Free speech.

[carbonhed]

Do try to keep up, ACT went the same way every other single-issue party went: they thought they could do compromise and not get burned. The current topic, however, is the green's choice to support labour, (in spite of the fact that national's environmental policies matched theirs more closely) and labour's willingness to sell their pre-election support of the sanctuary in order to become the govt. Wouldn't you say that was a particularly ironic slap in the face to anyone that voted for them based on the environmental portfolio of either party? Isn't that a pretty accurate and damning indictment of the current shape of MMP?

Is it too much to expect that you address the issue? Or will you continue to troll through your obviously extensive list of "historical national insults to your feelings" in order to attempt to prove that national is worse than labour? Here's an idea, how about you apply the same inane, interminable drivel about "big business's" support of national to the current "government" and see if it sticks there any better.

Or I guess you could continue to pretend I'm the national bogeyman, frantically try to put words in my mouth and then desperately defend "your team", no matter the cost to your credibility. It's a good thing you're in full straw man production, there's obviously no shortage of straws to grasp.

I salute your patience :-)

Ideological possession is a destroyer of souls.

"Fortunately, the epistemic immune system of most mentally healthy people protects them from ideological possession. The core of the immune response—and indeed an effective cure—is Love of Truth, specifically the holding of Truth as the highest moral value."

https://fee.org/articles/the-diagnos...al-possession/

[Drew]

That's horseshit,Its news to me that i can have people could be removed........

I didn't even know the site was still moderated, let alone people being sin binned.

However Pete's sanctimony was grating on me something fierce, cock that he is.

[Ocean1]

I salute your patience :-)

Ideological possession is a destroyer of souls.

"Fortunately, the epistemic immune system of most mentally healthy people protects them from ideological possession. The core of the immune response—and indeed an effective cure—is Love of Truth, specifically the holding of Truth as the highest moral value."

https://fee.org/articles/the-diagnos...al-possession/

Very relevant: https://fee.org/articles/the-ideolog...-re-saying-is/

"It is tempting for both sides to just dismiss the other as “wrong” or “stupid,” but what we have to understand is that, in conversations on topics like this, the ideological divide has become so deep that, in a sense, both sides are speaking a different language. Thus, when someone like Cathy Newman hears someone like Dr. Peterson speak, she’s not just trying to manipulate the conversation by putting words in his mouth; her ideology actually leads her to hear what she claims he is saying."

[husaberg]

Do try to keep up, ACT went the same way every other single-issue party went: they thought they could do compromise and not get burned. The current topic, however, is the green's choice to support labour, (in spite of the fact that national's environmental policies matched theirs more closely) and labour's willingness to sell their pre-election support of the sanctuary in order to become the govt. Wouldn't you say that was a particularly ironic slap in the face to anyone that voted for them based on the environmental portfolio of either party? Isn't that a pretty accurate and damning indictment of the current shape of MMP?

Is it too much to expect that you address the issue? Or will you continue to troll through your obviously extensive list of "historical national insults to your feelings" in order to attempt to prove that national is worse than labour? Here's an idea, how about you apply the same inane, interminable drivel about "big business's" support of national to the current "government" and see if it sticks there any better.

Or I guess you could continue to pretend I'm the national bogeyman, frantically try to put words in my mouth and then desperately defend "your team", no matter the cost to your credibility. It's a good thing you're in full straw man production, there's obviously no shortage of straws to grasp.

defend my team you are confusing your view with mine. the only reason this was even brought up by you in the first place was "your team"had another loss.
you never brought it up when the green party failed to pass the essentually same bill and national was in power now did you.
In fact the whole 9 years National was in power i dont recall you saying anything but purely positive things about how great national was.
But since National lost the electection, NZ first votes against a bill intoduced by National in your mind its purely because its beholding to the Fishing lobby you state it as being a fact.
Something i bet you would never say in a paper for fear of being sued.
Act votes the exact same way gives the exact same reason on essentially the same bill previously, yet they dont get accused of the same by you. in fact far from it. you now defend it as being a different mater entirely.
You are a hypocrite.

[carbonhed]

Very relevant: https://fee.org/articles/the-ideolog...-re-saying-is/

"It is tempting for both sides to just dismiss the other as “wrong” or “stupid,” but what we have to understand is that, in conversations on topics like this, the ideological divide has become so deep that, in a sense, both sides are speaking a different language. Thus, when someone like Cathy Newman hears someone like Dr. Peterson speak, she’s not just trying to manipulate the conversation by putting words in his mouth; her ideology actually leads her to hear what she claims he is saying."

It's an alarming rabbit hole that I keep skimming past without crossing the event horizon. The humanities have a lot to answer for.

[Ocean1]

Lets See NZ first votes against a bill in your mind its purely because its beholding to the Fishing lobby you state it as being a fact.
Act votes the exact same way gives the exact same reason on esentually the same bill previously yet they dont get accused of the same by you. in fact far from it.
You are a hypocrite.

Yeah, about that "let's see"... You don't. Ever. You fabricate something that suits your narrative. Badly.

As in: me straight up reporting what the article said, (you can go ahead and read it any time you like, or you could just read my comments on it, same thing) and you immediately launching into "must attack bogyman" mode. I didn't comment on ACT because they weren't mentioned in the article, their votes on the matter were ancient history and it had nothing to do with either the green's incompetence, labours back door deal with Winston in the recent "election" or the utter failure of MMP to provide anything resembling what's written on the lablel.

But fuck national just as hard as you can, by all means.

[Ocean1]

It's an alarming rabbit hole that I keep skimming past without crossing the event horizon. The humanities have a lot to answer for.

We could always stop subsidising them, it's not as if the average BA grad is capable of actually convincing anyone to pay them for anything they produce.

Must make sure the daughter gets to accidentally see above...

[husaberg]

Yeah, about that "let's see"... You don't. Ever. You fabricate something that suits your narrative. Badly.

As in: me straight up reporting what the article said, (you can go ahead and read it any time you like, or you could just read my comments on it, same thing) and you immediately launching into "must attack bogyman" mode. I didn't comment on ACT because they weren't mentioned in the article, their votes on the matter were ancient history and it had nothing to do with either the green's incompetence, labours back door deal with Winston in the recent "election" or the utter failure of MMP to provide anything resembling what's written on the lablel.

But fuck national just as hard as you can, by all means.

Okay show me a post you made that was critical of National then. If i am fabricating your narrative you should have hundreds of them.
Your whining about Peters now is sour grapes. I say this as you never moaned about him when he was in coalition with National.
As for your claim of Labours pre election promise of support go ahead and show me it.
Because the only thing i can find is one from 2011 and one from Andrew Little
where he clearly said

he Labour Party has joined the Maori Party in reconsidering its support for a law change which will establish a massive marine sanctuary in the Kermadec Islands.

Labour leader Andrew Little said his party was "very concerned" about a legal challenge by Maori fisheries group Te Ohu Kaimoana, which said the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary breached a historic fisheries agreement between iwi and the Crown.

"We haven't got to the point of withdrawing our support but we certainly ... share those concerns," Mr Little said at Parliament today.

"We'll have a reconsideration in due course about what our stance on the bill is."

Jacinta said this

“Our intention is to work alongside Māori and use our best endeavours to achieve the Kermadec Sanctuary. We will be seeking consensus and agreement with our support parties to find a resolution,” .

Acts vote was against the same bill for the same reason given by NZF yet despite me pointing this out to you you claim now its ancient history how come you cant bring yourself to accuse ACT of the same crime. Until i pointed it out you claimed the Reserve was all nationas idea when it clearly was introduced as a bill first by labour and then by the Green party.
As for backroom deals National couldn't form a government Labour did. National attempted to enter a deal with NZF they couldn't.
Get over it or at the very least stop posting such hypocritical commentary ever time national loses face. Because there is at least a few more years to come of more national party failures in store.
The reason National couldn't get the bill passed is pretty clear they dont have the votes or the support needed to pass a bill into law.
Personally i would like the reserve established but you have to sort out the other issues first to make sure it is not challenged in the courts and results in years more compensation challenges, but don't let that fact get in the way. Because thats why act never voted in favour of it last time and why NZF didn't this time either.
PS i am not fucking National they are doing it all by themselves. the only reason they are grandstanding on this one is they cant even get a mention on the telly now and their leader is struggling in the polls.

but not when it comes to raising campaign funds though.

Simon Bridges has sent a strong message to the party about his popularity amongst deep-pocketed supporters after hauling in $120,000 in donations.
Companies connected to Bay of Plenty rich lister Paul Adams, who last year had an estimated worth of $135 million, donated $31,000 to Bridges to contest the safe Tauranga seat, and $50,000 to the National Party. Regional roading concerns were top of mind for Adams when he made his decision to donate.
"As the Minister of Transport we wanted to make sure he was doing his bit for our region," Adams said.
Bridges said his donation haul was a reflection of how hard he had worked and lobbied for his home turf.
"The value that [the community has] gotten out of the last government, that they have put their money where their mouth is."The value that [the community has] gotten out of the last government, that they have put their money where their mouth is.

National Party received three times more money in donations than Labour in 2017
The National Party received almost $4.6 million in donations in the lead up to the last election – three times more money than it was allowed to spend in the campaign.
It received a one-off $150,000 donation from a company called Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry. The company, founded by fast food mogul Lang Lin,
National also received a $100,000 donation from Auckland-based company Alpha Laboratories, and four separate donations totalling $19,770 from Alpha health care, which is also an Auckland-based company but with different shareholders.
ong-time ACT and National Party donor Lianna Hagaman donated a total of $28,765.75, spread across four donations. Lianna (Lani) Hagaman is the wife and business partner of the late-Christchurch rich-lister Earl Hagaman.
Business media rich-lister Barry Colman also gave a healthy sum, along with property investor Philip Hong, Heartland Bank, Gibbston Valley Winery, and alcohol lobby group Spirits NZ.
The party received two donations over $1500 from overseas, which it had to disclose. One was a $4000 donation from someone called Xinyuan Zhang; the other was almost $50,000 from Australian company Go-Airlie.
Meanwhile, a group called Timaru Nationalist Trust also donated $20,000 to National. There is no trust by this name listed in New Zealand's trusts and societies register.

[Ocean1]

Okay show me a post you made that was critical of National then. If i am fabricating your narrative you should have hundreds of them.
Your whining about Peters now is sour grapes. I say this as you never moaned about him when he was in coalition with National.
As for your claim of Labours pre election promise of support go ahead and show me it.
Because the only thing i can find is one from 2011 and one from Andrew Little
where he clearly said
Jacinta said this
Acts vote was against the same bill for the same reason given by NZF yet despite me pointing this out to you you claim now its ancient history how come you cant bring yourself to accuse ACT of the same crime. Until i pointed it out you claimed the Reserve was all nationas idea when it clearly was introduced as a bill first by labour and then by the Green party.
As for backroom deals National couldn't form a government Labour did. National attempted to enter a deal with NZF they couldn't.
Get over it or at the very least stop posting such hypocritical commentary ever time national loses face. Because there is at least a few more years to come of more national party failures in store.
The reason National couldn't get the bill passed is pretty clear they dont have the votes or the support needed to pass a bill into law.
Personally i would like the reserve established but you have to sort out the other issues first to make sure it is not challenged in the courts and results in years more compensation challenges, but don't let that fact get in the way. Because thats why act never voted in favour of it last time and why NZF didn't this time either.
PS i am not fucking National they are doing it all by themselves. the only reason they are grandstanding on this one is they cant even get a mention on the telly now and their leader is struggling in the polls.

Be fucked, if you want proof I'm the bogyman you can find it yourself.

In the meantime, I'll point out that I'm not the one representing political ideologies, I'm pointing to any policy changes immediately after any election that's as fraudulent as any shyster's handshake, no matter who perpetrated it.

Now why is it seemingly impossible to have you comment on the latest, most historically egregious example, where major POST ELECTION policy changes were implemented by three of the lower polling parties in exchange for the corner office? Ohyeah, I forgot, you're ideologically blind to anything that threatens your marxist world view.

The fact remains: had the greens done a deal with national they'd have their kermadec reserve. The voters would have what they voted for. That the political influence behind the bill's failure is iwi owned fisheries business interests is obvious to everyone, except, apparently you. If that doesn't at least raise a few red flags about the political accountability to the voting public the current incarnation of MMP represents then you're beyond all hope, comrade.

[husaberg]

Be fucked, if you want proof I'm the bogyman you can find it yourself.

In the meantime, I'll point out that I'm not the one representing political ideologies, I'm pointing to any policy changes immediately after any election that's as fraudulent as any shyster's handshake, no matter who perpetrated it.

Now why is it seemingly impossible to have you comment on the latest, most historically egregious example, where major POST ELECTION policy changes were implemented by three of the lower polling parties in exchange for the corner office? Ohyeah, I forgot, you're ideologically blind to anything that threatens your marxist world view.

The fact remains: had the greens done a deal with national they'd have their kermadec reserve. The voters would have what they voted for. That the political influence behind the bill's failure is iwi owned fisheries business interests is obvious to everyone, except, apparently you. If that doesn't at least raise a few red flags about the political accountability to the voting public the current incarnation of MMP represents then you're beyond all hope, comrade.

You wont provide proof as you dont have post where you have criticised National
There was no policy change after the election. Labours reticence until it was cleared up legally was signaled prior to the election.
Provide proof if you have some because i have shown what was Labours Stance prior to the election.

The Labour Party has joined the Maori Party in reconsidering its support for a law change which will establish a massive marine sanctuary in the Kermadec Islands.

Labour leader Andrew Little said his party was "very concerned" about a legal challenge by Maori fisheries group Te Ohu Kaimoana, which said the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary breached a historic fisheries agreement between iwi and the Crown.
"We haven't got to the point of withdrawing our support but we certainly ... share those concerns," Mr Little said at Parliament today.

In the past both Labour and the Green supported the sanctuary, which would be the biggest in New Zealand waters. It was part of Labour's policy in 2014.
However, Labour put its support under review after Te Ohu Kaimoana - the Maori Fisheries Commission - mounted a legal challenge to the sanctuary in the High Court, arguing the legislation stripped fishing quota without consultation or compensation. That legal action is still underway.
Labour's support is likely to be conditional on the outcome of that.

The greens said this

National MP Nick Smith has lodged a member's bill banning all mining and fishing over 620,000 sq/km around the Kermadec Islands.
Dr Smith said he was confident the proposed law would have the support to pass, with National's 56 votes and the Green Party's eight.
"The Greens have indicated to me their support for any bill that would put the sanctuary in place," he said.
But a Green Party spokesperson said its MPs had yet to consider how they would vote on Dr Smith's bill.
The spokesperson said the party's priority was for the government to progress the scheme, as noted in its confidence and supply deal with Labour.
That agreement included a commitment to "use best endeavours and work alongside Māori" to establish the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.
"We'll have a reconsideration in due course about what our stance on the bill is."the government has put any legislation on hold until a resolution can be found that is satisfactory to all parties.
Dr Smith denied he was stirring up trouble and trying to drive a wedge between the government support parties.

The Green Party has continued to support the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, but said the failure to consult was unsatisfactory and fell short of what was expected under the Treaty of Waitangi. In a minority view on the select committee report into the bill, the Green Party said it was the up to either the courts or negotiations between iwi and the Te Ohu Kaimoana to resolve the claims that the bill breached Treaty rights and quota rights under the Fisheries Settlement legislation.

the only person arround here that is ideology blind is you.
The voters never voted for a kermadec reserve.
Here is a fact National never got enough votes to govern the country nor it seems do thay have the ability to even get the Green party to vote with them.
I note you constantly avoid the hypocrisy of your comments about NZF that don't apply to ACT.
As i said you have got to come to terms with your grief over National losing the election put it aside and realise in the real world people don't rush through laws that will be the subject of a legal challenge and in likely compensation in the future.

[oldrider]

The left and right have all been vaccinated with same needle - same game viewed from opposite sides of the same park - even if you all agree nothing much will change!

[Ocean1]

You wont provide proof as you dont have post where you have criticised National
There was no policy change after the election. Labours reticence until it was cleared up legally was signaled prior to the election.
Provide proof if you have some because i have shown what was Labours Stance prior to the election.



The greens said this

the only person arround here that is ideology blind is you.
The voters never voted for a kermadec reserve.
Here is a fact National never got enough votes to govern the country nor it seems do thay have the ability to even get the Green party to vote with them.
I note you constantly avoid the hypocrisy of your comments about NZF that don't apply to ACT.
As i said you have got to come to terms with your grief over National losing the election put it aside and realise in the real world people don't rush through laws that will be the subject of a legal challenge and in likely compensation in the future.

So leme see, the bill, introduced by staunch labour stalwart Nick Smith, () was initially supported by teh green party, in line with their secondary environmental mantra, until fishing quota owners pulled the treaty card, at which point their justice warrior primary portfolio pulled rank and stomped all over it. But there was never any policy change. Oh, and at some point labour also bailed on their own bill. But there wasn't any policy change there either. That about cover it?

You can tell NZ ideological indoctrination, it uses an exclusively partisan narrative. I, on the other hand, am simply pointing to odious behaviour and condemning it. I'd do the same of any half baked post election policy mash up, but, yet again: the latest back room deal is the most egregious example to date, how come you're happy that wasn't what was voted on?

I mean, obviously it wouldn't be simply 'cause "your team won", 'cause when it comes to ideologically driven narratives that'd be a bit of a giveaway, wouldn't it?

I'm about done here dude, but if you can get your story straight about shit and have anything intelligent to say about how elections should work by deciding what we voted on after the fact then I'm all ears.

[husaberg]

So leme see, the bill, introduced by staunch labour stalwart Nick Smith, () was initially supported by teh green party, in line with their secondary environmental mantra, until fishing quota owners pulled the treaty card, at which point their justice warrior primary portfolio pulled rank and stomped all over it. But there was never any policy change. Oh, and at some point labour also bailed on their own bill. But there wasn't any policy change there either. That about cover it?

You can tell NZ ideological indoctrination, it uses an exclusively partisan narrative. I, on the other hand, am simply pointing to odious behaviour and condemning it. I'd do the same of any half baked post election policy mash up, but, yet again: the latest back room deal is the most egregious example to date, how come you're happy that wasn't what was voted on?

I mean, obviously it wouldn't be simply 'cause "your team won", 'cause when it comes to ideologically driven narratives that'd be a bit of a giveaway, wouldn't it?

I'm about done here dude, but if you can get your story straight about shit and have anything intelligent to say about how elections should work by deciding what we voted on after the fact then I'm all ears.

Labours and the Greens reticence was prior to the election. the reticence was over the legal issues that National bill has not addressed.

The Green Party supports the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill (the Bill). It has long supported and campaigned for more extensive marine protection in the Kermadec region, including through a private member’s bill lodged in the ballot by Green MP, Gareth Hughes. The geological and biodiversity values of the Kermadec region are extraordinary and internationally significant.

Sep 29 2015
Green Party environment spokeswoman Eugeanie Sage welcomed the announcement.
"We're delighted the Government has picked up the Kermadec ocean sanctuary concept that has been in a Green private member's Bill drafted by Gareth Hughes several years ago."
But it did not make up for the Government's "poor track record" on other environmental issues.

"We've still got the Maui's Dolphins to protect, water quality to improve, and National is taking an embarrassingly weak proposal on limiting New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions to the Paris Climate Change Conference."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...an-sanctuaries

This latest bill was introduced by National the previous two bills that were essentially the same were not.

All Nick smith has done is introduced a bill again in the vain hope it could cause trouble in a coalition government, it didn't.
All your ever post is national rhetoric not backed by facts.
If there was a mandate for the bill the bill would have gone through in the 9 years national was in government.
It didn't as the legal issues and court action were not settled.

[Katman]

Thank fuck he's found someone else to fixate on.

[Woodman]

Thank fuck he's found someone else to fixate on.

So you don't even try to disguise your attention seeking posts now?