty "was" the "Social Credit party", the old Labour/National coalition club carried on unchallenged until under immense pressure by the electorate at large for "proportional representation", a series of "referendum" were offered!

In 1984 Social Credit won two seats with 7.6% of the vote, whereas the New Zealand Party won no seats with 12.2% of the vote.
Misson accomplished???

I have no idea why Bob Jones got a gong, but it was pretty standard for PM's to be knighted.

Oscar

30th May 2011, 11:22

In the end MMP was the only offer on the table, take it or leave it, even I voted MMP rather than retain FPP!

STV was always my personal preference of those on offer in the first referendum!

MMP has proved to have disenfranchised the voters further from the decision making process than did FPP and clearly allows the politicians to choose a government among themselves and only accountable to their coalition members irrespective of the wishes of the bewildered and powerless electorate!

Next years election will give us another chance to get a proportional system that holds the politicians responsible to the "electorate", rather than to each other at the expense of the electorate, as they do under MMP!

I recommend STV (single transferable vote) as a more suitable system to make the politicians responsible to the electorate (the voters) once again!

All I ask is that you all think about it before the referendum rather than repent in sorrow after the event!

To be fair, STV was offered (and vocally backed by the likes of Marilyn Warin) in the first referundum (I voted for it), so your comments have a whiff of the bad loser about them...

Would you care to explain how "...MMP has proved to have disenfranchised the voters further from the decision making process than did FPP..? In my opinion MMP brings the opposite problem - too many vocal minorities are holding success Govts to ransom. NZ First, Act, the Maori Party and the Greens all managed to advance their agendas to the cabinet table with no real justification based on voter numbers.

And just for you guys how are saying that it's ACT and the Nats who favour FPP - who formed an association to back FPP against MMP in 1992?

Simon Upton and Helen Clarke.

oneofsix

30th May 2011, 11:25

In 1984 Social Credit won two seats with 7.6% of the vote, whereas the New Zealand Party won no seats with 12.2% of the vote.
Misson accomplished???

I have no idea why Bob Jones got a gong, but it was pretty standard for PM's to be knighted.

Mission accomplished in that NZ party took enough of the votes away from National in key seats to cost them the seats and therefore the election. Rob Muldoon removed as PM and retired from National party.
Funnily enough Rob Jone's actions again highlighted the problem with FPP in that it was based on winning seats, not votes.

Oscar

30th May 2011, 11:30

Mission accomplished in that NZ party took enough of the votes away from National in key seats to cost them the seats and therefore the election. Rob Muldoon removed as PM and retired from National party.
Funnily enough Rob Jone's actions again highlighted the problem with FPP in that it was based on winning seats, not votes.

I agree. However Old Rider was inferring that the NZ Party was some way of disposing of Social Credit (at least I think that's what he said).

cold comfort

30th May 2011, 11:38

I saw on TV the other night, a comment about what choices we will be given and I did not hear STV even mentioned!

Just got my voting registration. STV IS included in the options for the referendum J.

To be fair, STV was offered (and vocally backed by the likes of Marilyn Warin) in the first referundum (I voted for it), so your comments have a whiff of the bad loser about them... NZ First, Act, the Maori Party and the Greens all managed to advance their agendas to the cabinet table with no real justification based on voter numbers.Quote)

And just for you guys how are saying that it's ACT and the Nats who favour FPP - who formed an association to back FPP against MMP in 1992?
Simon Upton and Helen Clarke.

If the Green agenda involves not having oil slicks in Golden Bay and polluted ground water from Chinese owned dairy farms I'm all for it. I also believe the disproportionate weighting of the Maori party is caused by the anachronistic "Maori seats" which should have "gone by lunchtime"

True,pollies hate something which may moderate their excesses however as the Times article said it appears the campaign is being mounted by Act and National this time.

oldrider

30th May 2011, 11:46

In 1984 Social Credit won two seats with 7.6% of the vote, whereas the New Zealand Party won no seats with 12.2% of the vote.
Misson accomplished???

I have no idea why Bob Jones got a gong, but it was pretty standard for PM's to be knighted.

Imagine what Social Credit could have achieved with the other 12.2%!

Most of the voters that supported Bob Jones party were disenchanted voters and would most probably voted Social Credit in a moment of protest against the status quo!

Such was the situation at the time!

Combine the two votes and Social Credit could have been in charge of the treasury benches!

Introduce Bob Jones and promote his party as a "popular" alternative and mission accomplished ... goodbye Social Credit .... hello "Sir" Robert Jones!

Well, that's the way it appeared to me at the time and bob Jones simply faded away from the political scene once he had done the job for his financial backers!

This of course is just my personal opinion of events around me at that time!

oneofsix

30th May 2011, 11:51

Imagine what Social Credit could have achieved with the other 12.2%!

Most of the voters that supported Bob Jones party were disenchanted voters and would most probably voted Social Credit in a moment of protest against the status quo!

Such was the situation at the time!

Combine the two votes and Social Credit could have been in charge of the treasury benches!

Introduce Bob Jones and promote his party as a "popular" alternative and mission accomplished ... goodbye Social Credit .... hello "Sir" Robert Jones!

Well, that's the way it appeared to me at the time and bob Jones simply faded away from the political scene once he had done the job for his financial backers!

This of course is just my personal opinion of events around me at that time!

that sounds about right because back then the one thing Labour and National could agree consistently on was being scared of Social Credit.

Oscar

30th May 2011, 12:40

Imagine what Social Credit could have achieved with the other 12.2%!

Most of the voters that supported Bob Jones party were disenchanted voters and would most probably voted Social Credit in a moment of protest against the status quo!

Such was the situation at the time!

Combine the two votes and Social Credit could have been in charge of the treasury benches!

Introduce Bob Jones and promote his party as a "popular" alternative and mission accomplished ... goodbye Social Credit .... hello "Sir" Robert Jones!

Well, that's the way it appeared to me at the time and bob Jones simply faded away from the political scene once he had done the job for his financial backers!

This of course is just my personal opinion of events around me at that time!

Social Credit achieved just over 20% of the vote at the previous election and got two seats, and were never in danger of being on the Treasury benches.

I also don't follow your reasoning - are you saying that Bob Jones was doing a hatchjob for someone on the Government?
Or Social Credit?

Why would his "financial backers" want a National Govt. dismissed?
Why would they want Social Credit knobbled?

My recollection of the time is that people who voted Social Credit either did it as a protest or because of their local candidate (which I did). I also recall that Bob Jones wanted to destroy the National Party, which seems to be at odds with your theories...

oldrider

30th May 2011, 17:16

Social Credit achieved just over 20% of the vote at the previous election and got two seats, and were never in danger of being on the Treasury benches.

FPP is a crock, if it went by number of votes Labour would always have been the government!

I also don't follow your reasoning - are you saying that Bob Jones was doing a hatchjob for someone on the Government?
Or Social Credit?

Social Credit.

Why would his "financial backers" want a National Govt. dismissed?

National and Labour are still there, nothings changed there.

Why would they want Social Credit knobbled?

Social Credit was a threat to the current banking systems and practices.

My recollection of the time is that people who voted Social Credit either did it as a protest or because of their local candidate (which I did).

True but I voted Social Credit because I think it is a better system than the status quo!

I also recall that Bob Jones wanted to destroy the National Party, which seems to be at odds with your theories...

That was just a load of theatrical bullshit to distract voters from the real issues!

Rob Muldoon was past his use by date!

He just carried on diminishing his political influence and sucked on the public tit until they finally threw him out and then he completed the act by dying!

Is that clear enough for you?

Oscar

30th May 2011, 18:07

Is that clear enough for you?

Nope.
What proof have you of this Social Credit / Bob Jones conspiracy (which, considering Bob Jones' comments at the time is right up there with "Lancaster Bomber found on the Moon")?

oldrider

30th May 2011, 18:19

FFS I told you that this is just my opinion of what took place, get over it!

Oscar

30th May 2011, 21:26

FFS I told you that this is just my opinion of what took place, get over it!

You should ask Mashman for some lessons on consipracy theories.
You're no fun.

oldrider

30th May 2011, 21:44

You should ask Mashman for some lessons on consipracy theories.
You're no fun.

Sorry about that! :lol: (Sigh ... must try harder next time)

NinjaNanna

31st May 2011, 20:46

Well I just took the time to read up on the 5 options being offered.

Proportional Representation is what we need to change our country, its the only system that lets me vote based on both short term and long term issues. For example I can vote for fiscally responsible National in the electorate, but Green for the party vote so that they have some chance of influencing and effecting the change that's needed to address the issues of tomorrow. Under any other system a vote for Green is likely a throw away vote.

STV strikes me as unfair because it promotes voting for the popular choice. If you back the winner, you have a chance of having your vote counted twice. Also they don't tell you which votes they re-distribute. Under this system not all votes are equal. Also the multi representitive electorates mean that town votes can out weigh rural votes. STV would be a fairer system if the 2nd count was the redistribution of the eliminated candidates votes rather than the extra votes of a successful candidate.

Preferential voting is inherently fair as it requires a candidate to actually be wanted by more than half the people they are supposed to represent. Unfortunately it lacks the advantages of Proportional Representation.

FPP is a crock, but unfortunately it also underpins both MMP and SM as in both of the Proportional Representation models on offer the Electorate Seats are decided using FPP.

All of this was gleemed from 20 mins of educating myself at http://www.referendum.org.nz/votingsystems

Personally I don't think any of the alternatives on offer are better than MMP, though imho MMP underpinned by PV for the Electorate Seats would be a great system, as such I'll be voting for PV in the hope that they get the message and that the 2012 Independant review of MMP gives us the opportunity to use PV for the Electorate Seats under MMP.

IF this happens I'd most likely then elect to stay with the new improved MMP.