Random Politics

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Ab

The Don is taking this to a new level. He's saying that if climate change is real, and if it is the result of human activity, "it is not obvious that this is necessarily a bad thing".

Because it's hot in singapore and cold in Finland, and they both do alright!

[doppelgänger of someone]

Originally Posted by Ab

You are mischaracterising his argument (if you could call what he said an argument).

He's not saying climate change isn't happening.

He's not saying that, if happening, climate change is not the result of human activity.

No he IS saying all that. He did say from 3:05, that he is sceptical of the climate change science. He tried to second guess the future rise of sea level of Waikato, because he found the projection implausible.

The ADDITIONAL points are, EVEN IF he accepts the science: 1) NZ should not be leading the world in adopting emission trading scheme; 2) climate change is not necessarily a bad thing, because human can adapt.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Read Don Brash's full speech for the Federated Farmers annual conference, and WEEP:

Originally Posted by The Don

To be sure, it seems pretty clear that on average temperatures around the world have been increasing. But they've been increasing for at least the last 200 years, since the days when the Thames regularly froze over, and that warming began long before greenhouse gases caused by human activity could've had a significant influence on the climate.

[...]

Even if a case can be made that human activity is behind the gradual increase in global temperature, it isn't obvious that an increased temperature is necessarily a bad thing for life on the planet. We know that plant life thrives on an atmosphere high in carbon dioxide - which is why many market gardeners deliberately pump carbon dioxide into their glass houses.

[CCS]

Hey, he's a doctor!

[chubby]

For some reason our political leaders don't trust us to be able to grasp the proposition that it makes little sense to tax people if they increase their wealth by the sweat of their brow but not if they increase their wealth by holding the right asset over the right period.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10735314

[cyc]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-outsource-row

Phil Goof: I support a FTA with India.

Clare Curran: I hate outsourcing to India.

Clare Curran: I support a FTA with India! But I'll link to a report with the PM and the Indian PM posing and then commenting derogatively on things moving to India. You know, like things are supposed to move both ways with a FTA!

Labour, the idiocy that keeps on giving!

[CCS]

Haha! Clare Curran, the gimp that keeps on gimping!

[Lightspeed]

Another reason why having several viable parties instead of just two is a good idea. If you've only got two parties to vote for and the party on your side of the political spectrum ends up being run by fools, what are you supposed to do?

If there are multiple parties that support policies that you agree with I think this enables voters to vote based on not just policies/ideologies or competence, instead you can vote on policies AND competence.

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Another reason why having several viable parties instead of just two is a good idea. If you've only got two parties to vote for and the party on your side of the political spectrum ends up being run by fools, what are you supposed to do?

If there are multiple parties that support policies that you agree with I think this enables voters to vote based on not just policies/ideologies or competence, instead you can vote on policies AND competence.

Having more than two "viable" parties however would make it harder to control the illusion of choice

/tinfoil_hat

[cyc]

...... getting more boring than ever.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10737383

[fixed_truth]

In a half-page advertisement in today's Weekend Herald headlined "Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals?" the Act leader claims National is trading away the country's resources for Maori Party votes

I'm not sure that this is a good move by ACT.

[cyc]

It depends... is it a good move for the country? Definitely not. But it's becoming quite apparent that Act's survival depends on stealing at least some of the looneys that would vote for Winston Peters and NZF and I guess The Don is just getting started.

Still, what a fucking yawn.

[Golden Teapot]

It makes me what to vote National.

[madmaxii]

I'm in the Epsom electorate. I really hope National put up a decent candidate against Banks, otherwise, for the first time in a long time, I won't be voting.

[cyc]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10737507

[Ab]

John Banks must be thinking "oh fuck what have I done" right about now.

[pxpx]

Bring back Prebble.

[Saladin]

In short, [ACT's] catchment is men and women who think like men. Not men and women who think like women. ACT is the party of the strong father, not the soft mother.

(By strong father I include strong women like Rand, Richardson and Thatcher, and by soft mother I include weak men like Key.)

[fixed_truth]

Meanwhile . . . in the Hide residence

[Lightspeed]

ACC proposes $500m levy cut

What's all this business? I thought ACC was broke?

[fidgit]

ACC was never 'broke', it had a massive loss in value of its investments, exactly like every other huge company in the world did in 2008. Now that the global economy is recovering, their fortunes are increasing, just like every other huge company.

Oh also they've stopped approving lots of claims, which are getting overturned when they get disputed, so they're shaving a bit off there as well.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

ACC proposes $500m levy cut

What's all this business? I thought ACC was broke?

You read the article, right?

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by fidgit

ACC was never 'broke'

Lets contrast the non-earners account and the motor account against this claim of yours. You can go first.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

You read the article, right?

The whole thing.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

[img]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7694/actn.png[img]
I'm not sure that this is a good move by ACT.

Whoever wrote and layed-out that advertisement should be shot for crimes against effective communication.

[chubby]

a good,quick read.

http://www.kiwipolitico.com/

[cyc]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...nne-for-Ohariu

Anyone remember all the hoopla from Labour over National and Act doing a deal over Epsom and how this was denying voters a real choice? Labour and Greens doing the same only days later.

[fixed_truth]

I agree that there is a degree of flip-flopping here. However, the deal scenarios have a key difference in that National are 'giving up' the Epsom electorate to Act (ie National would normally be expected to win) and in contrast the Greens candidate in Ohariu has no chance of winning.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I agree that there is a degree of flip-flopping here. However, the deal scenarios have a key difference in that National are 'giving up' the Epsom electorate to Act (ie National would normally be expected to win) and in contrast the Greens candidate in Ohariu has no chance of winning.

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Labour is prepared to do the exact same thing which it criticises National for -- if voters deserve genuine contests in Epsom with every candidate going all out for votes, then the same should apply in Ohariu. These scumbags' stance is nothing but hypocrisy. Stop blindly defending or excusing everything the left does.

[cyc]

Oh and if we're going to apply your rather strained "distinction" (which is frankly irrelevant in light of Labour's original underlying contention being that voters are entitled to real choices), things look even WORSE for Labour.

At least in Epsom, common sense tells us that most voters will want a National-led government, so the move by National at least looks a little less anti-democratic. Ohariu is a closely contested seat that could conceivably go to Dunne, the Labour scum who stands, or the National candidate. Stitching up deals against that background looks rather anti-democratic.

[crocos]

Have folks seen the "elect anyone BUT National" facebook group?

They make a pile of pretty good points for not electing National again, but gloss over all the just-as-fucked-up shit the other parties have done.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Labour is prepared to do the exact same thing which it criticises National for -- if voters deserve genuine contests in Epsom with every candidate going all out for votes, then the same should apply in Ohariu. These scumbags' stance is nothing but hypocrisy. Stop blindly defending or excusing everything the left does.

Irrelevant to what? I’m pointing out the consequential differences between the two deals not “defending or excusing” Labours flip flop.

Originally Posted by cyc

At least in Epsom, common sense tells us that most voters will want a National-led government, so the move by National at least looks a little less anti-democratic. Ohariu is a closely contested seat that could conceivably go to Dunne, the Labour scum who stands, or the National candidate. Stitching up deals against that background looks rather anti-democratic.

While I don’t mind parties making deals, I do think that there is a consequential difference in Epsom as it would result in 3-5 Act MPs in parliament whereas in Ohariu a Green backed Labour candidate has no chance against the National backed United Future canditate. So yes it makes Labour look hypocritical but I don't see it as Labour "doing the exact same thing" as the context of Labours deal makes it ineffectual from the start whereas Nationals takes advantage of an MMP loophole resulting in a notable change in the overall makeup of Parliament. Good on them.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Irrelevant to what? I’m pointing out the consequential differences between the two deals not “defending or excusing” Labours flip flop.

Irrelevant to the issue that Labour has once again exposed itself as a pack of hypocritical scum, especially in view of their main ground of attack on National/Act's deal being a denial of choice/showing of disrespect to voters. If their challenge was only that National/Act was manipulating things for advantage under the MMP system then they might look a little less hypocritical.

[fixed_truth]

Fuck there's some ass-clown commentators on The Standard. I get flamed for disagreeing that John Key is a Nazi

[Golden Teapot]

The media is never after the truth particularly. Instead any story that has these elements will do: 1. An alleged victim, 2. A perceived injustice, 3. A perpetrator who can be painted in one of the shades of evil.

Given truth and honesty are not required it's easy to imagine how a story about Key could be told that's wrong in any regard.

Fair Go is a great example of this. They choose particular types of victims (usually vulnerable people), they paint a biased picture of an injustice, and then they treat the alleged perpetrator like they're Satan. They never have the stories where the roles are reversed since this would weaken their image of Satan. But this is okay because the programme is for entertainment purposes only - the only problem is that people watching this show are drawn from the same demographic as the victims and they think the stories are true and fair reflections of what has been happening.

[Golden Teapot]

Not that I believe that f_t was actually trying to say something true about Key.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

The media is never after the truth particularly. Instead any story that has these elements will do: 1. An alleged victim, 2. A perceived injustice, 3. A perpetrator who can be painted in one of the shades of evil.

I can't say I disagree, odd though coming from someone who seems all about painting people one shade of evil or another.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...nne-for-Ohariu

Anyone remember all the hoopla from Labour over National and Act doing a deal over Epsom and how this was denying voters a real choice? Labour and Greens doing the same only days later.

So now Gareth Hughes has came forward and said that there never even was any deal between Labour & the Greens.

The Green Party does not have a deal with the Labour candidate, Charles Chauvel, nor does it intend to ask its supporters to vote for him in an attempt to defeat Peter Dunne in the Ōhariu seat.

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/07/24...al-or-no-deal/

Scumbags?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So now Gareth Hughes has came forward and said that there never even was any deal between Labour & the Greens.

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/07/24...al-or-no-deal/

Scumbags?

Okay, so the Green Party has a candidate standing in Ohariu but isn't CAMPAIGNING for the local MP vote? Give me a break. They might not be outright telling people to vote Labour but the underlying intent is totally obvious.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So now Gareth Hughes has came forward and said that there never even was any deal between Labour & the Greens.

Well I guess if Gareth Hughes says it, then it must be true! CASE CLOSED!