Greenie hypocrites overcharge taxpayer for minister's houses

[peasea]

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

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

Freedom of speech and democracy in action!

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

Go figure.

[MisterD]

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

Go figure.

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

[rainman]

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

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

Freedom of speech and democracy in action!

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

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

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

[Skyryder]

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

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


Skyryder

[ynot slow]

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


Skyryder

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

[peasea]

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

What? "Freedom of speech"?

[peasea]

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

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

[SARGE]

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

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

[MikeL]

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

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

[jono035]

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

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

[MikeL]

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

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

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

[jono035]

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

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

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

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

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

[rainman]

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

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

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

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

[jono035]

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

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

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

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