Who will win the 2011 election? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Who will win the 2011 election?

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

superman

15th July 2011, 01:00

Robert Taylor

15th July 2011, 04:56

DMNTD

15th July 2011, 06:22

John Hadfield...

Quasievil

15th July 2011, 06:29

probably Labour as the country is run by bludgers wanting a free handout.
But for our sake hopefully not.

YellowDog

15th July 2011, 06:30

Hone Harawira will win and be our first President.

Apartheid will be introduced so that the white boys can serve the true and rightful owners of this land.

Run for the hills white boys and avoid the chains.

Berries

15th July 2011, 06:55

Whoever wins is going to be a politician. No point encouraging them by voting.

Usarka

15th July 2011, 08:08

Isn't there a poll being run on election day?

Indiana_Jones

15th July 2011, 08:10

oldrider

15th July 2011, 13:05

As usual, "the media" will decide who will win this years election!

It's a Clayton's system anyway, designed for some one else's benefit, not the voters!

Nobody voted in the current government, it was selected by the politicians themselves, once the election was over! MMP ... :shit: . :facepalm:

The election simply gave the rabble the right to choose among themselves! :brick:

Banditbandit

15th July 2011, 13:21

Much as I hate to say it - National will win ...

Winston001

15th July 2011, 13:28

I've just been looking online for newspaper coverage of Labour's new policies and...they've mostly been ignored. A bit surprising and it suggests reporters can't find much to report.

merv

15th July 2011, 13:32

Yep for Labour to think they can win by bringing in a tax that they might collect if someone actually gives in and sells something is a rather unsure way of making that tax, so yes it is rather flat and won't realise anything useful.

neels

15th July 2011, 13:34

The politicians will win, except for the minority that get booted out of parliament, but there will be a new bunch of winners to replace them with their snouts in the trough.

The losers as usual will be the people who expected something good to result from the voting process, and will be sadly disappointed once again.

fokky

15th July 2011, 15:01

definately jesus,closely followed by that guy with the big tits:yes:

Quasievil

15th July 2011, 15:33

Quasi plays the "REVOLUTION" card again.

strangley no one wants to ever stand behind me, cant see why I will be a great dictator................imagine all the boobs and the free trackdays and low cost beer:yes:

superman

15th July 2011, 16:27

I laughed when labour announced that $15 minimum wage increase. Surely that's a sound economic idea not a voter grab... :innocent:

mashman

15th July 2011, 16:32

I don't care. All of their policies are shit. They have no idea what they're doing, hence they pay lawyers and consultants, I mean they take advice from somewhere, to come up with ideas on the economy for them :rofl:. Why do you vote them in again?

SPman

15th July 2011, 17:04

I've just been looking online for newspaper coverage of Labour's new policies and...they've mostly been ignored. A bit surprising and it suggests reporters can't find much to report.
No - it just shows how fuckt the media is in NZ. If it's not a fucking penguin or a Labour MP doing something stupid, they don't want to know.

Report what's actually happening - heaven forbid!

If the Nats get in, then god help you lot - unless you earn over $100k a year........

Quasievil

15th July 2011, 17:17

If the Nats get in, then god help you lot - unless you earn over $100k a year........

What a crock of cliché minded shit
another reign of Labours stupid social manipulation and habitual policy of keeping the bludgers on the gravy train will do this country harm, prosperity will never come from those lefty loonies.

short-circuit

15th July 2011, 17:24

Watch....

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gjyHctIljPM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

... and discuss

SPman

18th July 2011, 13:09

What a crock of cliché minded shit
another reign of Labours stupid social manipulation and habitual policy of keeping the bludgers on the gravy train will do this country harm, prosperity will never come from those lefty loonies.
Whereas it will from National whose current record is:-

stagnant economy (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/07/nationals-step-change-ii.html). 155,000 unemployed (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPMar11qtr.aspx). The highest inflation for 20 years (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10739230).

NighthawkNZ

18th July 2011, 13:17

Poll: Who Will Win 2011 Election?

Who will win... I tell you... politicans will win, as it doesn't matter who you vote for the government gets in...

superman

18th July 2011, 13:21

Who will win... I tell you... politicans will win, as it doesn't matter who you vote for the government gets in...

We can only dream of a 100% capitalist society... or should we want that?! :shit:

NighthawkNZ

18th July 2011, 13:24

We can only dream of a 100% capitalist society... or should we want that?! :shit:

nah, lets have some anarchy :innocent::facepalm: lol

oldrider

18th July 2011, 13:36

I know parties are bringing out "voter grabbing" policies in their usual manner at the moment. Would be interesting to see how the KB population think the upcoming election will play out.

I'll leave out the little parties seeing as when one votes for them it's generally to help give more seats rather than put them in majority power.

Rather than vote who the fuck cares, (because I do care), I would ask the question, will there be any "significant" difference? :oi-grr:

Apart from 1984, nothings ever really got above "cosmetic", much like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic ! :facepalm:

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 09:42

Whereas it will from National whose current record is:-

stagnant economy (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/07/nationals-step-change-ii.html). 155,000 unemployed (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPMar11qtr.aspx). The highest inflation for 20 years (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10739230).

We can only dream of a 100% capitalist society... or should we want that?! :shit:

We have pretty close to that now - and the results are above ...

Rather than vote who the fuck cares, (because I do care), I would ask the question, will there be any "significant" difference? :oi-grr:

Apart from 1984, nothings ever really got above "cosmetic", much like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic ! :facepalm:

This time it looks like there might be significant difference ...

Bald Eagle

19th July 2011, 09:45

This time it looks like there might be significant difference ...

Yep, the ship is actually sinking this time and both crews are fighting over the lifeboats.

jonbuoy

19th July 2011, 10:00

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 10:40

Still not doing a bad job by global standards...

Yeah .. we are not Greece or Ethiopia ...

shrub

19th July 2011, 10:46

Despite doing a very ordinary job (nice way of saying piss poor) with the economy and having all the vision of a mole, the only way National could lose this election is forget to register. John Key has a lovely smile and he's really rich so is therefore an economic mastermind, therefore he is the leader for the times.

Labour are actually starting to impress, and I may even vote for them - the first time ever, but they won't win. Goff is trying to be Key Lite, they need a mongrel.

Bald Eagle

19th July 2011, 10:58

Goff is trying to be Key Lite, they need a mongrel.

But he's already started his own party Mana anyone

Swoop

19th July 2011, 11:09

Goff is trying to be Key Lite, they need a mongrel.
They require a braincell first and foremost.

Luckily we do not have Phil "dumber than a box of hammers" Goff leading us through very trying economic and disaster prone times.

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 11:20

They require a braincell first and foremost.

Luckily we do not have Phil "dumber than a box of hammers" Goff leading us through very trying economic and disaster prone times.

And you think the Nats are doing well at that - with record inflation and rising unemployment?

And don't tell me it is the fault of the world economy .. if that's the case then Labour would do no better ... and if that's the case then why not voter for them?

I'm sick of hearing that things are going well - Oh, the Government is doing well - things are going bad - Oh, it's the world economy ...

Shit - if you take responsibility for the good stuff you have to take resonsibility for the shit as well ..

Swoop

19th July 2011, 11:30

And you think the Nats are doing well at that - with record inflation and rising unemployment?
Labour's proposal to increase borrowing sounds really attractive.:gob: Perhaps they wish to borrow more to complete their normal election bribery campaign? Presumably a packet of chewing gum has increased in price...

National hasn't been doing too bad in reality and I'm glad they are at the helm during these times.

Indiana_Jones

19th July 2011, 12:08

Shit - if you take responsibility for the good stuff you have to take resonsibility for the shit as well ..

Agreed.

I disagree with people who say the current unemployment situation is national's fault, just as I disagree with people who say labour reduced unemployment.

The government isn't a magical force that can fix all....

-Indy

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 12:41

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 12:42

Agreed.

I disagree with people who say the current unemployment situation is national's fault, just as I disagree with people who say labour reduced unemployment.

The government isn't a magical force that can fix all....

-Indy

Agreed. ...

Indiana_Jones

19th July 2011, 12:54

Shit .. our overseas debt has increased hugely as National borrow money ... they've increased debt by soemthing like $2billion!!! And you worry about Labour borrowing ...

hell, on this one neither of them are squeaky clean ...

Greens wouldn't borrow :D

They'd shut down all power plants and force the population to make mud huts. :woohoo:

-Indy

shrub

19th July 2011, 12:57

Labour's proposal to increase borrowing sounds really attractive.:gob: Perhaps they wish to borrow more to complete their normal election bribery campaign? Presumably a packet of chewing gum has increased in price...

National hasn't been doing too bad in reality and I'm glad they are at the helm during these times.

Actually National have done a bloody awful job, or more accurately they haven't done anything beyond a few half arsed tax cuts, an increase in GST and borrow more money. I was interested to see what they would do when they took power - essentially they had a mandate for 6 years given that we have only had a couple of one term governments, and they had had 9 years on opposition benches to develop some strategies. Key was sold to us as an economic mastermind and top businessman, and his party as a strong, decisive and business friendly party. They took control with a reasonably strong economy (which it was if you look at the numbers and ignore the spin) with some good economic mechanisms in place - the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver.

We were in the early days of the global economic crisis and the consensus among external (read foreign) commentators was that we would weather it well and come out quickly despite a worrying level of private debt. They had the mandate and the opportunity to implement some sweeping policy changes that could have transformed NZ, and I was quietly optimistic, especially when Key held his jobs forum. I honestly thought that we had the right people leading NZ.

Now 3 years later the only answers they seem to have are to cut taxes and cut public spending. Cutting taxes has a place, but it is not and never will be a magic bullet. Streamlining and improving efficiencies with public services is a good idea. but it seems their sole response is to merge departments, drop services and lay off staff. None of which do any lasting good. And next year we will see them utilise their master stroke and sell minority shareholdings to key energy companies to help fund debt.

That alone is arguably the stupidest thing I have seen any politician suggest in my life. We are at the beginning of an era of rising energy costs which means energy companies will become increasingly profitable and influential and demand for cleantech energy technologies are picked to generate trillions of dollars in the next few decades. So we sell the companies that are going to profit from these changes just before they come into their own. It would be like selling shares in Microsoft just as personal computers were taking off.

They're idiots and probably the worst people to run NZ outside of a sheltered workshop.

shrub

19th July 2011, 12:59

Greens wouldn't borrow :D

They'd shut down all power plants and force the population to make mud huts. :woohoo:

-Indy

Of course they would. And probably convert to Islam.

Muppets, too funny!:clap:

Big Dave

19th July 2011, 13:06

What Goff should have learned from little Johnny Howard across the ditch is that the only time you can get tax reform is when the other party represents a worse option.

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 13:12

Greens wouldn't borrow :D

They'd shut down all power plants and force the population to make mud huts. :woohoo:

-Indy

Cool !!! Let's first rebuild Parliament as a Mud Hut and then when it rains (It always raisn in Wellington) the bastards will get washed into the Harbour ... (the Gerens will just have to put up with the pollution)

shrub

19th July 2011, 13:17

What Goff should have learned from little Johnny Howard across the ditch is that the only time you can get tax reform is when the other party represents a worse option.

or when you know that you stand no chance of getting reelected. CGT makes sense on every level, and we either embrace it or pay the price, but Goff et al are depending on the public of NZ not being influenced by spin or having the wit to understand how it works beyond "Oh my god, the evil pricks want to take even more money from me".

superman

19th July 2011, 14:24

We have pretty close to that now - and the results are above ...

High income earners are taxed 33%... that's bloody far away from capitalism!

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 14:50

High income earners are taxed 33%... that's bloody far away from capitalism!

Let me see ..

The USA top tax rate is 35%
In Germany it is 45%
In Britain it is 50%
In France it is 41%
In China it is 45% (strange how a communist country has a tax rate the same as capitalist countries - except Homg Kong where it is 17%)
In Russia it is a 13% flat tax (looks like the old left has adopted new right ideas)

We sit at the lower end of all that ... they are all bloody far away from your idea of capitalism

superman

19th July 2011, 14:55

Let me see ..

The USA top tax rate is 35%
In Germany it is 45%
In Britain it is 50%
In France it is 41%
In China it is 45% (strange how a communist country has a tax rate the same as capitalist countries - except Homg Kong where it is 17%)
In Russia it is a 13% flat tax (looks like the old left has adopted new right ideas)

We sit at the lower end of all that ... neither capitalist nor communist

Lol, and pure capitalism = 0%.

Hong Kong highest tax is 15% on personal income.
Singapore 20%.
Switzerland 25%

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 15:00

Lol, and pure capitalism = 0%.

Hong Kong highest tax is 15% on personal income.
Singapore 20%.
Switzerland 25%

How do you run a country with 0% tax rates ... you can't pay for the police force, the MPs (not a bad thing) ... the defence force ... prisons, the court system ...

Drunken Monkey

19th July 2011, 15:20

Let me see ..

The USA top tax rate is 35%
In Germany it is 45%
In Britain it is 50%
In France it is 41%
In China it is 45% (strange how a communist country has a tax rate the same as capitalist countries - except Homg Kong where it is 17%)
In Russia it is a 13% flat tax (looks like the old left has adopted new right ideas)

We sit at the lower end of all that ... they are all bloody far away from your idea of capitalism

It's not accurate if you don't back it up with where the breaks are. The Aussies may pay 45 cents in the dollar at the top tax rate, but they don't pay it until they hit $150,000. Ours may only be 33, but it cuts in at $70,000. The USA's 35 cents cuts in at $372,951.

Drunken Monkey

19th July 2011, 15:22

How do you run a country with 0% tax rates ... you can't pay for the police force, the MPs (not a bad thing) ... the defence force ... prisons, the court system ...

You get a generally unworkable user pays system, where only the wealthly get adequate security, healthcare and access to transport. Great if you're rich and live in a fort I guess...

shrub

19th July 2011, 16:30

You get a generally unworkable user pays system, where only the wealthly get adequate security, healthcare and access to transport. Great if you're rich and live in a fort I guess...

You forgot ruthless and corrupt. Superman thinks he is (or will be) extremely rich and powerful or won't need any of the needless trappings of a civil society while he roars around on his Ninja. I wonder who will maintain the roads and stop people beating him up and stealing his bike?

maybe he should visit the Peoples Republic of Congo to see what a lawless society looks like? Or does he fancy himself a warlord?

Banditbandit

19th July 2011, 16:38

It's not accurate if you don't back it up with where the breaks are. The Aussies may pay 45 cents in the dollar at the top tax rate, but they don't pay it until they hit $150,000. Ours may only be 33, but it cuts in at $70,000. The USA's 35 cents cuts in at $372,951.

Yes that's ttrue .. but you also have to factor in the actual cost of living in money terms - which is generally higher in those countries ...

I.e. $1million here will buy more than $1million will there Sorry - $1million of our money herer will buy moere than $1million of there money will there .. or something like that

Sheesh .. I'm an argumentative anarchist - not an economist

Big Dave

19th July 2011, 16:50

Yes that's ttrue .. but you also have to factor in the actual cost of living in money terms - which is generally higher in those countries ...

I.e. $1million here will buy more than $1million will there Sorry - $1million of our money herer will buy moere than $1million of there money will there .. or something like that

Sheesh .. I'm an argumentative anarchist - not an economist

Cost of living is higher here than Aus. Except for Bananas. $16 a kilo.

Swoop

19th July 2011, 20:40

Shit .. our overseas debt has increased hugely And you worry about Labour borrowing ...
The amount that labour want to borrow is rather more than what the nats are borrowing. Be afraid.

Actually National have done a bloody awful job, or more accurately they haven't done anything beyond a few half arsed tax cuts, an increase in GST and borrow more money. They're idiots and probably the worst people to run NZ outside of a sheltered workshop.
With the economic climate over the past while, sweeping changes would naturally have to go on hold. Certainly cutting back on the excessive amounts of public "servants" that have balooned over the past years had to come and rightly so. Just a shame a few entire ministries didn't go as well...

If the piggy bank hadn't been broken open, and the savings spent, by cullen, then we would be far better off and not having to face the tribulations we currently are. Add in a disaster or two and "hey presto", welcome to an economic predicament.
Being led by labour and their green "friends" during this time is not a pretty thought.

shrub

20th July 2011, 08:46

The amount that labour want to borrow is rather more than what the nats are borrowing. Be afraid.

Nominally they will, yes, but its short term. Borrowing is perfectly OK as long as the productive capacity of the economy is growing relative to debt and that there is a strategy evident to achieve that. Both parties are a little mute in that regard, but at least Labour are trying to transfer money out of houses and into business.

With the economic climate over the past while, sweeping changes would naturally have to go on hold. ..

When you're faced with an unprecedented crisis it is often a good idea to make changes, and perhaps my use of the term sweeping verged on hyperbole, but we needed to do things differently because the environment we were operating in had changed. Using my beloved motorcycle analogies, if you are having a blast riding over Arthur's Pass in a spirited and enthusiastic manner and as you go over the top it's pissing down with rain you have to change the way you ride.

Certainly cutting back on the excessive amounts of public "servants" that have balooned over the past years had to come and rightly so. Just a shame a few entire ministries didn't go as well.

How do you define excessive? Were the numbers of mine inspectors prior to the last cuts to public servants excessive? People in Greymouth might not think so. And how do you know the numbers were excessive - because you have been told they were? Who told you? An independent analyst or the National Party spin doctors? And what ministries should have gone?

Seriously, I would like your answer to these questions and will take silence as an admission you don't have one.

Swoop

20th July 2011, 09:49

How do you define excessive? Who told you? An independent analyst or the National Party spin doctors?
If we appreciate the growth in the public servant's over the last few years and the overbearing amounts of beauracracy, a lot can be trimmed back.
http://www.psa.org.nz/images/publicservicenumbers.gif
243173
As we can see the upswing has been rather large over the last 9 years. Nothing like job creation schemes on the taxpayer's purse.

As for getting rid of ministries we could start with the silly ones like "Disarmaments" and then proceed onto the race-based ones. Cutting the number of MP's would be rather useful as well...

Interestingly, a discussion at work was of the mind that in the days before we went towards the "OSH" approach, the Department of Labour appears to have been much more effective. Presumably mine inspectors would also fall into that category?

shrub

20th July 2011, 10:45

If we appreciate the growth in the public servant's over the last few years and the overbearing amounts of beauracracy, a lot can be trimmed back. As we can see the upswing has been rather large over the last 9 years. Nothing like job creation schemes on the taxpayer's purse.

I see. I take it your rationale for cutting the number of public servants is based on the fact that there are more than there were in 2000? Have you considered that in 2000 we might not have had enough?

As for getting rid of ministries we could start with the silly ones like "Disarmaments" and then proceed onto the race-based ones. Cutting the number of MP's would be rather useful as well...

Why do we need to get rid of them?

And why do we need less MPs? Let's look at similar sized countries:
Finland has 5.4m people and 200 MPs
Singapore, population just over 5m has 87 MPs, but having a landmass of 700 sq km against over 4m sq km for NZ might influence things
Norway, population about 5m has a unicameral parliament with 169 members
Ireland, population 4.5m has a bicameral parliament, the lower house has 166 members
Croatia has 4.3m people and 153 politicians
Lebanon has 4.2m people and 128 MPs.

Apart from Singapore, we have the smallest government of any country our size by quite a reasonable margin, so why should we have even less? Can you give me an argument supporting that position?

Interestingly, a discussion at work was of the mind that in the days before we went towards the "OSH" approach, the Department of Labour appears to have been much more effective. Presumably mine inspectors would also fall into that category?

Where do you work?

The Health and Safety in Employment Act of 1992 was introduced by the then (National) government as a strategy to reduce the Department of Labour monopoly and to introduce efficiencies by combining the roles of government departments as part of the drive to reduce the number of public servants. I agree, the old system did it's job better, but it was seen as being expensive to run and not as employer friendly as the HSE Act of 92. So it was changed.

And yes, the removal of mine inspectors and reducing the safety requirements for mine operators came about in that time period.

Indiana_Jones

20th July 2011, 11:02

We have 120 MPs, right?

Why is it an even number?

Surely a odd number makes sense lol

I mean you could have 60/60 votes? ? :/

-Indy

superman

20th July 2011, 11:03

How do you run a country with 0% tax rates ... you can't pay for the police force, the MPs (not a bad thing) ... the defence force ... prisons, the court system ...

It's a completely different country... just like 100% pure socialism/communism is where every dollar you earn is taken away and distributed evenly (that's the idea...)

You can't talk about police force/defence force in the same way you seem them now. Imagine everything privatised, and only when there is a need for a certain type of job will people pay for it. IE, private road workers, your road needs repairing just the locals might get together and decide to hire. You want rubbish collected you pay a rubbish collection company. You want your kids to go to school, you pay a school. The less money you have the worse the school. Etc, etc. That is 100% pure capitalism... and is about as good for society as 100% pure socialism. But that's the idea behind capitaist policies, that people spend their own money on what they want. And socialist policies spend everyones money on whatever the government/voters decide upon.

I quite like the Swiss model, you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

Indiana_Jones

20th July 2011, 11:07

oneofsix

20th July 2011, 11:07

We have 120 MPs, right?

Why is it an even number?

Surely a odd number makes sense lol

I mean you could have 60/60 votes? ? :/

-Indy

Ok first you are talking about Government so nothing makes normal sense. 120 MPs actually results in the odd number you grave. One voting MP loses their normal right to vote because they become the speaker, they get the casting but not a normal vote.

Indiana_Jones

20th July 2011, 11:09

Ok first you are talking about Government so nothing makes normal sense. 120 MPs actually results in the odd number you grave. One voting MP loses their normal right to vote because they become the speaker, they get the casting but not a normal vote.

Guess that makes some sense then.

So what the hell is the difference between the votes? :blink:

-Indy

oneofsix

20th July 2011, 11:23

Guess that makes some sense then.

So what the hell is the difference between the votes? :blink:

-Indy

When a motion or whatever is put to the vote and the MPs do their ritual the speaker doesn't have a vote but if somehow you do end up with a tie the speaker can then have the casting vote. Normally the speaker comes from the ruling party. I do stand to be corrected but this is how I remember it from Labour's last term when they were short of actual Labour MPs, relying heavily on their partners, and appointing the speaker left them at risk of a tied vote unless they could secure the likes of Peter Dunn.
Sorry work interrupted me, bloody bosses :facepalm:

Swoop

20th July 2011, 11:26

And yes, the removal of mine inspectors and reducing the safety requirements for mine operators came about in that time period.
Regarding MP's. I see no need for any single MP to hold more than one portfolio. Do the job well and stop attempting to juggle several. We could happily have less MP's who are more productive or efficient. For the size of our landmass, population representation can easily be achieved with less. Binding referenda would help.
This represents two sorts of savings for the country. Immediate savings of less parasites in parliament with all the associated sycophants; and,
Secondly the country saves in the long term by not having to provide free perks-for-life to ex public servants. They are paid for a specific period of time to do their job. Who else gets freebies for life when they leave a job*? Certainly not the extreme majority of your average employees. Even large companies just have the golden handshake and "goodbye".

DoL was quite cumbersome, admittedly, but it did appear more robust in comparison to the OSH system currently used. They were more proactive rather than the reactive approach seen now.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the wake of Pike River.

* Yes, after meeting certain criteria.

shrub

20th July 2011, 11:27

I quite like the Swiss model, you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

Direct democracy certainly has it's merits, and while Switzerland is the only modern country using it, the ancient Greeks used a form of direct democracy although suffrage was very limited. Aspects of DD have been used in a number of US states and in some nation states with varying levels of success. In principle it's a great idea, but sadly the majority of people lack the ability or motivation to make a voting decision based on reason with our elections, so what the hell would happen if they had to vote on dozens of different things?

You also run the risk of lobby groups with buckets of cash using that cash to influence the minions. If I threw enough money at advertising it I could convince a majority of people that motorcycles should be banned. It introduces a concept called tyranny of the majority where society is completely and entirely operated around the interests and needs of a majority and minority groups don't get a look in, and I don't like that idea much.

shrub

20th July 2011, 11:39

Regarding MP's. I see no need for any single MP to hold more than one portfolio. Do the job well and stop attempting to juggle several. We could happily have less MP's who are more productive or efficient. For the size of our landmass, population representation can easily be achieved with less. Binding referenda would help.

I thought you were arguing for less MPs? Typically there are around 80 portfolios in existence at any one time, so it would be virtually impossible for each MP to only hold one portfolio. As for holding one and doing the job well, Jerry Brownlee only has Canty Earthquake and is doing a fucking appalling job. Ask anyone down here what they think of him. Binding referenda would require an increase in the number of politicians because the number of motions hitting the chamber would increase significantly.

his represents two sorts of savings for the country. Immediate savings of less parasites in parliament with all the associated sycophants; and,
Secondly the country saves in the long term by not having to provide free perks-for-life to ex public servants. They are paid for a specific period of time to do their job. Who else gets freebies for life when they leave a job*? Certainly not the extreme majority of your average employees. Even large companies just have the golden handshake and "goodbye".]

I think the savings generated by having less politicians would be minimal - a few million at best, and public servants these days don't have perks for life. The perks for life for MPs is something that would warrant being addressed, and I believe the Green party are lobbying for them to be reduced.

Swoop

20th July 2011, 11:42

Jerry Brownlee only has Canty Earthquake and is doing a fucking appalling job.
Thank goodness he doesn't have a second one to ignore/be interrupted with!:yes::rofl:

shrub

20th July 2011, 11:48

Thank goodness he doesn't have a second one to ignore/be interrupted with!:yes::rofl:

One portfolio is too many for him - unless it is the Pie Eating portfolio.

He is just a joke and I can't believe Key gave him one of the most important jobs in government right now. CERA hate him (of so I am told) because he is a bumbling idiot with no idea what he is doing beyond trying to look after his mates.

Swoop

20th July 2011, 12:30

the Pie Eating portfolio.
I think Parekura Horomia has that portfolio sewn up.:corn::corn::corn::corn:

:rofl:

Banditbandit

20th July 2011, 12:33

It's a completely different country... just like 100% pure socialism/communism is where every dollar you earn is taken away and distributed evenly (that's the idea...)

Who told you that was socialism/communism? Its certainly not how I see those systems (and I am neither...)

You can't talk about police force/defence force in the same way you seem them now. Imagine everything privatised, and only when there is a need for a certain type of job will people pay for it. IE, private road workers, your road needs repairing just the locals might get together and decide to hire. You want rubbish collected you pay a rubbish collection company. You want your kids to go to school, you pay a school.

Hmmm .. are you advocating an anarchist system? Looks to me like pure anarcho-syndicalism with a paper-based symbol of value-exchange.

The less money you have the worse the school. Etc, etc. That is 100% pure capitalism... and is about as good for society as 100% pure socialism. But that's the idea behind capitaist policies, that people spend their own money on what they want. And socialist policies spend everyones money on whatever the government/voters decide upon.

Again, who told you that was what socialism was? Have you ever read any of the socialist writers?

And again - I don't see those ideas in any of the capitalist writers either ...

I quite like the Swiss model,

The canton model resembles anarcho-syndicalism in many ways ...

you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

I seem to remember that the state of California tried the referendum route - and nearly went broke as the people turned down everything the state Government tried to do ... not only spending money but also raising money - so the state wound up with more expenses than income ...

Winston001

20th July 2011, 12:46

We have 120 MPs, right?

Why is it an even number?

Actually our MMP system can deliver up to 123 MPs and I think an earlier Parliament had 121 or 122.

I do laugh at people who clamour for more democracy and in the next breath demand less MPs. Logic ain't their strong point.

shrub

20th July 2011, 12:49

Actually our MMP system can deliver up to 123 MPs and I think an earlier Parliament had 121 or 122.

I do laugh at people who clamour for more democracy and in the next breath demand less MPs. Logic ain't their strong point.

Their mate Garth from down at the pub reckons there should be less MPs, and Garth has a grouse Commodore and a hot missus, so you gotta take what he says seriously.

Spearfish

20th July 2011, 12:51

Who told you that was socialism/communism? Its certainly not how I see those systems (and I am neither...)

Hmmm .. are you advocating an anarchist system? Looks to me like pure anarcho-syndicalism with a paper-based symbol of value-exchange.

Again, who told you that was what socialism was? Have you ever read any of the socialist writers?

And again - I don't see those ideas in any of the capitalist writers either ...

The canton model resembles anarcho-syndicalism in many ways ...

I seem to remember that the state of California tried the referendum route - and nearly went broke as the people turned down everything the state Government tried to do ... not only spending money but also raising money - so the state wound up with more expenses than income ...

I'm impressed with your multi quote technique.
I haven't figured that one out yet.

and just in case....
Even if there was one I wouldn't have used a sarcasm smiley.

Banditbandit

20th July 2011, 12:56

I'm impressed with your multi quote technique.
I haven't figured that one out yet.

Thank you .. it is not hard ..

and just in case....
Even if there was one I wouldn't have used a sarcasm smiley.

Do it like this ... hit the "reply with quote" button.

Run your mouse over the the first section within the first [ ], right click and hit copy.

Go to where you want to break the quote hit the Enter key on the keyboard a couple of times to create a space. At the end of the section type [/QUOTE] .. and at the start of the second section right click and hit "paste" so that the beginning of each quote is repeated. Type what you want into the space between ...

Do it as many times as you need ..

You don't actually need to copy and paste the first [ ] you can run with [QUOTE] - I'm just too lazy to edit - so I use the mouse and "paste" ..

Spearfish

20th July 2011, 13:02

Thank you .. it is not hard ..

Do it like this ... hit the "reply with quote" button.

Run your mouse over the the first section within the first [ ], right click and hit copy.

Go to where you want to break the quote hit the Enter key on the keyboard a couple of times to create a space. At the end of the section type .. and at the start of the second section right click and hit "paste" so that the beginning of each quote is repeated. Type what you want into the space between ...

Do it as many times as you need ..

You don't actually need to copy and paste the first [ ] you can run with
- I'm just too lazy to edit - so I use the mouse and "paste" ..

Ha!..bugga that I get logged out with simple posts now.

mashman

20th July 2011, 13:08

Banditbandit

20th July 2011, 13:09

and at the start of the second section right click and hit "paste" so that the beginning of each quote is repeated. Type what you want into the space between ...

Do it as many times as you need ..

You don't actually need to copy and paste the first [ ] you can run with

.. Ha!..bugga that I get logged out with simple posts now.

You got it ..

oldrider

20th July 2011, 13:24

Banditbandit

20th July 2011, 13:34

This poll reflects the same as those in the local papers etc mostly "undecided" or National.

Just watch the media juggle the electorate until those undecided voters think they should swing over to Labour!

The electorate is so simple to manipulate because under MMP the result is a lucky dip anyway.

Todays politicians are so interchangeable even parties don't really matter any more!

People are losing interest because they feel they can't influence the outcome :whocares: prevails more each election! :sick:

It will be interesting to see the voter turn-out figures this year .. I suspect you might be wrong ... I hope you're wrong because a big voter turnout generally means a Labor win - a small turnout generally means a National win ..

shrub

20th July 2011, 14:22

short-circuit

20th July 2011, 14:52

I just hope the people of Epsom realise that National is treating them as a tool to bring Brash et al back.

They won't care about the monkey as long as he's wearing the right colours (excuse the pun)

Banditbandit

20th July 2011, 15:01

Despite having blotted their copybook far too many times to count (dating back to Donna Awatere Huata) and depending on flawed and archaic policies, they will get back in parliament because National have effectively given them Epsom. Personally I think this is the most cynical and corrupt manipulation of the electoral system I have ever seen in NZ and is damn near jerrymandering.

I just hope the people of Epsom realise that National is treating them as a tool to bring Brash et al back.

I agree .. so cynical

They won't care about the monkey as long as he's wearing the right colours (excuse the pun)

Naaa ... I don't think Brash is the right man .. he had his chance and it didn't pay off... I think Labour will take Epsom .. they won't vote Brash and they can't vote Nats - the swingers will vote Labour

superman

20th July 2011, 15:09

Hmmm .. are you advocating an anarchist system? Looks to me like pure anarcho-syndicalism with a paper-based symbol of value-exchange.

Lol, I'm not advocating that model whatsoever! And you pretty much have it... anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Who told you that was socialism/communism? Its certainly not how I see those systems (and I am neither...)

Again, who told you that was what socialism was? Have you ever read any of the socialist writers?

Karl Marx etc? Yes. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need

The phrase quoted from Titelman, number II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

I thought this meant that a man would give his all to society, and society would give him what he needed. Not giving those with more ability anything more than those with less of an ability?

The canton model resembles anarcho-syndicalism in many ways ...

I kind of see the link, but hardly to the extremity of anarcho-syndicalism.

short-circuit

20th July 2011, 15:11

Naaa ... I don't think Brash is the right man .. he had his chance and it didn't pay off... I think Labour will take Epsom .. they won't vote Brash and they can't vote Nats - the swingers will vote Labour

I hope you're right but unlike the majority of dumb fuck right whingers here, many in that electorate would stand to gain more (short term) from that retard's appointment.

shrub

20th July 2011, 15:46

Lol, I'm not advocating that model whatsoever! And you pretty much have it... anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, we used to have a system like that - it was called feudalism and worked the same. It's also called plutocracy.

The problem with capitalism is that by its very nature the ownership of capital and therefore of the means of production becomes confined to a smaller and smaller group of increasingly powerful individuals and voila, you have Michel's iron law of oligarchy proven.

Banditbandit

20th July 2011, 16:54

Lol, I'm not advocating that model whatsoever! And you pretty much have it... anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Oh .. you're one of THOSE !!! Been listening to Lyndsey Perigo recently ?

Karl Marx etc? Yes. :)

Among others ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need

I'm amused you think Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge ...

The phrase quoted from Titelman, number II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

I thought this meant that a man would give his all to society, and society would give him what he needed. Not giving those with more ability anything more than those with less of an ability?

Yes, close. Every citizen will work for the good of each other - and be paid according to his needs ...

Why do you think that the labour of one person is worth more than the labour of another person deopending on the job they do? It's all labour ...

From each according to his abilities, to eah according to his needs (with apologies for someone else's sexist language ... )

I kind of see the link, but hardly to the extremity of anarcho-syndicalism.

Only a matter of degree - not ideology then?

superman

20th July 2011, 17:24

I'm amused you think Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge ...

Why do you think that the labour of one person is worth more than the labour of another person deopending on the job they do? It's all labour ...

Wikipedia is extremely useful for skimming information on a subject. I'm not looking for socialist literature to quote directly.

You're asking for my opinion? Or are you just stating the question socialism asks? To me the idea that a cleaner should get paid as much as a doctor is appalling. However it is unfair if that said cleaner never had the opportunity to become a doctor. So I'd go towards an opportunistic capitalist model, equal opportunities but capitalist driven economies.

shrub

21st July 2011, 09:18

To me the idea that a cleaner should get paid as much as a doctor is appalling. However it is unfair if that said cleaner never had the opportunity to become a doctor. So I'd go towards an opportunistic capitalist model, equal opportunities but capitalist driven economies.

The example you cite is extremely unlikely to ever occur, and even in communist states skill was rewarded, and I agree, someone who is willing to devote 8 - 10 years of their lives working their arses off deserves to be rewarded. To me the idea that someone who earns a buck from capital gain does not pay tax whereas someone who works and actually produces something does is equally appalling, yet this happens all the time in NZ. Also in NZ we have highly skilled and highly trained nurses, teachers and even doctors earning less than some real estate agents or car salesmen - is that right? I used to be a financial adviser and in 1993 I earned $135k with only a 1 week course behind me, yet my then wife as an occupational therapist with 4 years training earned around $40k, and she worked as hard as I did.

Getting back to your example, it's important to look at backgrounds. I know the right think that where someone comes from is irrelevant, but I look at my 2 kids who have been brought up in a home where education is prized and both of them have been encouraged and coached through school and gaining an advanced education is taken for granted because that's what one does. Then I look at a good mate of mine who left school at 15, spent time in the Mob and prison and is now working as a minimum wage labourer. He pulled his life together and has been out of trouble for 20 years and worked almost solidly in that time and has kids the same age as mine, and probably as bright as mine. One is unemployed, one is on the DPB and one is over the moon because he has a labouring job. When I talked to them about education and training they saw it as something that was for other people. I am working with one of them and basicaly teaching him to read using boy racer magazines, and he is starting to get it, and I have suggested he do pre-trade training as a mechanic. He doesn't think he is bright enough yet, but that's because all his life he has been surrounded by people who don't think they're bright enough/good enough to do something with their lives. If he had been born my son he would be in the middle of his apprenticeship. Same kid, different background.

oldrider

21st July 2011, 09:36

The example you cite is extremely unlikely to ever occur, and even in communist states skill was rewarded, and I agree, someone who is willing to devote 8 - 10 years of their lives working their arses off deserves to be rewarded. To me the idea that someone who earns a buck from capital gain does not pay tax whereas someone who works and actually produces something does is equally appalling, yet this happens all the time in NZ. Also in NZ we have highly skilled and highly trained nurses, teachers and even doctors earning less than some real estate agents or car salesmen - is that right? I used to be a financial adviser and in 1993 I earned $135k with only a 1 week course behind me, yet my then wife as an occupational therapist with 4 years training earned around $40k, and she worked as hard as I did.

Getting back to your example, it's important to look at backgrounds. I know the right think that where someone comes from is irrelevant, but I look at my 2 kids who have been brought up in a home where education is prized and both of them have been encouraged and coached through school and gaining an advanced education is taken for granted because that's what one does. Then I look at a good mate of mine who left school at 15, spent time in the Mob and prison and is now working as a minimum wage labourer. He pulled his life together and has been out of trouble for 20 years and worked almost solidly in that time and has kids the same age as mine, and probably as bright as mine. One is unemployed, one is on the DPB and one is over the moon because he has a labouring job. When I talked to them about education and training they saw it as something that was for other people. I am working with one of them and basicaly teaching him to read using boy racer magazines, and he is starting to get it, and I have suggested he do pre-trade training as a mechanic. He doesn't think he is bright enough yet, but that's because all his life he has been surrounded by people who don't think they're bright enough/good enough to do something with their lives. If he had been born my son he would be in the middle of his apprenticeship. Same kid, different background.

You are really a Libertarian in Socialists clothing .... think about what you really say you stand for! :mellow:

shrub

21st July 2011, 09:51

You are really a Libertarian in Socialists clothing .... think about what you really say you stand for! :mellow:

I don't fit in any left-right boxes, but then not many people really do. Socialism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive and according to the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) I am Economic Left/Right: -7.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36 which puts me similar to Nelson Mandela (only not as famous). It's a pretty interesting tool.

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 09:51

Wikipedia is extremely useful for skimming information on a subject. I'm not looking for socialist literature to quote directly.

You're asking for my opinion? Or are you just stating the question socialism asks? To me the idea that a cleaner should get paid as much as a doctor is appalling. However it is unfair if that said cleaner never had the opportunity to become a doctor. So I'd go towards an opportunistic capitalist model, equal opportunities but capitalist driven economies.

Yes, I was asking for your opinion. Thanks for giving it.

I sit a lot further left - probably even more than Shrub. I think that if the cleaner has no ability to be anything other than a cleaner, then yes, they should be paid somthing similar to the doctor. Both contribute to society in important and necessary roles - why should there be a huge difference in pay? Both are exercising their skills for the benefit of society - why should there be a vast difference in pay?

Now, people might says that there is no incentive to be doctors .. BUT the crunch is around abilioty - if people are NOT giving to society according to their ability then they should be paid less. (Rememebr this fits within a whole system and can't be isolated out )

Why do people need to be rich? In the New Zealand I grew up in ecveryone wanted to be comfortabe - to own their own home, to have children who went to school and got an education and got a good job. I think it was Austin Mitchell who said "everyone in New Zealand wants to be middle classs - even the rich"

Both the cleaner and the doctor need to live comfortably, to have a home to live in to be able to afford the feed the kids and get them an education ... That can't happen in a capitalist society ... and is unlikely to happen in whatever versuion of communism is tried ... the socilaist societies have a better chance of achieving it for everyone ... controls on capitalism - but not communism.

And yes, I agree with Shtrub - life chances are important. We achieve equity by recognizing that and providing better life chances for those who need them ...

shrub

21st July 2011, 10:42

Why do people need to be rich? In the New Zealand I grew up in ecveryone wanted to be comfortabe - to own their own home, to have children who went to school and got an education and got a good job. I think it was Austin Mitchell who said "everyone in New Zealand wants to be middle classs - even the rich"

People need to be rich because we are shown images of the rich and told this is what we are to ascribe to. Some years ago I approached a local businessman by the name of John Harrington to do some marketing work for him. He was in the smoko room doing the dishes and asked "why do I need to do marketing"

My response was "to make more money", and his answer has stuck with me ever since. "What do I need more money for? A man can only eat and drink so much and I do too much of both". He sold his beer very cheaply because he wanted to brew a good beer at a fair price that anyone could afford. I notice that over the years his branding has lifted with his prices, so I suspect John is no longer at the helm.

John's comment has influenced me to this day and I could earn a hell of a lot more than I do, but I would rather work 1 -2 days a week and study the rest of the time because I earn enough to buy beer, run a bike and eat.

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 10:45

John's comment has influenced me to this day and I could earn a hell of a lot more than I do, but I would rather work 1 -2 days a week and study the rest of the time because I earn enough to buy beer, run a bike and eat.

Ah, but that depends on what bike and beer you like :)

-Indy

shrub

21st July 2011, 10:49

Ah, but that depends on what bike and beer you like

My Thunderbird, an aging BMW and my preference is for the masterpieces created by the various boutique brewers like Epic, Stoke, Renaissance, Three Boys etc. Sadly come registration day now that I have 2 bikes I will need to work more. Bloody National government and their stealth taxes...

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 10:51

Ah, but that depends on what bike and beer you like :)

-Indy

No - that depends on what the capitalist advertising industry and other consciousness industries has convinced you you like ...

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 11:10

No - that depends on what the capitalist advertising industry and other consciousness industries has convinced you you like ...

Well I'm yet to see much advertising for 'Old Speckled Hen' & Abbot Ale in NZ lol

-Indy

shrub

21st July 2011, 11:51

No - that depends on what the capitalist advertising industry and other consciousness industries has convinced you you like ...

Fuck you're a cynic. Pity you're right though - mmmm Tui, brewed in Maingatanoka and the preferred drop of students and young men throughout NZ.

superman

21st July 2011, 12:32

I sit a lot further left - probably even more than Shrub. I think that if the cleaner has no ability to be anything other than a cleaner, then yes, they should be paid somthing similar to the doctor. Both contribute to society in important and necessary roles - why should there be a huge difference in pay? Both are exercising their skills for the benefit of society - why should there be a vast difference in pay?

Imagine the issues of trying to work out peoples peak abilities. I don't think low-skilled jobs would exist in such a model. I would see companies hiring all those of higher ability, and giving them 30 minutes of cleaning to do per day as well as their standard job rather than also having a cleaner. Low skilled work would cease to exist, and then those with actual low ability would be screwed. Companies would just integrate jobs together, spreading menial tasks around.

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 12:48

Imagine the issues of trying to work out peoples peak abilities. I don't think low-skilled jobs would exist in such a model. I would see companies hiring all those of higher ability, and giving them 30 minutes of cleaning to do per day as well as their standard job rather than also having a cleaner. Low skilled work would cease to exist, and then those with actual low ability would be screwed. Companies would just integrate jobs together, spreading menial tasks around.

No .. see .. you're imagining it within a Capitalist democracy .. you need to imagine it within a whole different system. No such things as companies - EVERTHING is owned by the state, which works for the benefit of its citizens (right now the state asks us to work for the benefit of the state and the economy) ...

It takes a major mindshift ... (and human nature being what it is it's not likely to happen ...)

I'm too much an anarchist to like it and I would fight a communist revolution ...

mashman

21st July 2011, 12:48

superman

21st July 2011, 12:59

Fuck me that's a surprise.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 13:02

I don't fit in any left-right boxes, but then not many people really do. Socialism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive and according to the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) I am Economic Left/Right: -7.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36 which puts me similar to Nelson Mandela (only not as famous). It's a pretty interesting tool.

I've seen the left/right authoritarian/libertarian axis before .. but I never seen this web page before ...

Strangely enough I came out on the extreme left (economic -9.38) (surprise surprise) but about half way down the Libertarian scale .. (Social -5.38) I thought I'd be lower than that on the libertarian side ..

I like this dual axis analysis .. I've used in in other political discussion groups ... it brings out the similarities, say between Hilter and Stralin, and the differences ... say between Stalin and Ghandi ..

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 13:03

Fuck me that's a surprise.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

So .. you are not who you think you are .. your Libertarian slant does not surprise me tho' ... the economic one does. We agree more than you think ..

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 13:05

Seems like I'm alongside the Dalai Lama...

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

go figure :)

You freedom-lovin' biker you ... (with a bit of a scoail conscience)

shrub

21st July 2011, 13:12

So .. you are not who you think you are .. your Libertarian slant does not surprise me tho' ... the economic one does. We agree more than you think ..

Something I have learned over the years is that people often think they are something they're not. I have a mate who was a died in the wool National supporter and right wing, libertarian etc until we started to discuss economics and politics and took the labels out and simply discussed the concepts. It turned out that his understanding of socialism was based on what he had been fed and all his life he had believed socialism was about taking money from people who had earned it and giving it to people who couldn't be bothered and removing freedom of choice.

He is now a paid up member of the Green party.

Quasievil

21st July 2011, 13:47

He is now a paid up member of the Green party.

So he went from being a thinking man to being a idiot ?
remarkable

Winston001

21st July 2011, 14:00

Mmmm

Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

Now I'll have to read the darned site to work out what that means. Its a good survey.

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 14:08

So he went from being a thinking man to being a idiot ?
remarkable

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What an apt demonstration of Shrub's point

Winston001

21st July 2011, 14:08

I kind of see the link, but hardly to the extremity of anarcho-syndicalism.

FAARRGGG!! ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM on KB. :shit:

Who says bikers are retards. Yeah FTW.

And now for something completely different:

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen mate -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

shrub

21st July 2011, 14:09

So he went from being a thinking man to being a idiot ?
remarkable

He examined what he believed, ignored the stereotypes he had been fed by his mate Wayne down at the pub and made a decision using reason and logic. If that's how you define becoming an idiot, then I guess you and I have a different understanding of the word "idiot". If he had conducted the same process and decided that he supported National would that have made him a thinking man or an idot?

It amuses me how people here use a person's political preference as a measure of intelligence and/or wisdom. I know highly intelligent people and really switched on people who support National, Labour, the Greens and even NZ First or ACT and I know dribbling imbeciles who support the same parties. I think to me a political idiot as opposed to being a thinking man is someone who takes a hard and fast political judgement regarding a party without actually knowing much about the parties policies and ideologies. Tell me Quasi, seeing you equate changing allegiance from National to the Greens with idiocy, what do you know about Green policies? How recently have you read them? Are you aware of how Green policies impact you as a businessman compared to National policies?

I'm genuinely interested in your answers and will take silence as an admission you aren't able to come up with any.

shrub

21st July 2011, 14:13

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What an apt demonstration of Shrub's point

It was rather, wasn't it? I'll be interested to see whether he responds to my questions.

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 14:45

what do you know about Green policies?

The only one that matters, they want to take my semi-auto's off me....:facepalm:

-Indy

Quasievil

21st July 2011, 14:46

Tell me Quasi, seeing you equate changing allegiance from National to the Greens with idiocy, what do you know about Green policies? How recently have you read them? Are you aware of how Green policies impact you as a businessman compared to National policies?

I'm genuinely interested in your answers and will take silence as an admission you aren't able to come up with any.

The greens are hell bent on the Kyoto protocol, which is an Arse and will negatively impact the economy, they are so busy having sex with trees they cant see through the other side of the forest to see reality on that one, anything to do with the environment is one eyed.

they Advocate Eco Tax yes that would work for the economy on top of everything else.

they want to increase our refugee quota, what are we to do with more somalies other than pay them benifits ?

They advocate Maori seperatisim via their stance on the Treaty and the Maori electoral system.

they think Dope is ok............morons !

So as A businessman I will have to pay more tax under the "saving the earth" umbrella, I will have the choice of a Somali or a doped up Maori with an attitude or a white dude politicized into saying he is sorry for eternity about the treaty issues.

But at least I can have a beer, assuming I can avoid the holes in the wooded bar leaner table.

the greens are loonies, the nats arent much better

short-circuit

21st July 2011, 15:14

The greens are hell bent on the Kyoto protocol, which is an Arse and will negatively impact the economy, they are so busy having sex with trees they cant see through the other side of the forest to see reality on that one, anything to do with the environment is one eyed.

they Advocate Eco Tax yes that would work for the economy on top of everything else.

they want to increase our refugee quota, what are we to do with more somalies other than pay them benifits ?

They advocate Maori seperatisim via their stance on the Treaty and the Maori electoral system.

they think Dope is ok............morons !

So as A businessman I will have to pay more tax under the "saving the earth" umbrella, I will have the choice of a Somali or a doped up Maori with an attitude or a white dude politicized into saying he is sorry for eternity about the treaty issues.

But at least I can have a beer, assuming I can avoid the holes in the wooded bar leaner table.

the greens are loonies, the nats arent much better

sounds like you've been talking to Wayne with the "grouse" holden and the hot missus.

Winston001

21st July 2011, 15:39

?

....to me a political idiot as opposed to being a thinking man is someone who takes a hard and fast political judgement regarding a party without actually knowing much about the parties policies and ideologies.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Deeper civics education in schools perhaps. Its true the world over that people cleave to certain political parties and seldom look at the alternatives. To me, that is stupid - but then most people find politics and economics difficult to understand beyond soundbites, so my opinion is a bit harsh.

shrub

21st July 2011, 15:55

The greens are hell bent on the Kyoto protocol, which is an Arse and will negatively impact the economy

How will it negatively impact the economy and how is it an arse? It's too weak, but not an arse.

they are so busy having sex with trees they cant see through the other side of the forest to see reality on that one, anything to do with the environment is one eyed.

I see. And you called my friend an idiot?

they Advocate Eco Tax yes that would work for the economy on top of everything else.

Can you try that again please? It doesn't make sense.

they want to increase our refugee quota, what are we to do with more somalies other than pay them benifits ?

You really have been listening to Wayne with the grouse Holden. What percentage of refugees are Somalians and how many are on benefits? But you're right, they want to increase the quota from 750 to 1000. How is that a bad thing? Umm, you're not racist are you?

They advocate Maori seperatisim via their stance on the Treaty and the Maori electoral system.

The Treaty is a fundamental constitutional document and your paranoia is more seperatist than anything the Greens advocate. Are you sure you're not racist?

they think Dope is ok............morons !

Um, wrong again. From their website:
"The Green Party recognises that:

A drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest;
All drugs can cause harm, regardless of their legal status.
Not all drug use is problematic.
Some current government policies do not reduce harm but rather create a further set of problems"

So as A businessman I will have to pay more tax under the "saving the earth" umbrella,
How so? If you are a high carbob producer then I think it's perfectly OK for you to pay for your use of the atmosphere as a waste dump - it's called user pays.

I will have the choice of a Somali or a doped up Maori with an attitude or a white dude politicized into saying he is sorry for eternity about the treaty issues.

For what? A lover? A neighbour? A best friend? I think you might be racist you know.

But at least I can have a beer, assuming I can avoid the holes in the wooded bar leaner table.

Sounds like you have had a few too many beers and I fail to see how the condition of your bar leaner is the green parties fault. Or is that what Wayne told you?

the greens are loonies, the nats arent much better

Yes, quite. I know! You're Wayne with the grouse ute and the hot missus!

Muppets, too funny:yes:

shrub

21st July 2011, 16:02

sounds like you've been talking to Wayne with the "grouse" holden and the hot missus.

He kind of walked into that one. I think he's been leaning on the bar too much and his brain cells are winding down for the duration.

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 16:14

You really have been listening to Wayne with the grouse Holden. What percentage of refugees are Somalians and how many are on benefits? But you're right, they want to increase the quota from 750 to 1000. How is that a bad thing? Umm, you're not racist are you?

Give 'em an inch....

-Indy

mashman

21st July 2011, 16:18

You freedom-lovin' biker you ... (with a bit of a scoail conscience)

I care not what it means. I love how flawed the "test" is... I reckon I could take that Lama fella :shifty:

shrub

21st July 2011, 16:22

Give 'em an inch....

-Indy

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be getting educated, starting businesses, buying houses and marrying our daughters. Danged uppity negroes.

That quasi, he got a purdy mouth...

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 16:27

anything to do with the environment is one eyed.

Including your own stance on the environment and climate change?

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 16:30

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be getting educated, starting businesses, buying houses and marrying our daughters. Danged uppity negroes.

And from two hundred years ago ..

"Yeah, next thing you know they'll be getting educated, starting businesses, buying houses and marrying our daughters. Danged uppity Europeans."

(I could have put it in te reo Māori .. but then most of you aren't educated enough yet to speak the language of this whenua ...)

Nothing's changed much has it ..

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 16:32

It will be interesting to see the voter turn-out figures this year .. I suspect you might be wrong ... I hope you're wrong because a big voter turnout generally means a Labor win - a small turnout generally means a National win ..

Looking at the results of the pool at the top of this thread .. there is probably going to be a low voter turn-out - many people simply don't give a fuck

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 16:33

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be getting educated, starting businesses, buying houses and marrying our daughters. Danged uppity negroes.

That quasi, he got a purdy mouth...

Not quite my point lol.

Now if they did those things no one would mind, I dare say half of them don't know how to read, can't be fucking learning our ways and just ride the system, so why do we let them in again?

-Indy

shrub

21st July 2011, 16:40

Not quite my point lol.

Now if they did those things no one would mind, I dare say half of them don't know how to read, can't be fucking learning our ways and just ride the system, so why do we let them in again?

-Indy

Ah, you were talking about the European/pakeha immigrants, sorry.

shrub

21st July 2011, 16:42

And from two hundred years ago ..

"Yeah, next thing you know they'll be getting educated, starting businesses, buying houses and marrying our daughters. Danged uppity Europeans."

(I could have put it in te reo Māori .. but then most of you aren't educated enough yet to speak the language of this whenua ...)

Nothing's changed much has it ..

Like Indy said: "I dare say half of them don't know how to read, can't be fucking learning our ways and just ride the system, so why do we let them in again?"

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 16:44

So to get into a nation you just say your current home nation is mean? :sunny:

-Indy

mashman

21st July 2011, 16:49

Funny debate to read.

The election outcome won't change things for NZ in the slightest... it'll affect a few individuals.

At the base level we're trying to generate enough money to look after a country full of people etc... and we're relying on individuals who want to keep what they have earned to achieve that goal. CGT and taxes back up again OR sell profit making entities so they can become investment opportunities for some people with disposable income :facepalm:.

One thing I will have issue with though, :), the very same individuals, having to dig deeper into their trust funds, using tall poppy, envy, anti-success etc... as an excuse for not supporting the issue. I respect your point of view, but you're wrong... totally and utterly wrong.

I hate the rich because I'm fed up with their moaning and bitching when they're asked for more money by the govt to achieve the very goals that these individuals expect of their govt... they sound like a bunch of school kids fighting over the ball. I've earned it, much better to contribute to social disfunction than contribute using my hard earned.

Life is a thing of beauty at times :)

Go Hone :)

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 16:52

So to get into a nation you just say your current home nation is mean? :sunny:

-Indy

Hmmm - actually to get refugee status you have to prove that your home nation is trying to kill you ... without good reason

shrub

21st July 2011, 17:02

Funny debate to read....

The election outcome won't change things for NZ in the slightest... it'll affect a few individuals.

At the base level we're trying to generate enough money to look after a country full of people etc... and we're relying on individuals who want to keep what they have earned to achieve that goal. CGT and taxes back up again OR sell profit making entities so they can become investment opportunities for some people with disposable income :facepalm:.

One thing I will have issue with though, :), the very same individuals, having to dig deeper into their trust funds, using tall poppy, envy, anti-success etc... as an excuse for not supporting the issue. I respect your point of view, but you're wrong... totally and utterly wrong.

I hate the rich because I'm fed up with their moaning and bitching when they're asked for more money by the govt to achieve the very goals that these individuals expect of their govt... they sound like a bunch of school kids fighting over the ball. I've earned it, much better to contribute to social disfunction than contribute using my hard earned.

Life is a thing of beauty at times :)

Go Hone :)

Pretty good summation, but I don't hate the rich and I doubt you do either - I hate the greedy. There are many rich people who are quite happy to pay their way and be a part of making things better for everyone - Gareth and Sam Morgan and Selwyn Pellett in NZ spring to mind. Then you have the greedy who remind me of Gollum in their paranoid terror of having to actually pay tax "my precioussss, they wants my precious they does, nasssssty greenies". Over my life I have known many of them (and even been one once), and almost without exception they are unhappy and frightened people, constantly paranoid about someone getting one over them. Their paranoia about climate change is a case in point - they're not worried about the impact of climate change on the world they live in, or even their ability to make money - their sole fear is having to pay more tax.

It's amusing, but at the same time sad and a little pathetic.

Banditbandit

21st July 2011, 17:11

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 17:24

Hmmm - actually to get refugee status you have to prove that your home nation is trying to kill you ... without good reason

Nobody wants to hurt those lovely skinny's :)

Does the police giving out speeding tickets count?

-Indy

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 17:27

I hate the rich because I'm fed up with their moaning and bitching when they're asked for more money by the govt to achieve the very goals that these individuals expect of their govt...

I think it's more to do with the fact that they're expected to pay a greater percentage compared to those on a lower income rather then paying.

-Indy

shrub

21st July 2011, 17:39

I think it's more to do with the fact that they're expected to pay a greater percentage compared to those on a lower income rather then paying.

-Indy

Nah, it's because they're whiny little faggots.

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2011, 18:08

Nah, it's because they're whiny little faggots.

Na, just the champagne socialists who say we should all do our bi to help the environment yet don't want to give up their chelsea tractors....

-Indy

oldrider

21st July 2011, 19:12

The poll at the heart of this thread typifies the New Zealand electorate.

Labour and National operate a Clayton's coalition and bluff the electorate into believing that they are the only "serious" choices on offer!

They control this by offering carefully measured little cosmetic changes especially tailored to prevent the voters attention from straying outside the confines of their select little club!

As long as one of them is the resultant major player following any election, they are content to form coalitions with the sprat parties and eventually one or the other will be able to form a government while the other will be the major opposition!

Safe as churches. (as they used to say before the Christchurch earthquakes!)

Either way the Labour National coalition is still in power and nothing really changes, especially for the poor old unsuspecting voters!

The sprat parties are only nuisance value and easy for the major party twins to keep under control and continue to provide scapegoat services and someone to blame when things don't quite go to plan!

In motorcycling terms its just like the old Matchless - AJS competition, if you bought one, you actually really bought the other, they were made by the same company!

Henry Ford used to say, you can have any colour you like as long as it is black!

You can have a "RED" labour/national coalition government, or a "BLUE" labour/national coalition government, just as long as it is labour/national and the electorate believe they have made their own (Clayton's) choice!

How much longer are the New Zealand public going to put up with this bullshit situation?

Between elections the dissatisfaction penny almost drops as per poll above but then the rot sets in driven by the media and it's all back to normal again and the Clayton's coalition rules again! :facepalm: (cynical I know but is MHO of the situation)

shrub

21st July 2011, 20:43

Na, just the champagne socialists who say we should all do our bi to help the environment yet don't want to give up their chelsea tractors....

-Indy

Oh dear, you're getting a little confused. :blink:I think it might be a good idea to make yourself a nice cup of cocoa and have an early night.

mashman

21st July 2011, 21:08

Pretty good summation, but I don't hate the rich and I doubt you do either - I hate the greedy. There are many rich people who are quite happy to pay their way and be a part of making things better for everyone - Gareth and Sam Morgan and Selwyn Pellett in NZ spring to mind. Then you have the greedy who remind me of Gollum in their paranoid terror of having to actually pay tax "my precioussss, they wants my precious they does, nasssssty greenies". Over my life I have known many of them (and even been one once), and almost without exception they are unhappy and frightened people, constantly paranoid about someone getting one over them. Their paranoia about climate change is a case in point - they're not worried about the impact of climate change on the world they live in, or even their ability to make money - their sole fear is having to pay more tax.

It's amusing, but at the same time sad and a little pathetic.

:innocent: you are correct, I don't hate them at all... I've met some absolutely stunning rich people. Even the "old school" rich. But that means I hate them for an entirely different reason :shifty:. Possibly the stupid attitude :shifty:...

Yes, I remember watching a pre-budget item on the news a couple of years ago ... a small businessman was asked "What do you want from this budget?" His answer? "Lower taxes and more money spent on Education "

I thought .. shit, you are not likely to get both ...

waaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... was he short, or was it a man with a small business?

I think it's more to do with the fact that they're expected to pay a greater percentage compared to those on a lower income rather then paying.

lollipops... I fully understand their point of view. But I'm still not sure if that's because it's their money :facepalm: or wether they think it's being wasted?

Quasievil

21st July 2011, 22:05

How will it negatively impact the economy and how is it an arse? It's too weak, but not an arse.

yes it is an arse, its was a complete waste of time most of the major developed countries didn't sign into it and yet our dumarses nick smith and co used it as a basis for the tax scam.
Quote from Not PC blog.
DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said…
Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.
Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.
But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said. [Moreover] at last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

Which means Kyoto is dead.

Which means New Zealand has no “Kyoto obligations.”

Which means neither farmers not any other producer has any “Kyoto obligation” to meet.

Are you listening John and Nick and Phil and Julia and Cate? Because you can be damn sure voters will be.

.

I see. And you called my friend an idiot?

yes he is a self confess green supporter, of course he is:yes:

Can you try that again please? It doesn't make sense.

Ok, let me answer that by asking you, will another Eco realted tax bennifit NZ and how exactly will it ?

You really have been listening to Wayne with the grouse Holden. What percentage of refugees are Somalians and how many are on benefits? But you're right, they want to increase the quota from 750 to 1000. How is that a bad thing? Umm, you're not racist are you?

Who is this wayne and the grouse holden?
I live in Hamilsomalia, out side a few in taxis I dont recall seeing any others working anywhere.
They dont fit into our society period, with Somalis im completely racist, they can fuck off.

The Treaty is a fundamental constitutional document and your paranoia is more seperatist than anything the Greens advocate. Are you sure you're not racist?

if its a a somali im a racist im a selective racist.
Im from a Maori blood line, even granddaddy signed the fucking thing (tehakeke was his name look it up)
the treaty was a fuck up from the start.
New Zealand needs a new constitution to bind us together, the fuck up version "treaty of waitangi " will continue to hold the common Maori individual back for eternity he doesn't benefit from it one bit. Its like the Kyoto protocol is an arse.

Um, wrong again. From their website:
"The Green Party recognises that:

A drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest;
All drugs can cause harm, regardless of their legal status.
Not all drug use is problematic.
Some current government policies do not reduce harm but rather create a further set of problems"

You cant read that for what it means?
"not all drug use is problematic" Hello Shrub.....mate what you think that means
"Some current government policies do not reduce harm but rather create a further set of problems" mmmmm like um lets legalise it

How so? If you are a high carbob producer then I think it's perfectly OK for you to pay for your use of the atmosphere as a waste dump - it's called user pays.
If you are so stupid as to buy into the whole Carbon emmisions crap then more fool you mate, and the money goes where ? to the earth gods so they can employ little faires to filter the naughty little carbons out of the atmosphere?
Its a Tax scam of the highest order !

For what? A lover? A neighbour? A best friend? I think you might be racist you know.

you missed the point

Sounds like you have had a few too many beers and I fail to see how the condition of your bar leaner is the green parties fault. Or is that what Wayne told you?

the holes are from the looney greens having love sex with the trees, as illustrated earlier, fuck bro must I draw a picture for you.

shrub

22nd July 2011, 11:31

yes it is an arse....tax scam....quote from Not PC blog...tax...I live in Hamilsomalia...Tax scam.

To summarise what you have said:

1. You base your opinions on information gleaned from blogs. Did you know Elvis is still alive? And that space aliens visit earth? Or that the world will end in 2012? I'll point you to the blogs if you like.
2. You are paranoid about paying tax. Sorry, tax is a reality and if you can't afford to pay your share I suggest you get a job where you earn more money or move to a country where there is no tax. Like Somalia.
3. You hate everyone from Somalia for the sole reason they were born in Somalia. Yes, entirely reasonable and very understandable. I hate everyone who was born in Te Puke for exactly the same reason. Except the chick with the big tits who works at the pub, I think she's great.
4. You think all drug use is problematic. Did you know that alcohol (which you use) and coffee are drugs? Did you know that marijuana isn't actually bad for you if used in moderation and only becomes a problem when abused or used by people under 18? And that a lot of highly successful people use marijuana?
5. You don't believe that human activity is causing climate change. Actually, neither do I, it's the decline in the number of pirates that is causing it. There is a statistically significant inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global temperature, and Somalia (you gotta love that) has the highest population of pirates in the world and one of the lowest per capita carbon emissions. I found that on a blog, and I have a graph of it, so it must be true.
6. You're from Hamilton. I should have guessed, the spelling alone gave it away.

Thanks for that, you have made my day.:yes:

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

Quasievil

22nd July 2011, 12:34

To summarise what you have said:

1. You base your opinions on information gleaned from blogs. Did you know Elvis is still alive? And that space aliens visit earth? Or that the world will end in 2012? I'll point you to the blogs if you like.
2. You are paranoid about paying tax. Sorry, tax is a reality and if you can't afford to pay any more I suggest you get a job where you earn more money.
3. You hate everyone from Somalia for the sole reason they were born in Somalia. Yes, entirely reasonable and very understandable. I hate everyone who was born in Te Puke for exactly the same reason. Except the chick with the big tits who works at the pub, I think she's great.
4. You think all drug use is problematic. Did you know that alcohol (which you use) and coffee are drugs? Did you know that marijuana isn't actually bad for you if used in moderation and only becomes a problem when abused or used by people under 18? And that a lot of highly successful people use marijuana?
5. You don't believe that human activity is causing climate change. Actually, neither do I, it's the decline in the number of pirates that is causing it. There is a statistically significant inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global temperature, and Somalia (you gotta love that) has the highest population of pirates in the world and one of the lowest per capita carbon emissions. I found that on a blog, and I have a graph of it, so it must be true.
6. You're from Hamilton. I should have guessed, the spelling alone gave it away.

Thanks for that, you have made my day.:yes:

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

1/ I dont buy in to the climate change "scam of the century" my opinions are formed from way more than simple blogs.
Youre wrong about Elvis, and the earth ending in 2012, who would know regarding Aliens, not sure what your point is there.
Climate change is not man made its natural, a simple understanding of the facts will educate you in this subject, I recommend you look into it a bit.
I object 100% that this "climate change" scenario is utilised as a revenue source by the politicians, it isnt based on concluded science at all, far from that its based on scare mongering tactics fuelled by those who can make a buck and the loony left green plonkers who would buy into anything remotely associated with subject headed as "save the....."
2/ Tax a reality ??? what planet are you on Shrub, dont you think I know this ?
Im not disagreeing with tax, Im disagreeing with NEW TAX that is formed from stupid "save the....." scams, a ECO tax stinks of this, and you would be a nutter to think for a moment that this kind of eco taxation will do one fucking thing to save anything or improve anything, especially when the super power economies dont give a toss, not to mention a volcano erupting more emissions than the entire human race does in a year in a single day.
You vote for it and you pay the Eco taxes if thats what you think will improve the economy, it wont I promise you.
3/ I dont like somalies, and I dont really like any imigrant that simply does not fit into the NZ way of life, thats it, I dont care what Im labelled NZ is not for extreme cultures.
4/ NO, coffee and Alcohol are drugs ? I dont agree that making dope and or harder drugs are going to do this country any favours, I dont agree with our liquor laws either. And I certainly wouldnt vote for some loony greeny advocating that we should legalise dope because some successful people use it, like thats a soldi arguement.
5/ Pirates, Elvis, Aliens..............okay youre taking the piss, thats fine, but when you grow up and want to discuss policey of the looney greens with me let me know, thus far you havent raised a solid case on anything, so I stand uncorrected.

your freind and yourself are confused politically and have been far to long mouth open feeding on the crap that the media has shoved down it.
free thinking is just that , free !

for me I dont have any political alignment, thus far there are NO parties worthy of representing me in New Zealand, I will vote however.

Oh lastly, your from Tepuke giving me shit about being from Hamilton ???? oh dear you are confused.:facepalm:

thanks for the fun, its nice to know there are some brain dead voters to take the piss out off.

:yes:

lol

shrub

22nd July 2011, 12:42

... your from Tepuke giving me shit about being from Hamilton ???? oh dear you are confused.l

Muppets, too funny!:2thumbsup

imdying

22nd July 2011, 12:58

Muppets, too funny!:2thumbsupHey, leave The Muppets out of this!

<img src="http://wtfcontent.com/img/130433947610.jpg" />

shrub

22nd July 2011, 13:01

Hey, leave The Muppets out of this!

I didn't invite them, they came along of their own accord. But fuck they're funny, I have no intention of discouraging them.

Quasievil

22nd July 2011, 13:11

Being Green aint easy

<object width="560" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DUUcOmgYEhY?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DUUcOmgYEhY?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpiIWMWWVco?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpiIWMWWVco?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

shrub

22nd July 2011, 13:24

Being Green aint easy

Your paranoia is showing Quasi. I bet right now Al Gore, Nandor Tancoz and Nick Smith are sitting in a secret bunker under the IRD headquarters:no: planning a new tax aimed specially at YOU! :shit: Might I suggest a lead helmet? :calm: It stops their tingle rays from reading your mind and brainwashing you - something they have done very successfully over AGW:angry:. You have no idea how many scientists, businesspeople, politicians, academics etc have been brainwashed into believing in it! :facepalm::weird:

It's down to people like you and me mate, :psst: together we can spread the word and break down this evil scam that is threatening to crush the delicate flower of capitalism before it blossoms.:sunny:

Banditbandit

22nd July 2011, 13:29

waaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... was he short, or was it a man with a small business?

Actually, I think he was both - but it's hard to tell someone's height on TV ..

Banditbandit

22nd July 2011, 13:32

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And the causal link is?

shrub

22nd July 2011, 13:34

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And the causal link is?

There doesn't have to be a causal link - all there has to be is a correlation. Don't you know ANYTHING?

Banditbandit

22nd July 2011, 13:38

There doesn't have to be a causal link - all there has to be is a correlation. Don't you know ANYTHING?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry but in MY, admittedly leftwing looney, weltanschaung the data only makes sense if a causal link can be established ..

Quasievil

22nd July 2011, 13:38

Your paranoia is showing Quasi. I bet right now Al Gore, Nandor Tancoz and Nick Smith are sitting in a secret bunker under the IRD headquarters:no: planning a new tax aimed specially at YOU!

To late my little green muppet they have done it and executed it, they called it the ETS
im sure you and the looney left are happy thats in place and we will all be saved.
if you hug a tree this weekend Im sure it will hug you back.

Spearfish

22nd July 2011, 13:41

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry but in MY, admittedly leftwing looney, weltanschaung the data only makes sense if a causal link can be established ..

simple
less land= more people on boats
people on boats to pirate ratio stays the same....

has to work.

shrub

22nd July 2011, 13:54

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry but in MY, admittedly leftwing looney, weltanschaung the data only makes sense if a causal link can be established ..

Oh. You mean an observable change in one phenomenon must actually be dependent on the other? Hmmm... maybe pirate numbers aren't the cause of climate change.

Bugger.

shrub

22nd July 2011, 14:03

To late my little green muppet they have done it and executed it, they called it the ETS
im sure you and the looney left are happy thats in place and we will all be saved.
if you hug a tree this weekend Im sure it will hug you back.

Muahahahahaha... You have seen through our evil plot, but it is too late, you are doomed. We will crush and break you like a twig with our dastardly ETS and you will become our slave for all eternity. You will live in poverty and degradation while Nandor, Al and I feast on caviar and drink champagne in our mansion on the hill - the mansion that was once yours!

Muppets, too funny :yes:

Banditbandit

22nd July 2011, 14:21

Muahahahahaha... You have seen through our evil plot, but it is too late, you are doomed. We will crush and break you like a twig with our dastardly ETS and you will become our slave for all eternity. You will live in poverty and degradation while Nandor, Al and I feast on caviar and drink champagne in our mansion on the hill - the mansion that was once yours!

Muppets, too funny :yes:

Sorry to spoil the party - but the harvesting of caviar is having a devastating effect on sturgeon numbers and is no longer sustainable.

Also caviar is a luxury of the rich and there will be a 1,000% sales tax on this item in the future. This measure will reduce the sales of cavier and thereby limit the harvesting of cavier, allowing sturgeon numbers to recover, while adding $12.65 to the NZ tax take.

Champagne, being the product of the sweat and blood of the french peasants, will not be taxed as we wish to support our brother peasants.

Your mansion on the hill is OK if it was involuntary seized from the bourgoisie and maintained as a constant reminder of the evils of capitalism.

(Any cars which you receive as gifts from the Presidents of the US of A may be kept by you personally.)

NighthawkNZ

22nd July 2011, 14:29

shrub

22nd July 2011, 14:39

Sorry to spoil the party - but the harvesting of caviar is having a devastating effect on sturgeon numbers and is no longer sustainable.

Also caviar is a luxury of the rich and there will be a 1,000% sales tax on this item in the future. This measure will reduce the sales of cavier and thereby limit the harvesting of cavier, allowing sturgeon numbers to recover, while adding $12.65 to the NZ tax take.

Champagne, being the product of the sweat and blood of the french peasants, will not be taxed as we wish to support our brother peasants.

Your mansion on the hill is OK if it was involuntary seized from the bourgoisie and maintained as a constant reminder of the evils of capitalism.

(Any cars which you receive as gifts from the Presidents of the US of A may be kept by you personally.)

Fair call, I wasn't that fussed on caviar anyway. I will write "seized from Quasi" on the walls of my mansion and I will also be inviting any Somali immigrants to live with me where Quasi will be forced to serve them and to satisfy their every need, no matter how strange and foreign.

I like your idea about luxury tax on caviar, as an evil leftwing green type there is little I like more than finding new and usurous taxes to inflict on the decent, hard working citizens like Quasi and his mate Wayne with the grouse Holden ute and the hot missus.

admenk

22nd July 2011, 14:39

Your mansion on the hill is OK if it was involuntary seized from the bourgoisie and maintained as a constant reminder of the evils of capitalism.

Even if I "confiscated" it in the 1860's ? :innocent:

Quasievil

22nd July 2011, 15:30

Nice work green muppet, you turned your responses into jokes as you have nothing to argue, makes your original commentary against my view a joke to now.

shrub

22nd July 2011, 15:52

Nice work green muppet, you turned your responses into jokes as you have nothing to argue, makes your original commentary against my view a joke to now.

Now that was clever - calling me a muppet! You are nothing if not creative and imaginative in your thinking.

Quasi mate, the reason I am taking the piss is because debating politics with you is like arguing about the relative merits of a triple vs a twin with my 10 year old step daughter- utterly futile, so I might as well amuse myself at your expense.

Quasievil

22nd July 2011, 15:53

Quasi mate, the reason I am taking the piss is because debating politics with you is like arguing about the relative merits of a triple vs a twin with my 10 year old step daughter- utterly futile, so I might as well amuse myself at your expense.

Ok if you say so Shrub, the rest of us know you cant debate it from a greens angle.
who could?

Banditbandit

22nd July 2011, 16:43

Even if I "confiscated" it in the 1860's ? :innocent:

Aa so ... it was you you decadent bourgoisie European - stole it from us Māori peasents ...

It's only legit if the peasents take it from the capitalist overlords ...

Why do Anarchists only drink herbal tea?
Because property is theft ..

Banditbandit

22nd July 2011, 16:44

Nice work green muppet, you turned your responses into jokes as you have nothing to argue, makes your original commentary against my view a joke to now.

Naaa ... I find your responses amusing .. I respond in kind ..

Ok if you say so Shrub, the rest of us know you cant debate it from a greens angle.
who could?

Try me ...

shrub

22nd July 2011, 17:12

Try me ...

You're wasting your time. No matter how good your argument, if they can find a blog somewhere that presents an alternative position, no matter how weak the argument, they will use it, and if that fails they will listen to Wayne from the pub (you know, the guy with the grouse ute and the hot missus).

Quasievil

22nd July 2011, 17:33

You're wasting your time. No matter how good your argument, if they can find a blog somewhere that presents an alternative position, no matter how weak the argument, they will use it, and if that fails they will listen to Wayne from the pub (you know, the guy with the grouse ute and the hot missus).

Thats the response I expected i.e none (again :yes: )
you cant debate the green looney policies so I Will leave you to it.

Spearfish

22nd July 2011, 17:40

Nothing has changed...
Keep it in mind these quotes are from prominent fact is fact scienticians from 1970
especially the last one
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” :gob:
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”:innocent:
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” :bye:
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” :shit:
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” :corn:
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”:violin:
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”:clap:
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Shadowjack

22nd July 2011, 18:57

Why do Anarchists only drink herbal tea?
Because property is theft ..

So, it took a while (it is a Friday), but....:facepalm::killingme:killingme

shrub

22nd July 2011, 18:59

you cant debate the green looney policies

It's very hard to debate anything with the kind of semi-literate people who hate everyone from Somalia for the sole reason that they're from Somalia and debating green policies with someone who doesn't even know what they are is completely pointless - I might as well enter into debate with my dog. No, with you I prefer to amuse myself by making you jump and chirrup like a tame monkey when I'm bored or need distracting. And you do that spectacularly well.

Quasievil

22nd July 2011, 21:56

Actually I can, very well, but I don't waste my time with the kind of semi-literate people who hate everyone from Somalia for the sole reason that they're from Somalia - how can I expect someone like that to use logic and reason in a debate based on verifiable and valid data? Hell, you don't even know what the Green party's policies are so what makes you think you can debate them? No, with you I prefer to amuse myself by making you jump and chirrup like a tame monkey when I'm bored or need distracting. And you do that spectacularly well.

what only more blab blab ?

Banditbandit

25th July 2011, 14:27

what only more blab blab ?

I thought you were leaving us to it?

Swoop

25th July 2011, 17:01

the greens are loonies
It was stated, a few years back, that with the collapse of communism that the reds simply became green.

It gave them a new purpose in life.:facepalm:

Quasievil

25th July 2011, 17:03

I thought you were leaving us to it?

Yup the greens can have it.

shrub

26th July 2011, 10:21

It was stated, a few years back, that with the collapse of communism that the reds simply became green.

It gave them a new purpose in life.:facepalm:

It was also stated a few years back that by the year 2000 we would be having holidays on the moon.

You demonstrate one of the reasons it is absolutely futile to even attempt to discuss politics on these threads - you have absolutely no idea of even the most basic tenets of modern political thought.

For a start, communism is a concept that has a huge number of different interpretations – anarcho-communism, Marxism, Leninism, trotskysim, euro-communism, eco-communism etc – do you know the difference between them? Do you even know the basic principles of communism as laid out by Marx and Engels in A Communist Manifesto? My guess is you have adopted a construct that is primarily based on the fear of losing freedom and property rights and worst of all, paying more in taxes - the reds under the bed construct created to justify the cold war.

Green political ideology is actually almost diametrically opposed from most interpretations of communism and the Green party are completely committed to individual property rights and fundamental to their long term vision is for as many New Zealanders as possible to own their own homes and to have capital available for investment. Their policies also strongly support New Zealand ownership of business and to place limits on foreign multinationals setting up shop here, including (especially?) companies owned by foreign communist governments. In other words the Greens prefer the idea of people like you and I working for ourselves and creating our own opportunities to you and I working for a foreign company.

They are staunch about individual freedom; freedom to express a contradictory political view, freedom to protest and freedom to participate in and influence the political process are absolutely fundamental to Green ideologies. How does that compare with any face of communism we have seen?

The question I have for you is the same one I had for Quasi – have you read the Green policies, and if so, have you also read the policies for the other significant parties?

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 10:43

Dont answer him Swoop, he cant go any deeper than that so discussion is pointless :yes:

shrub

26th July 2011, 11:29

Dont answer him Swoop, he cant go any deeper than that so discussion is pointless :yes:

what only more blab blab ?

No, you don't want him to answer because you haven't a clue what i said and if he answered seriously the discussion would be pointless to you because it would be so far over your head we might as well be talking in swahili.

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 11:59

Dont answer him Swoop, he cant go any deeper than that so discussion is pointless :yes:

So ... by deep do you mean the discussion about what is most important in your weltanschuaang? 1) The structural heirachy humans have developed around the symbols of their value-exchange tokens or 2) the quality of the physical environment in which they lead their lives and its ability to sustain that life?

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 12:34

No, you don't want him to answer because you haven't a clue what i said and if he answered seriously the discussion would be pointless to you because it would be so far over your head we might as well be talking in swahili.

err you actually havent said anything yet.

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 12:35

So ... by deep do you mean the discussion about what is most important in your weltanschuaang? 1) The structural heirachy humans have developed around the symbols of their value-exchange tokens or 2) the quality of the physical environment in which they lead their lives and its ability to sustain that life?

You decide, if its green it will be bad.:yes:

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 12:36

err you actually havent said anything yet.

So talk to me ... You haven't responded at all ...

I have an idea ...

http://mychickencoopplans.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/happy-chicken.jpg

shrub

26th July 2011, 12:39

err you actually havent said anything yet.

no, I haven't said anything you understand. How's this:

Those bloody greens are all a pack of communist bastards who want to tax you.

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 12:41

You decide, if its green it will be bad.:yes:

'cept maybe that stuff you've been smokin' (buying it from Wayne in the back of his ute whil ogling his girlfriend?)

See - I think that you value the economy over the environment ... that's a real worry - because if the environment goes down the gurgler so does the economy ..

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 12:46

So talk to me ... You haven't responded at all ...

I have an idea ...

What about?

someone was going to convince me that I should vote for the greens, I already said earlier that some of their policies are shit, and noted examples, my ink is there already, you green loonies havent said boo yet, just lots of smart remarks.

Im ready and willing to be converted from no where to somewhere if you can convince me.
go for it

an undecided voter

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 13:01

shrub

26th July 2011, 13:10

'cept maybe that stuff you've been smokin' (buying it from Wayne in the back of his ute whil ogling his girlfriend?)

See - I think that you value the economy over the environment ... that's a real worry - because if the environment goes down the gurgler so does the economy ..

I doubt they have the intellect to understand the economy well enough to ascribe a value judgement to anything beyond "pay more/less tax". Sustainable development to them is a scam put together by Al Gore and Nick Smith to increase their taxes whereas to people with sufficient intellect to understand it, it's business paradigm that will be as significant as IT or TQM were and ignoring it means ultimately going broke whereas engaging with it means being a successful part of the business environment of tomorrow.

I sometimes look at people like that and despair, but I am consoled by the fact that outside of people like Wayne with the grouse ute they have very little influence and even have less significance in shaping the future.

Ocean1

26th July 2011, 13:15

the greens advocate them, why ?

Don't know. They may not either, wouldn't surprise me.

Submarine turbines are, however a good response to higher cost alternatives. They do little damage to the surroundings or fush, (if designed correctly). Maintenance is the only real bugbear with 'em.

The greens do have the odd good idea, but they're still essentially a single issue party and haven't worked out how to cost shit in the real world properly yet.

shrub

26th July 2011, 13:21

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 13:24

I doubt they have the intellect to understand the economy well enough to ascribe a value judgement to anything beyond "pay more/less tax". Sustainable development to them is a scam put together by Al Gore and Nick Smith to increase their taxes whereas to people with sufficient intellect to understand it, it's business paradigm that will be as significant as IT or TQM were and ignoring it means ultimately going broke whereas engaging with it means being a successful part of the business environment of tomorrow.

I sometimes look at people like that and despair, but I am consoled by the fact that outside of people like Wayne with the grouse ute they have very little influence and even have less significance in shaping the future.

I guess thats why Carbon trading is collapsing eh

The whole ETS Al Gore was and without doubt is the biggest scam of the modern era, the science is there to justify the costs put upon the people.
its a con plain and simple.
Like you I look at the supporters of it in despair, but not only that I wonder how they could be so stupid to believe the B.S with absolute conviction when there was clear evidence supported by leaders in the scientific community against the global warming con.

The Greens and the Nats and the Labour party are Morons period.

Oh, um since the inception of the SCAM has the apparent warming CATASTROPHE reversed ?

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 13:29

Good god, he's actually got the ability to articulate a simple argument. I am impressed.

there really isnt a need to get personally insulting is there?

Wind is infinitely sustainable because it doesn't get used up and has no cost, whereas oil, coal and gas are finite and they are becoming increasingly expensive. The cost of a windfarm is a fraction of the cost of a hydro dam or a power station.

Long term are you sure about that?

You may not like the view any more, but that's the price you pay for living in a world where energy consumption is rising continuosly. You could always draw the curtains if you don't like the view and I'm sure the number of seagulls chopped up won't have any impact on our biodiversity - or at least a lot less impact than any alternatives.

So the birdlife isnt an issue for you then?

I would suggest that NZ has all the power it needs already, we just happen to waste to much of it.

shrub

26th July 2011, 13:34

I would suggest that NZ has all the power it needs already, we just happen to waste to much of it.

And that my lad is the position the Green party come from and a fundamental plank of sustainable development.

And I'm sorry if you were hurt by my comments. Really, truly I am.:violin::violin:

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 13:40

And that my lad is the position the Green party come from and a fundamental plank of sustainable development.

And I'm sorry if you were hurt by my comments. Really, truly I am.:violin::violin:

Never but would like a good discussion.

There policey promotes windfarms etc, I dont agree with that for reasons outlined

shrub

26th July 2011, 13:46

Never but would like a good discussion.

There policey promotes windfarms etc, I dont agree with that for reasons outlined

If you genuinely want discussion and debate I am quite happy to oblige, but right now i have work to do so it will have to wait, but in the meantime your problems with windfarms seem to be primarily based on the cost and appearance - aside from reducing energy consumption what alternatives do you suggest?

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 14:12

Here you go I will toss this out

The greens like sustainable energy right ?

we used to see some beautiful hills out towards Raglan, now we have them littered with fucking windmills. is that environmentally friendly? why are building these things everywhere littering our environment and chopping up our bird life ?

there is no future in these things, they are expensive and have a limited life span, whats the point ?
And dont the greens want to fuck up our oceans with harnessing of the tides ? seriously wtf ?

the greens advocate them, why ?

Hmm .. whatever form of energy production we use has a detrimental effect. Hydro schemes are screwing up the rivers - the water level in the Whanganui is way way below what it once was, the Waikato is full of dams ... plans for new dams in the south island have been shelved because of their environmental impact. I agree that hydro is better than most because it is less environmentally damaging than most - but it still damaging.

Oil or coal fired generation is hugely polluting ..

Windmills are less environmentally damaging than most - except for visibility. It's a trade off. And chopping up birds? I've visited several wind farms - notably the one around the Manawatu Gorge - and I don't see any dead birds lying around or blood on the blades ... where's your evidence ?

Turbos in the tidal flow is also less damaging and less visually polluting. Where do you get the idea that they kill fish? Are there dead fish floating in the water where they currently (pun intended) installed? Evidence from around the world shows that man-made structures in the oceans actually increases the amount of fish ... but it's still a compromise - and Japan's experience this year shows just how disasterous nuclear reactors in NZ could be ..

It's not a matter of an energy source which has no impact - I can't see us powering NZ on bicycle generators - which is the only one with no impact .. it's a matter of an energy source which has the least impact ..

Wind is infinitely sustainable because it doesn't get used up and has no cost,

There's no direct cost because wind is free .. but there are still running costs ..

I guess thats why Carbon trading is collapsing eh

The whole ETS Al Gore was and without doubt is the biggest scam of the modern era, the science is there to justify the costs put upon the people.
its a con plain and simple.

Like you I look at the supporters of it in despair, but not only that I wonder how they could be so stupid to believe the B.S with absolute conviction when there was clear evidence supported by leaders in the scientific community against the global warming con.

Hmm .. climate change is occuring - the question is how much are human beings responsible for. The effects of climate change could be totally disasterous - up to and including a new Ice Sheet in the north as far soth as Spain - The USA have plans for that as it would mean that European people will look for a new home - and the USA might well be it - with the consequent war for land ... so even if we are having a small impact, even alleviating that impact will mitigate some of the consequences.

In a purely capitalist economy - which you seem to espouse- the only motivations are profit and/or cost. The only way to affect people's behaviour is by increasing the cost ... hence the carbon tax ... it will decrease profits by increasing costs, UNLESS companies reduce carbon emmissions ... or can find someone else to do that and buy their excess carbon credits ...

Increasing taxes has certainly stopped a lot of people smoking - if that is the case why do you say that a carbon tax will not work?

The Greens and the Nats and the Labour party are Morons period.

Oh, um since the inception of the SCAM has the apparent warming CATASTROPHE reversed ?

Shit - who are you going to vote for? Act?

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 14:15

So the birdlife isnt an issue for you then?

I would suggest that NZ has all the power it needs already, we just happen to waste to much of it.

Bird life may be an issue - but if it's dead sky rats then a few less is not a bad thing ...

I agree we generate a lot of power and waste it - the "private" electricity companies have no interest in selling LESS of their product .. they have no incentive to save it - only sell it and make more money ..

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 14:16

PS. Where did you get the idea is was Green from I only said I was prepared to debate the issues.

Swoop

26th July 2011, 14:18

fucking windmills.

the greens advocate them, why ?
They have the concept of sustainability attached to them, but who had a vested financial interest in making this happen? Jeanette Fitzsimons (http://shareinvestornz.blogspot.com/2007/11/helen-clark-and-jenette-fitzsimons-knee.html).

The most glaring example and probably least known, is the conflict that arises from Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party and her major shareholding in the listed NZ windfarm owner , manufacturer and developer, Windflow Technologies.

Fitzsimons is a partner to the Labour Government and drives Labour's "Green Agenda" for them. Fitzsimons has been responsible for passing law and changing rules to give companies like hers an advantage over competitors and as a result she has financially benefited directly from her activities in Parliament. Jenette has a knack of forgetting to mention her large shareholding in Windflow Technology when dealing with such matters when doing Parliamentary business.

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 14:27

They have the concept of sustainability attached to them, but who had a vested financial interest in making this happen? Jeanette Fitzsimons (http://shareinvestornz.blogspot.com/2007/11/helen-clark-and-jenette-fitzsimons-knee.html).

The most glaring example and probably least known, is the conflict that arises from Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party and her major shareholding in the listed NZ windfarm owner , manufacturer and developer, Windflow Technologies.

Fitzsimons is a partner to the Labour Government and drives Labour's "Green Agenda" for them. Fitzsimons has been responsible for passing law and changing rules to give companies like hers an advantage over competitors and as a result she has financially benefited directly from her activities in Parliament. Jenette has a knack of forgetting to mention her large shareholding in Windflow Technology when dealing with such matters when doing Parliamentary business.

Umm .. err .. yeah .. fair call.

However that does not undermone the argument - only their credibility.

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 14:27

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 15:37

However that does not undermone the argument - only their credibility.

Yeah and ?

Banditbandit

26th July 2011, 15:40

Yeah and ?

No come on .. surely even you can see that one or two people's fuck ups does not undermine the argument .. just cause they fuck it up does not make the argument invalid .. the argumtn is NOT dependent on their good actions ...

shrub

26th July 2011, 16:43

No come on .. surely even you can see that one or two people's fuck ups does not undermine the argument .. just cause they fuck it up does not make the argument invalid .. the argumtn is NOT dependent on their good actions ...

It's the good old strawman argument in action and somewhat irrelevant given Fitzsimons is not a member of the Green caucus. It also reinforces the general ignorance of the political process, especially under MMP.

BTW Bill English and John Key both own investment properties - does that make them ineligible to comment on CGT? Or are the Greens subject to a different standard?

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 16:51

BTW Bill English and John Key both own investment properties - does that make them ineligible to comment on CGT?

So they are using their power to contradict their investment objectives, how is this bad?

you say it like its wrong to be successful like a communist or something, if we bag success or the suggestion of it we are all doomed especially if we vote with that attitude, i.e for a handout from the taxpayer.

Or are the Greens subject to a different standard?

No, they are subjected to the same as the rest of the parties out there.

shrub

26th July 2011, 17:21

So they are using their power to contradict their investment objectives, how is this bad?

you say it like its wrong to be successful like a communist or something, if we bag success or the suggestion of it we are all doomed especially if we vote with that attitude, i.e for a handout from the taxpayer.

Oh dear, you really are a little confused about politics and economics so I'll try and make it simple.

Capital gains tax (CGT) is something that Labour have come up with and it means capital gains, which is where an asset increases in value, is taxed. The capital gain on investment properties are probably the most common example of this; therefore CGT is going to mean people who have investment properties will pay more tax (you understand "pay more tax" well).

The NZ Treasury, the IMF. OECD and a raft of independent economic advisers have said a CGT is a really good idea for NZ's economic growth and long term prosperity and almost every other member of the OECD has one, but despite this Bill English and John Key both say it's a bad idea.

They will be negatively impacted by the introduction of a CGT, so are they qualified to comment?

And you love to condemn success - or is that only when people you don't agree with are successful?

BTW, you keeping an eye on them Somali untermenschens?

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 17:30

Oh dear, you really are a little confused about politics and economics so I'll try and make it simple.

HaHa yeah oops that will teach me to focus on one thing at a time DOH
phones two puters deadline for meeting YOU !!
fuck

yes youre right

:yes:

shrub

26th July 2011, 19:12

HaHa yeah oops that will teach me to focus on one thing at a time DOH
phones two puters deadline for meeting YOU !!
fuck

yes youre right

:yes:

Y:yes:es, I'm right. Again.

Quasievil

26th July 2011, 19:36

Y:yes:es, I'm right. Again.

where else ? or did I miss something ?

Swoop

26th July 2011, 20:19

For a start, communism is a concept that has a huge number of different interpretations – anarcho-communism, Marxism, Leninism, trotskysim, euro-communism, eco-communism etc
Much like Cheryl having to decide whether to wear the boob-tube or the lingere top to entice Dazza into the back of his Falcon panel van.

Either way Dazza is going to be fucked over.

The small problem with communist entities is the basic fact that they fail. The Soviet Union being the prime example, succumbed to individuals who thought they could make their lives better. Capitalism seems to do that and I guess Jeaneatte had a dose of capitalism with her windfarm involvement.

You made your choice of bike over Hyosung, Aprillia, Honda, Suzuki, Ducati, Husaberg, etc, etc.

Thank fuck for capitalism eh?, otherwise we would all be riding the Motorcycle Factory #12 (ex tractor factory #12) motorcycle type #54.

Interesting to see that communist china is adopting the capitalist pathway for success even though paying lip service to their red roots. This will obviously continue until the populus rebel against this method. Until then, Dazza will be well shafted.

Banditbandit

27th July 2011, 09:12

Much like Cheryl having to decide whether to wear the boob-tube or the lingere top to entice Dazza into the back of his Falcon panel van.

Either way Dazza is going to be fucked over.

The small problem with communist entities is the basic fact that they fail. The Soviet Union being the prime example, succumbed to individuals who thought they could make their lives better. Capitalism seems to do that and I guess Jeaneatte had a dose of capitalism with her windfarm involvement.

You made your choice of bike over Hyosung, Aprillia, Honda, Suzuki, Ducati, Husaberg, etc, etc.

Thank fuck for capitalism eh?, otherwise we would all be riding the Motorcycle Factory #12 (ex tractor factory #12) motorcycle type #54.

Interesting to see that communist china is adopting the capitalist pathway for success even though paying lip service to their red roots. This will obviously continue until the populus rebel against this method. Until then, Dazza will be well shafted.

See .. some of us would argue that there has never been a truly communist country ... Cuba may come close, but not even close enough for Government work.

Despite that, you also seem to have a limited view of what Communism means - and it's only a stage on the pathway from capitalism, through Socialism, Communism to the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat - (unfortunate choice of words from Mr Marx) which would be control by the people, of the people, for the people .. recognise that slogan from anywhere?

The reason many of us would argue that there has nwever been a communist state is that these states labeled as communist have seen their form of government as the end-point, not a stgae in the passage towards the end point .. and have been ruled by the bourgoisie and the intellegensia ... and created their own power structure ...

And capitalism would seem to be failing as well. The problem is not the system of the state, but the state itself ... all states are doomed to failure.

oneofsix

27th July 2011, 09:23

funny, it used to be communism verses democracy, now its communism verses capitalism. Guess that's because communism is both a financial system and a political system, at least according to western media.
No country has ever been truly communist, capitalist or democratic. No country ever will as these are ideas not really systems so anyone trying to build them as a system is doomed to fail. IMO

Swoop

27th July 2011, 12:45

Despite that, you also seem to have a limited view of what Communism means

(unfortunate choice of words from Mr Marx) which would be control by the people, of the people, for the people .. recognise that slogan from anywhere?
I have a fair view of communism, having traveled to The Soviet Union when it was still exactly that.

Quite true that all forms of rule are destined to fail in one way or another...

(The quote was from Monty Python:blip:)

Banditbandit

27th July 2011, 13:12

I have a fair view of communism, having traveled to The Soviet Union when it was still exactly that.

Quite true that all forms of rule are destined to fail in one way or another...

(The quote was from Monty Python:blip:)

Now I would suggest that having travelled to the Soviet Union you do not have a good view of Communism at all ...

Soviet Russia was not Communist - it was a totalitarian state run by the intellegensia for its own ends ... and to achieve what the intellegensia thought was good for "the workers" ..

They were just as full of their own bullshit and crap as most politicians - probably more so because they believed their shit did not stink ..

Winston001

27th July 2011, 16:41

... by the people, of the people, for the people .. recognise that slogan from anywhere?
.

Abraham Lincoln.

They have the concept of sustainability attached to them, but who had a vested financial interest in making this happen? Jeanette Fitzsimons (http://shareinvestornz.blogspot.com/2007/11/helen-clark-and-jenette-fitzsimons-knee.html).

The most glaring example and probably least known, is the conflict that arises from Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party and her major shareholding in the listed NZ windfarm owner , manufacturer and developer, Windflow Technologies.

Fitzsimons is a partner to the Labour Government and drives Labour's "Green Agenda" for them....

Wrong. It's a good example of how integrity can be twisted by others. Jeanette Fitzsimons believes in alternative energy technology. So she put a small amount of her money into a New Zealand company which was having a go. In other words she put her money where her mouth is.

So did a lot of other people who wanted to see a local company succeed. Hell - one of our problems is that Kiwis do not invest in our own businesses - then cry when overseas buyers step in.

No wait - this'll make the cynics happy. NZ Windflow Technologies is on the brink of closing down. Fail. So Jeanette, Helen Clark et al lose their money.

Don't ya just feel all warm and fuzzy to see Greens and environmentalists, not to mention NZ employees, engineers, and scientists - all failing. Yeah must be karma man teach them hippies to try and save the planet. :innocent:

shrub

27th July 2011, 17:09

Wrong. It's a good example of how integrity can be twisted by others. Jeanette Fitzsimons believes in alternative energy technology. So she put a small amount of her money into a New Zealand company which was having a go. In other words she put her money where her mouth is.

So did a lot of other people who wanted to see a local company succeed. Hell - one of our problems is that Kiwis do not invest in our own businesses - then cry when overseas buyers step in.

Don't ya just feel all warm and fuzzy to see Greens and environmentalists, not to mention NZ employees, engineers, and scientists - all failing. Yeah must be karma man teach them hippies to try and save the planet. :innocent:

That'll teach them. They should have bought residential rental property.

shrub

28th July 2011, 05:34

See .. some of us would argue that there has never been a truly communist country ... Cuba may come close, but not even close enough for Government work.

Despite that, you also seem to have a limited view of what Communism means - and it's only a stage on the pathway from capitalism, through Socialism, Communism to the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat - (unfortunate choice of words from Mr Marx) which would be control by the people, of the people, for the people .. recognise that slogan from anywhere?

The reason many of us would argue that there has nwever been a communist state is that these states labeled as communist have seen their form of government as the end-point, not a stgae in the passage towards the end point .. and have been ruled by the bourgoisie and the intellegensia ... and created their own power structure ...

And capitalism would seem to be failing as well. The problem is not the system of the state, but the state itself ... all states are doomed to failure.

I would say he has no idea what communism means beyond what he has been told to believe and unfortunately you're right, capitalism is failing spectacularly because too many people have been driven by greed and short term thinking.

Winston001

28th July 2011, 20:57

...and unfortunately you're right, capitalism is failing spectacularly because too many people have been driven by greed and short term thinking.

Ya think? Is the current situation so very different to the Tulip Mania in the 17th century? The South Seas Bubble in the 18th century? The Panic of 1893? The Great Depression of 1929? The recession of 1987?

These events were examples of dynamic capitalism. They occurred during periods of exuberance when money flowed freely and became available to entrepreneurs. The seeds of commerce flourished and even after each collapse there were a core of newly wealthy people and new enterprises.

Recessions are a necessary part of the capitalist model because they provide repricing of assets - and just as importantly, redistribution of wealth to new people. Capitalism is brutal but efficent. It aint broke.

Swoop

29th July 2011, 10:13

Recessions are a necessary part of the capitalist model. Capitalism is brutal but efficent. It aint broke.
It also flushes out the cowboys, snake-oil salesmen and persons of dubious character from the economic arena. Those with a good track record and who stand behind their products/services tend to do OK through recessionary times.

Banditbandit

29th July 2011, 10:15

shrub

29th July 2011, 10:23

Ya think? Is the current situation so very different to the Tulip Mania in the 17th century? The South Seas Bubble in the 18th century? The Panic of 1893? The Great Depression of 1929? The recession of 1987?

These events were examples of dynamic capitalism. They occurred during periods of exuberance when money flowed freely and became available to entrepreneurs. The seeds of commerce flourished and even after each collapse there were a core of newly wealthy people and new enterprises.

Recessions are a necessary part of the capitalist model because they provide repricing of assets - and just as importantly, redistribution of wealth to new people. Capitalism is brutal but efficent. It aint broke.

I agree, this latest collapse economic crisis is yet another in an ongoing series but this (and most previous) collapses have come about for one simple reason - huge amounts of money and vast wealth has been artificially created with no basis. In 87 I had a mate who was 26 and a millionaire. He owned a Porsche and a townhouse in Kohimarama and seemed to spend most of his time at restaurants and bars. In 88 he was working as a labourer, driving an ancient 120Y (that another mate lent him) and renting a room in a shithole in Papatoetoe. His money was based on nothing.

It was the same with the boom over the first decade of this century - I watched people who worked in ordinary jobs and owned nice houses worth a couple of hundred k in 2000 living in million dollar mansions, driving flash cars, going overseas etc. They had "capitalised" on the equity they had and bought more and more property and spent large chunks of their (tax free) equity. None of which actually existed anywhere outside of a piece of paper.

It is illogical that my house that was worth approx. $200k in 2000 is now worth $500k in 2011 when all that has been done to it is carpets, paint, a new kitchen and bathroom (max. $30k invested). Residential property has traditionally generated a real rate of return of around 2 -3%, therefore my house should be worth around $300k, so where has that extra $200k come from?

It's come from the greed and stupidity of people who are willing to pay $500k for a $300k house because they think they can sell it for $600k in a year or so, and they have borrowed money from (mostly) China to do that.

The west is the greediest and stupidest civilisation in history and our wealth and oppulent lifestyle is not actually based on anything, just like the equity I have in my house. We have basically made our money by moving money from one place to another and about the only thing NZ has actually produced and sold is milk powder and allowing foreigners to look at us.

Our beloved leaders have this strange idea that if we cut taxes and spend less running the country NZ will some how mystically come right, and that's the same idiotic idea that the yanks are operating on. They build a spreadsheet with projections and everyone nods and says it looks good, and so that's what we do. On a business analogy it is like a company increasing the staff wages while cutting holidays and spending less on marketing and on plant to pay for those pay rises. IDIOTIC.

If we want to get ourselves out of the crap we need to stop thinking we can get rich simply by owning money, and start making shit that people from other countries want to buy from us for more than it cost to make, or do stuff for people in other countries that makes more money than it costs for us to do that stuff. And dairy is not the answer. The true cost of dairying is a lot higher than we realise and we are almost certainly not making nearly as much as we think, especially when you consider the cost of the debt that most dairy farmer carry.

Winston001

29th July 2011, 13:46

I agree, this latest collapse economic crisis is yet another in an ongoing series...huge amounts of money and vast wealth has been artificially created with no basis. In 87 I had a mate who was 26 and a millionaire...

Residential property has traditionally generated a real rate of return of around 2 -3%

....the greed and stupidity of people who are willing to pay $500k for a $300k house because they think they can sell it for $600k in a year or so

The west is the greediest and stupidest civilisation in history...

If we want to get ourselves out of the crap we need to stop thinking we can get rich simply by owning money, and start making shit that people from other countries want to buy from us for more than it cost to make, or do stuff for people in other countries that makes more money than it costs for us to do that stuff. And dairy is not the answer.

Good post and too much to precisely respond to.

Land/houses - historically (over the last 200 years) the return has been about 10%pa. Shares returned about 12.5%pa for solid blue chip companies. Inflation needs to be deducted from these figures.

I agree with you totally that too much effort in expended in money/wealth management. As we know, whole careers can now be built in merchant banking, currency trading, and financial advising. Its been that way for most of my adult life despite my dear old dad insisting the only value in a piece of land or a company share was the income you could get from it.

He was right. Yet even now after the GFC has revealed the money markets to have feet of clay, the financial industry rolls on.

Will leave the rest for another post.

Winston001

29th July 2011, 14:16

Someone here - Shrub? linked to Werewolf a few days ago - very interesting.

http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/06/the-case-for-corporate-reform/

Its an interview with Rod Oram who, instead of simply criticising, has some ideas. For example:

"So what sort of things might we do? Christchurch is situated close to Lincoln, he says, which carries out good dairy farming research. [Christchurch] has got a medical school. “How about a lacto-pharmaceuticals institute in the centre of town, close to the hospital and medical school – and that would be working out what are the therapeutic values from milk, and taking that further into bio-actives and lacto-pharmaceuticals ? That’s very difficult science. We have very few people doing it. And its very expensive science. Nestle has been doing this for years. And last year – in what should be a very scary development for us – Nestle announced an incremental investment of $US500 million in that kind of science.”

Oram's central point is as a nation we still rely on our 19th century strengths viz. agriculture. We can expand that a bit more but not much. So smarter high-tech products derived from agricultural science is a no-brainer.

We are clever at this stuff. A mate of mine is a world-class expert on animal genetics and is invited to conferences monthly. And he is just one of our scientists, he doesn't work alone. The knowledge is there but poorly funded.

shrub

29th July 2011, 14:17

I agree with you totally that too much effort in expended in money/wealth management. As we know, whole careers can now be built in merchant banking, currency trading, and financial advising. Its been that way for most of my adult life despite my dear old dad insisting the only value in a piece of land or a company share was the income you could get from it.

He was right. Yet even now after the GFC has revealed the money markets to have feet of clay, the financial industry rolls on.

My dad was one one the smartest and wisest people I have ever met, and he once said the only real income is something you can attribute to having either made something, improved something or helped someone to get something they need and couldn't have got without your help, and that all other income is bludging.

Our Dear Leader made a shitload of money moving numbers around - he didn't actually DO anything, MAKE anything or give anyone anything they actually needed and its people like him who have been the problem, much more than bureaucrats or beneficiaries. Bob the Banker stitches up a few deals, moves money from one country to another, then back again and in the process gets a commission and bonus package of millions. How does that work? It wasn't his money, someone earning $50k could have done the paperwork just fine and he hasn't actually made anything or improved anything. The total amount of money, bricks, cheese or whisky on the planet and in the market didn't change, yet he plucked a huge chunk of cash out of the pot. Where did it come from?

And that's the problem. There are a million Bobs out there all chowing down at the trough, and so either everyone else gets less, more zeros are added to the bottom line, or a combination thereof. The people that can get given less without creating a problem are becoming poorer and poorer; and combined they have bugger all anyway, and while you and I in the middle are getting squeezed there is a limit to how much that can happen. So it all comes down to adding a couple more zeros, and lifting the debt ceiling which means we can borrow more from China so Bob (and John) can get their great wodges of cash.

shrub

29th July 2011, 14:36

Oram's central point is as a nation we still rely on our 19th century strengths viz. agriculture. We can expand that a bit more but not much. So smarter high-tech products derived from agricultural science is a no-brainer.

We are clever at this stuff. A mate of mine is a world-class expert on animal genetics and is invited to conferences monthly. And he is just one of our scientists, he doesn't work alone. The knowledge is there but poorly funded.

That's pretty much the answer mate. Or at least part of it. We are a nation of innovators and we have a (comparitively) well educated population. We have good universities and some of them lead the world in some areas, so we need to move on from being a big old farm and become a laboratory and precision engineering factory.

My area of research is in sustainable business practices and one of the things I have identified is that New Zealand is lagging most of the developed and developing world in this area which is hurting our competitiveness as much as our dollar and NZ exporters (the few that exist) are finding that the market is looking at how they operate and taking their business elsewhere. The halfwits that listen to Wayne down at the pub announcing that AGW doesn't exist don't realise that a company's carbon footprint is one of the factors that is starting to be assessed in a purchase decision and just because they don't believe the scientists doesn't mean the CEO of Megacorp Ltd doesn't.

Winston001

29th July 2011, 16:25

.. the only real income is something you can attribute to having either made something, improved something or helped someone to get something they need and couldn't have got without your help...

Our Dear Leader made a shitload of money moving numbers around - he didn't actually DO anything, MAKE anything or give anyone anything they actually needed...

Didn't realise Kim Jong-Ill was a currency trader? ;)

The moderate view is that the world needs a certain number of people who are clever at understanding and managing money flows. Such experts make it possible for a Belgian dentist to invest in Ethiopian farming. Or a Chinese factory owner to invest in a NZ engineering company. Or for superannuation funds to buy bonds issued by foreign governments.

So using your dad's wise words, financial traders put together lenders and borrowers who would otherwise not have the opportunity.

Where it all goes wrong IMHO is that instead of say 100,000 people doing this globally, there are millions. As you say they produce nothing and in fact are a burden on money movements.

So many people are focused on money and wealth management that some become desperate to find new ways to attract funds. That is how the sub-prime mortgage CDOs were created to sell secure (HA!) investment packages.

This is the point where I depart from capitalism. It might be efficient but ordinary people get hurt which is simply wrong.

shrub

29th July 2011, 16:53

This is the point where I depart from capitalism. It might be efficient but ordinary people get hurt which is simply wrong.

I think the key thing to remember about capitalism is that it is an adaptation of the mosty primal of social differentiators. A hundred thousand years ago the cave man who was physically strongest and most able to hunt down a mastadon was the dominant one and the weakest in the tribe usually ended up missing out on food or a place by the fire and so died out - good old Darwinism in action. Today we don't hunt mastadons with clubs to decide who is the dominant member of the tribe, we use financial instruments and as is the way with Darwinism, the weakest (those with the smallest financial club) miss out on the good bits and a place by the fire. In the west they don't (generally) die, but we make sure we keep them down. Ever wondered why the rich get richer and the poor go to prison?

SPman

29th July 2011, 20:07

The moderate view is that the world needs a certain number of people who are clever at understanding and managing money flows And fair enough - just keep them away from trying to run a country! Despite what people have been led to believe, running a country is totally different to running a business! Money people just see government as another way of lining their pockets and generally couldn't give a shit if they bleed the populace dry in the process. To them it's just a big bottomless money pit, and if they fuck over society in the process, well, it's their right, 'cause they're cleverer than everybody else and they and their apologists deserve it ..........

 - 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. - Thomas Jefferson, 1778!

oldrider

29th July 2011, 21:09

Quasievil

29th July 2011, 21:30

And fair enough - just keep them away from trying to run a country! Despite what people have been led to believe, running a country is totally different to running a business!

The Sky the Sky its falling !!!

:facepalm:we should really let people with no money skills run our country eh ?
even better would be tree hugging save the gay whale bludgers , that would be a winner.
Country is doing fine with a money man at the top thanks

Quasievil

29th July 2011, 21:33

Money people just see government as another way of lining their pockets and generally couldn't give a shit if they bleed the populace dry in the process.

Forgot this Bit, the current Money man doesnt take a Salary, he gives it to Charity, what where you saying ?

lastly, do you realise how much hidden code is in your post?

shrub

30th July 2011, 12:24

The Sky the Sky its falling !!!

:facepalm:we should really let people with no money skills run our country eh ?
even better would be tree hugging save the gay whale bludgers , that would be a winner.
Country is doing fine with a money man at the top thanks

Yes, quite. You intrigue me Quasi, you're not as stupid as you first appear and are probably quite intelligent, but you are poorly educated and very naiive which means you base all your opinions on the simplistic, highly polarised and largely false dogma you are fed by the people you want to believe. Your lack of education means you haven't learned to read critically and you don't bother reading anything that you don't agree with or don't understand.

John Key is NOT a "money man" in the sense of being an economic wizard or even an expert on finance or economics. Basically he made his fortune as a wheeler dealer on the global markets and did so in an era when it was quite easy to do that - the 90s. It's like getting a guy who is really good at buying and selling bikes to be the mechanic for a racing team. BTW he doesn't actually make the financial decisions (or really any decisions), he has a team of advisors who do that.

He (and National) have done an appalling job of running this country and we are very deep in the shit right now, and getting deeper every day - we are extremely close to joining the PIGS. Our exchange rate alone is killing this country and as long as we are tied to the idiotic RB Act that won't change. We are currently highly dependent on agriculture and tourism to earn money, and being so dependent on such a narrow sector is incredibly dangerous, especially as dairy (our great white hope) is an industry mired in ridiculous levels of debt and one that is impossible to enter without incurring more debty. And selling shares in the energy companis is quite probably the stupidest thing I have seen a political party do since Muldoon made inflation illegal and ultimately has the potential to economically cripple NZ. It seems the only solution Key et al have to lifting our economic performance is tax cuts and reductions in government spending combined with asset sales.

I won't waste my time explaining what's wrong and what we need to do because you won't understand me, and even if you could you would refuse to, because what I have to say goes against your cherished worldview. Kind of like expecting a fundamentalist Christian to believe that the Bible is a book written by superstitious human beings thousands of years ago, so has almost no value or relevance.

And on that note, I am sick of computers, sick of politics and sick of Christchurch so I am going to fuck off to Kaikoura for a few days and get drunk.

shrub

30th July 2011, 12:36

Forgot this Bit, the current Money man doesnt take a Salary, he gives it to Charity, what where you saying ?

lastly, do you realise how much hidden code is in your post?

Yes, but he made a lot of money over the last 12 months - I wonder how much of that was tax free capital gains? I'd say the majority of it, and how much of your income did you pay tax on last year?

Hidden code? Lket me guess, he is in league with Al Gore and Nandor Tancoz to take over the world by making you pay more tax and is using KB to communicate a secret message to the headquarters in a volcanohttp://www.captphilonline.com/images/Lost%20Underground.jpg?

oldrider

30th July 2011, 13:09

I am drunk.

"so nothing has changed then"! (Too good an opportunity to ignore) :lol:

Quasievil

30th July 2011, 14:48

I won't waste my time explaining what's wrong and what we need to do because you won't understand me,

What if I say pretty please would you then.

Fact is tho you cant so I understand...........as well as disagree completely with every thing you said, but it was funny as fuck (seriously)

short-circuit

30th July 2011, 15:16

What if I say pretty please would you then.

Fact is tho you cant so I understand...........as well as disagree completely with every thing you said, but it was funny as fuck (seriously)

I think Shrub was charitable in suggesting you have a modicum of intelligence - I've yet to see any evidence.

Great argument you've got there btw - "I disagree with everything you said so there"

Quasievil

30th July 2011, 15:49

I think Shrub was charitable in suggesting you have a modicum of intelligence - I've yet to see any evidence.

Great argument you've got there btw - "I disagree with everything you said so there"

Thats a bit rough, Shrub and I have been elbowing each other a bit lately, and that was just another one in response.
Shrub in the previous posts responding to mine generally doesnt have any substance at all behind his comments.

"John Key is not a money man" what the fuck, john key made his fortune in the money markets, to suggest he doesnt know or understand money is completely ridiculous, he also has a bachelor of commerce degree in accounting, so seriously WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TAKING ABOUT?

Furthermore John Key and his Government have done a very good Job in managing the NZ economy during its term thus far given the situation they recieved it in (after 9 years of poor government) from Labour add to that a Global recession, a Subprime Mortgage crises and its impacts on NZ ,and more recent events such as the Earthquakes and its current and future impacts.
Fact is the majority of New Zealanders share my opinion also judging by the current poll surveys they dont need a coalition partner, sorry if that hurts you but thats the facts.

I however am on the fence still, I dont like their subscription to the ETS scam, nor do I like the idea of selling our assets, I also dont like the ACC vs the bikers crap.

In response to the NZ dollar comment, you must be insane if you think for a moment NZ can muscle out the influences of the declining US dollar, do you think we are a major player in the global market or something?
I will admit I dont understand the impacts of the RB act, whats the deal there?
(Im man enough to admit if I dont understand, so you can whack in another insult there if you want which Im sure you do)

You spend most of your writings on this thread saying things like "I cant be bothered explaining" and "I wont waste my time" etc etc etc, but really you dont or havent actually said anything that will encourage me or anyone (given my long list of green rep on this) to think you can place yourself on the supreme political pedestal that you seem to claim.

so in closing say something to back yourself up or heaven forbid say something that you think might improve the situation?

Quasievil

30th July 2011, 15:55

Hidden code? Lket me guess, he is in league with Al Gore and Nandor Tancoz to take over the world by making you pay more tax and is using KB to communicate a secret

Hit reply to SPmans quote so you understand, there is significant code there, have a look it wasnt that hard to figure out.
fuck and you guys insult my intelligence

mashman

31st July 2011, 00:22

Forgot this Bit, the current Money man doesnt take a Salary, he gives it to Charity, what where you saying ?

Do you reckon he claimed his 33.33333% tax incentive :blink:...

Quasievil

31st July 2011, 07:57

Do you reckon he claimed his 33.33333% tax incentive :blink:...

I dont know, if he was entitled to it why shouldnt he?

mashman

31st July 2011, 10:24

I dont know, if he was entitled to it why shouldnt he?

Entitled? Like the bludgers you mean? :killingme ironic much. He has millions in the "bank", yet claims money off the govt because he is entitled to it? because he made a charitable donation? :killingme... I'm not saying that he has done this. But given his position as PM etc... I would have expected more. Tis why I don't vote. They really aren't there for NZ at all... but that's just my opinion.

Quasievil

31st July 2011, 10:47

Tis why I don't vote.

Ahhhh the Ostrich effect, you choose instead to bury your head in the sand and not try to change anything (apart from KB ranting that is)

so if your a politician youre not entitled to anything? is that your argument?

Quasievil

31st July 2011, 10:49

Entitled? Like the bludgers you mean?

I fairly sure one works and the other doesnt, I dont see the irony here.

mashman

31st July 2011, 11:31

I fairly sure one works and the other doesnt, I dont see the irony here.

So you should be allowed to take out, as long as you have put in? :niceone: Fair enough...

rainman

31st July 2011, 11:56

Their mate Garth from down at the pub reckons there should be less MPs, and Garth has a grouse Commodore and a hot missus, so you gotta take what he says seriously.

Sorry for coming in so late on this thread, but I couldn't resist. This comment is, sadly, the most succinct definition of NZ politics and society that I have seen. Bravo shrub!

Fact is the majority of New Zealanders share my opinion also judging by the current poll surveys they dont need a coalition partner, sorry if that hurts you but thats the facts.

Quasi, fact is a vast number of NZers are dumber than two bags of hammers, a fact that you have ably demonstrated on this thread. Sorry if that's mean, but... well, you obviously just don't see how funny your arguments are (at least at first, until I think about the fact that there are many people that actually think like you, then I also want to go somewhere and get drunk).

I recently saw a friend of mine who took up residence in NZ a few years ago after a highly successful career in Europe. He's leaving. Why? Because we are a "dull and visionless people, almost universally lacking in capability and intelligence". We're "governed at all levels by some of the most incompetent buffoons" he's ever seen. He's leaving because in his time here he has "only found a handful of people with a brain and who are worth talking to". Hardly anyone he has met "has any concept of the real world", and we are "incredibly immature". NZ business is "pathetic" and "managed by short-sighted, small-minded dolts". He's a rightie in terms of political DNA, not a big fan of the Nats though. Likes Labour's CGT, not Labour itself. He has no particular axe to grind, and actively wanted to come here and build something new and successful. He's tried to launch a number of things that would probably have worked elsewhere. His conclusion: We're too small, and too small-minded - just not up to it. Our loss.

We're well screwed. Almost undoubtedly National will win the election, much though I would hope this would not be the case, and we will be even less well placed to deal with the real world than we were at the last election. The consequences of this decision will probably cripple the country for decades, but hey, democracy's a bitch, right?

SPman

31st July 2011, 13:05

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shrub/rainman again.

Quasievil

31st July 2011, 14:09

Well Shrub, Rainman, Spman

can you please advise me which part of "my argument" is of particular concern?

did I even have one?

Winston001

31st July 2011, 21:03

Because we are a "dull and visionless people, almost universally lacking in capability and intelligence". We're "governed at all levels by some of the most incompetent buffoons" he's ever seen. He's leaving because in his time here he has "only found a handful of people with a brain and who are worth talking to". Hardly anyone he has met "has any concept of the real world", and we are "incredibly immature". NZ business is "pathetic" and "managed by short-sighted, small-minded dolts". He's a rightie in terms of political DNA, not a big fan of the Nats though. Likes Labour's CGT, not Labour itself. He has no particular axe to grind, and actively wanted to come here and build something new and successful. He's tried to launch a number of things that would probably have worked elsewhere. His conclusion: We're too small, and too small-minded - just not up to it. Our loss.

Is it possible he is wrong? That his impressions are personal to him because of his own expectations? I'm sure you could find plenty of criticisms of every country in the world.

The contrast is the people - Americans and Europeans - who move here because they find NZ safe and idyllic.

We're well screwed. Almost undoubtedly National will win the election, much though I would hope this would not be the case, and we will be even less well placed to deal with the real world than we were at the last election. The consequences of this decision will probably cripple the country for decades, but hey, democracy's a bitch, right?

Ya see, this is where we differ. I do not expect the government - any government - to bail this small South Pacific nation out of the turmoil of world economics. Each of us has to do what we can ourselves.

rainman

31st July 2011, 21:57

Is it possible he is wrong? That his impressions are personal to him because of his own expectations?

Well, of course his impressions are personal - he has failed to find evidence of extensive intelligent life on Planet Kiwi, despite an active search. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist anywhere of course, just that it's rare. His diagnosis is that we're a naive and unsophisticated lot, and it's hard to disagree.

I use him as but the most stark and recent example - it's a complaint I hear frequently from a range of immigrants, to be honest. And you might know my personal opinion of the maturity of our social and political discourse from my other comments.

Ya see, this is where we differ. I do not expect the government - any government - to bail this small South Pacific nation out of the turmoil of world economics. Each of us has to do what we can ourselves.

I agree entirely with the last sentence. I'm not saying any government will bail us out: I'm suggesting one lot will screw the place up worse than the other, that the consequences will last a long time, and that, in general, we're too dumb to work this out.

Shadows

31st July 2011, 22:18

I laughed when labour announced that $15 minimum wage increase. Surely that's a sound economic idea not a voter grab... :innocent:

I laughed because all of their voters are dole bludgers. Talk about missing your target market.

Quasievil

31st July 2011, 22:34

Well, of course his impressions are personal - he has failed to find evidence of extensive intelligent life on Planet Kiwi, despite an active search.

"He" sounds like an arrogant sanctimonious twat and we are better off without him, good riddance.
So where oh where did this "S T" depart to , Australia ?

rainman

31st July 2011, 23:49

"He" sounds like an arrogant sanctimonious twat and we are better off without him, good riddance.
So where oh where did this "S T" depart to , Australia ?

And there I was thinking we'd want more wealthy innovators to come live here, silly me. Perhaps we should be courting the "investors with low standards" demographic.

He will be going back to Europe, if it makes any difference. Possibly stopping in SE Asia to start up some businesses on the way.

Quasievil

1st August 2011, 07:41

And there I was thinking we'd want more wealthy innovators to come live here, silly me. Perhaps we should be courting the "investors with low standards" demographic.

He will be going back to Europe, if it makes any difference. Possibly stopping in SE Asia to start up some businesses on the way.

Will he have time for lunch in between to? or perhaps a bit of shopping, FFS what a load of crap, is this your imaginary friend?

Yes we do, and he came and by his own decision left, what are you proposing take his money and lock him up?
his choice to come his choice to leave.

Perhaps it was his sanctimonious attitude thats the problem ...............CLEARLY !!

Quasievil

1st August 2011, 08:55

Well Shrub, Rainman, Spman

can you please advise me which part of "my argument" is of particular concern?

did I even have one?

Thought as much, your ramblings and abuse towards me are about as pointless as your shallow and failing politics.

Ocean1

1st August 2011, 12:36

Well, of course his impressions are personal - he has failed to find evidence of extensive intelligent life on Planet Kiwi, despite an active search.

To be honest, dude, the vast majority of incompetent senior managers I’ve come into contact with have been imports. Useless poms running from a poor performance history, aggressive Aussies encouraged by the lack of militant unions, it’s none of it home made.

We do have our own incompetents and arseholes, but they often get weeded out earlier in their careers, (or fuck off overseas where they're better appreciated). Problem is that Kiwi boards have the same cringe-worthy, shallow rooted and largely incorrect opinion of kiwi managers as you and your mate, so they hire imported fuckwits for preference.

I despair, I really do.