So who the f**k am I supposed to vote for then?

[rainman]

Ok, here you go. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=85049. S59 is in there somewhere and is but one example of how the Greens would "screw us".

Don't expect you to be persuaded, but hopefully your genuine interest is satisfied.

Didn't answer the question though. Which was - why do you assume the party has malicious intentions (to "screw us") rather than being well-meaning, and in the case of S59, somewhat idealistic?

What I'd be genuinely interested in, is some stats on whether s59 has reduced the incidence of child abuse in NZ since its introduction.

I really doubt it has, and I don't (and didn't) support the Greens pushing this as an issue as I anticipated the obviously predictable fallout that has resulted. It has become a far bigger dividing issue than it needed to be. In practical terms it doesn't restrict my activities as a parent in any meaningful way, and as you assert, probably hasn't fixed the underpinning problem either. Well-meant but ineffectual, like a lot of legislation. But I don't for a minute believe that Sue Bradford or anyone else in the party set out to "screw us" but picking this as an issue to drive, and I'd suggest that to assert this as true is just the usual mouth-breathing reflexive Greenie-hating.

[rainman]

I bow to your clearly superior knowledge and world view.

My apologies, I am a bit pissy today.

You could of course debate the point?

[Manxman]

Yes quite right! The UK and even more so, the US are great examples of how right wing agendas work tirelessly to erode citizen's rights

Too far right you get corporate control (viz USA under Bush). Too far left you get state control (too many examples to mention).

Balance is the answer. In 2008, NZ will (hopefully) vote to re-balance.

[MisterD]

Oi, WTF happened to my ignore list?





Oh, and just to comply with the anti-free speech legislation:

Authorised as demanded by Labour’s, NZ First’s and the Greens’ outrageous assault on free speech by Nick Kearney, 37 Beach Haven Road, Auckland.

[short-circuit]

Some of us do know how good we have and are commited to maintaining those standards, not giving in to the lowest common denominator until it's too late to fix it.

That argument was pathetic. If you truly understood the implications of what you claim to have witnessed you'd understand how important it is make sure a complacent populace doesn't fall victim to politiical agendas that limit personal freedoms, and you'd be providing a moderate supporting stance and calm counterpoint to the reactionaries.

Spot on! But...it's your lot with the "agenda". Ssssh - best policy is not to discuss policy

[MisterD]

Spot on! But...it's your lot with the "agenda". Ssssh - best policy is not to discuss policy

No, let's discuss Green Party policy shall we: Liberty Scott

[Manxman]

Didn't answer the question though. Which was - why do you assume the party has malicious intentions (to "screw us") rather than being well-meaning, and in the case of S59, somewhat idealistic?



I really doubt it has, and I don't (and didn't) support the Greens pushing this as an issue as I anticipated the obviously predictable fallout that has resulted. It has become a far bigger dividing issue than it needed to be. In practical terms it doesn't restrict my activities as a parent in any meaningful way, and as you assert, probably hasn't fixed the underpinning problem either. Well-meant but ineffectual, like a lot of legislation. But I don't for a minute believe that Sue Bradford or anyone else in the party set out to "screw us" but picking this as an issue to drive, and I'd suggest that to assert this as true is just the usual mouth-breathing reflexive Greenie-hating.

Who said that the 'screwing' was, or is malicious intent? Not me.

Screwing, whether to exert more extremely poorly thought out state control over the population, or some financial burden or other control, is screwing nonetheless. It's not my main issue (by any stretch), just the one I cited.

Mouth-breathing Greenie-hating... Nice one, but nope I'm not one in case you were wondering. Just an average joe, pissed about the issues they manage to get through, whilst in no way addressing the problem.

Anyway, what's wrong with mouth breathing greenie haters? Mmmm?

[short-circuit]

Another thing to remember - is that the Labour NEED the Greens A LOT. If Labour end up in power expect a HUGE number of Green people getting the top jobs.

If the 5 headed monster that Labour could possibly cobble together comes alive it will be the most left wing government we have ever had.

I believe it will be too far too the left - even for lefties. In this instance a National lead g'ment will be more in line with the leanings of a lot of existing Labour voters.

Unfortunately a lot of their base support don't read and understand this and vote RED because it saves their dole.

Wrong! (or misguided on so may levels). The greens are cannibalising Labour's vote because they are a centre right party - like National and always have been.

The Greens are the only party left of centre. Nowhere near left enough.

And though the media hasn't made much of it, National desparately needs Act (Rodney in Epsom). Not only for numbers but also to have any point of difference between them and Labour

[short-circuit]

No, let's discuss Green Party policy shall we: Liberty Scott

Propagandaist's are working hard I see Deputy Hess.

[rainman]

...incremental change until it is just as bad Chile in the 70s.

That is a very long way to go...

I don't see any evidence we're on the path to a police state, and trust me, I'd be front of the protest line if my core freedoms were being compromised, particularly if there was an ever worsening trend as is so often claimed. The fact is they are not. I can do all of the things I mentioned in my earlier post, and no party has policies or philosophies that majorly threaten these.

...what you claim to have witnessed...

I'm sorry, but the only appropriate response to that is "fuck you".

[Hitcher]

Was your profile name supposed to be HitLer or HitCher?

Gosh, I've never heard that one before! I think my head must have fallen off!

Godwin's Law has been triggered. It's time to stop any further discussion.

[MisterD]

Propagandaist's are working hard I see Deputy Hess.

Propaganda, riiight. Who was it complaining about perjoratives being used in place of argument? That link was to a rational critique of the Green agriculture "policy" by, in case you hadn't noticed, a Libertarian....I'm an Act voter, economically conservative, socially liberal but then you don't actually understand any of this politics stuff do you?

[short-circuit]

Propaganda, riiight. Who was it complaining about perjoratives being used in place of argument? That link was to a rational critique of the Green agriculture "policy" by, in case you hadn't noticed, a Libertarian....I'm an Act voter, economically conservative, socially liberal but then you don't actually understand any of this politics stuff do you?

1. Libertarians don't provide "rational critique"

2. "economically conservative" = Extreme Moneterism

3. Socially Liberal = Fuck em. I'm alright, who cares?


An aside: Always amazes me how insidious you Act people (scum) are. Always a visible presence on University campuses (trying to indoctrinate the young and appear in some way relevant), clogging up talk back radio and other populist type media: We are even blessed enough in little Ol' Kiwibiker to have a (small) clique of rabid fascists pushing the cause.

[Finn]

Guys, it's a done deal. National will form a new Government so lets stop all the quibbling okay? Sorry lefties, but it's time to get off your fat lazy arses and get a real job.

Thank you.

[nodrog:Me]

Guys, it's a done deal. National will form a new Government so lets stop all the quibbling okay? Sorry lefties, but it's time to get off your fat lazy arses and get a real job.

Thank you.

so next week there is going to be countless boring threads about who should have won? and maybe a poll on why?