Who will win the 2011 election?

[Quasievil]

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]

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 ?

[shrub]

'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]

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]

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 ?

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

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.

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.

[Quasievil]

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]

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]

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.

[Quasievil]

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.

Never but would like a good discussion.

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

[shrub]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Swoop]

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.

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]

They have the concept of sustainability attached to them, but who had a vested financial interest in making this happen? Jeanette Fitzsimons.

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.