Random Politics

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by cyc

A few people in this thread just have a bit more social conscience than you.

Wow you really have a hardon for me don't you? What's next, gonna compare me with Pauline Hanson? Pretty rich hearing a lawyer whinging about other people's supposed lack of social conscience.

I'll grant you one thing: As a troll you're more subtle than GT.

[cyc]

You can talk social conscience with me when you give your time for free to make successful submissions on behalf of charities and take on defended civil proceedings pro bono. That would actually require you to do some learning and to move beyond stereotypes, with neither of such things appearing to be within your grasp.

Keep laughing at the plight of kids, though, that makes you a charming felluh!

[A Corpse]

Quote me where I was "laughing at the plight of kids", you pathetic little posturing prick. I've had quite enough of your inane bullshit. To be honest, I'm starting to doubt you're a lawyer at all considering how unprofessional you act. Maybe just an enthusiastic amateur who read a few books and now considers himself an expert.

[Ab]

Kids born to NZers in Australia are stateless since Australia revised the Special Category Visa for New Zealanders - Cyberbob and Devilmonkey's boy is an example. Since he was born in Australia to SCV holders he doesn't get automatic Australian citizenship, but since he was born outside NZ he doesn't get automatic NZ citizenship.

[Redneck]

Lawl so Labour turn out to be nativist pricks. Wait a minute... did National oppose this change?

[tilde]

so cyc, taking aside the name calling dust-up between you and A Corpse, as a lawyer where do your loyalties lie?

from what i understand, the law change was an inept one however until that law is repealed/changed it is still the law and therefore should be applied universally regardless of how sad the situation is in order to stop a precedent being set?

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by cyc

proceedings pro bono.

Not to be inflammatory, but don't you have to do a certain amount of work pro-bono per year... or something?

[CCS]

Originally Posted by aR Que

Not to be inflammatory, but don't you have to do a certain amount of work pro-bono per year... or something?

cyc certainly is pro-boner.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by aR Que

Not to be inflammatory, but don't you have to do a certain amount of work pro-bono per year... or something?

Nope.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Quote me where I was "laughing at the plight of kids", you pathetic little posturing prick. I've had quite enough of your inane bullshit. To be honest, I'm starting to doubt you're a lawyer at all considering how unprofessional you act. Maybe just an enthusiastic amateur who read a few books and now considers himself an expert.

Here's the sorry little retard who's out of ideas and tries for the "LWLZ YOU NOT WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE!" trick. Look, I'll be nice to you when (1) you don't make dumb jokes about police shooting people on sight for running away from them or making jokes about killing inmates for organs; (2) you learn to not throw out useless one-liners in response to others' comments; and (3) actually demonstrate that you have an intelligence above that of a tapeworm.

"HE HE HE FUCK OFF YOU'RE A LAWYER! GO BE A POLITICIAN!"

Originally Posted by tilde

so cyc, taking aside the name calling dust-up between you and A Corpse, as a lawyer where do your loyalties lie?

from what i understand, the law change was an inept one however until that law is repealed/changed it is still the law and therefore should be applied universally regardless of how sad the situation is in order to stop a precedent being set?

Unfortunately this is one backward hick of a country that doesn't have a supreme constitution, so parliament's laws are the final word. But that doesn't stop lawyers from actively advocating for a law change or making legitimate criticisms against crap laws.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by cyc

Here's the sorry little retard who's out of ideas and tries for the "LWLZ YOU NOT WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE!" trick. Look, I'll be nice to you when (1) you don't make dumb jokes about police shooting people on sight for running away from them or making jokes about killing inmates for organs; (2) you learn to not throw out useless one-liners in response to others' comments; and (3) actually demonstrate that you have an intelligence above that of a tapeworm.

"HE HE HE FUCK OFF YOU'RE A LAWYER! GO BE A POLITICIAN!"

Fuck man you're already there. Can't answer a straight forward question, can't produce facts to back up your ridiculous claims. And when called on it it's "LOOK OVER THERE!".

[cyc]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Fuck man you're already there. Can't answer a straight forward question, can't produce facts to back up your ridiculous claims. And when called on it it's "LOOK OVER THERE!".

Yeah I can see how you weren't making light of the plight of the kid when you just trivialised the concern others displayed towards her and the stupid law which currently affects her with a glib one-liner about how we should all go and be politicians.

Keep rolling your eyes, buddy.

[A Corpse]

I will, thanks.

[madmaxii]

Unfortunately this is one backward hick of a country that doesn't have a supreme constitution

You've voiced your dislike of this country more than once cyc. If you don't like it why the hell don't you just fuck off?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by madmaxii

You've voiced your dislike of this country more than once cyc. If you don't like it why the hell don't you just fuck off?

Well, I get to annoy you by being here.

[madmaxii]

That's a reason for you to stay in this "backward hick of a country"? You mustn't get your rocks off often, eh?

[cyc]

Ho ho ho we have a simple-minded literalist!

Take some of your alzheimer's pills, old man.

[MrTTTT]

cyc thinks he is brilliant. but he is not

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by cyc

You can talk social conscience with me when you give your time for free to make successful submissions on behalf of charities and take on defended civil proceedings pro bono.

[Preface : I'm not getting at you cyc I just find the discussion surrounding social conscience interesting even if I may not agree with some of the specifics that people have posted]

Though it's great what you've done (or said you've done) it's a bit high and mighty to hold everyone to the same standard as yourself. I always understood the idea of social conscience as contributing what you can within your abilities. So you have some pretty specialised abilities - that doesn't make other peoples contributions any less worthy, or allow you to dismiss what contributions they may make...

I'm not saying that Corpse has (or hasn't) contributed - simply that dismissing anything he (or she - or anyone else for that matter) might be able to contribute based on your own capabilities is pretty closed minded. People should strive to contribute based on their own abilities - otherwise we're relegating the idea of social conscience to something which only resides in certain fields or realms of activity.

Personally I'd love to see more people take a proactive approach to contributing to society - but through my experiences (which are both limiting and enabling) often business, government and (in certain cases) the legal framework disuades (and sometimes activley works against) people making contributions...

Sorry early morning rant...

Pixie

[CCS]

I run a service called Baby-Rid. Basically I get rid of babies for people who have them but don't want them and don't know what to do with them. I stuff them down the insinkerator. It's important that I have the baby before the skull starts to harden otherwise it's harder for the insinkerator.

Call me to discuss fees. Volume discounts on 4 babies or more.

[fixed_truth]

From an article I found interesting in the latest University of Otago Magazine
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/otagomag...tago016864.pdf (pg, 26)

Although the regulation of marketing activities is often held to be the antithesis of free choice, it may, paradoxically, promote free choice. Regulation, or what the WHO’s Ottawa Charter describes as healthy public policy, creates environments that promote and enable freedom of choice. Thus, rather than constraining personal freedoms, regulation corrects unbalanced information, moderates commercial discourse and helps achieve free choice. Consequently, regulation is not the antithesis of individual liberty, as so often proposed, but rather the counterpoint that provides for free choice.

Unfortunately, “nanny state” allegations have never prompted debate of the evidence that supports or detracts from mooted proposals. Nor has the ad hominem that often accompanies “nanny state” accusations and diverts attention away from analysis of the logic that links interventions to specific health outcomes. Attacking those who promote solutions as wowsers (or worse) contributes little to the public dialogue needed to explore solutions to problems affecting our health and social well-being. Only by recognising the “nanny state” moniker as mere rhetoric, a strategy to stifle by supplanting evidence with ideology, will we be able to evaluate the evidence that should underpin any policy development.
Those using “nanny state” rhetoric do so when regulation, particularly of marketing activities, would disturb the inappropriately labelled “free market” and challenge their vested interests. Instead of intervention, these voices propose greater “individual responsibility”. However, calls that we should be free to pursue the libertarian dream, no matter what the personal or social costs might be, imply a level of knowledge and risk awareness, understanding and acceptance that is more assumed than established

Too often, however, political leaders decline to adopt regulatory solutions or show leadership in public health not because the evidence base is undeveloped or wanting, but because the personal risks of drawing on it appear higher than the social costs of overlooking it. It is time to review the full complexity of the “nanny state” metaphor and reject its reduction to a narrow ideological definition. This implies exploring the potential of proposals dismissed as “nanny statist” and dispassionately evaluating the merits of interventions where the government assumes a protective role and actively promotes the well-being of its citizens.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Though it's great what you've done (or said you've done) it's a bit high and mighty to hold everyone to the same standard as yourself. I always understood the idea of social conscience as contributing what you can within your abilities. So you have some pretty specialised abilities - that doesn't make other peoples contributions any less worthy, or allow you to dismiss what contributions they may make...

I don't disagree with anything you've posted. My reply was purely within the context of A Corpse being his usual asshole self and referencing my profession as though it's some Final Judgment on my social conscience or lack thereof.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by cyc

I don't disagree with anything you've posted. My reply was purely within the context of A Corpse being his usual asshole self and referencing my profession as though it's some Final Judgment on my social conscience or lack thereof.

Fair enough - and I guess I should have included that typifying certain professions (or gender / ethnicity - or in fact any arbitrary social denominator) is just as much an issue as any of the other points I previously raised.

Pixie

[Golden Teapot]

But it's hardly a fair fight here is it. Cyc is a clever and well educated chap. His opponent here is something else; somewhat lesser by any measures I'd care to use.

It would be more interesting to observe a handicapped contest whereby cyc restricts himself to using the same toolkit as available to A Corpse. Otherwise it's like watching the US fire off cruise missiles at an opponent holding a pop gun - this is fascinating for a moment but quickly gets boring since the outcome is known from the start.

[A Corpse]

Oh knoes! Both megatrolls are after me, I'd better do a ragequit!

[GM]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

From an article I found interesting in the latest University of Otago Magazine
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/otagomag...tago016864.pdf (pg, 26)

I love how these guys use the words 'vested interests' as if it were a dirty word, but then attack the use of the words 'nanny state' in the same breath.

[MrTTTT]

Hey, did you guys know that cyc is a lawyer??

[cyc]

TTTT, do you ever have anything original or even useful to say?

[MrTTTT]

No. I don't have time with such a busy career

[cyc]

I didn't know cleaning toilets take a lot of time. Get your time-management skills sorted, chum.

[MrTTTT]

I dunno, you have so much time here to post. You can't be that good a lawyer...

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by CCS

I run a service called Baby-Rid. Basically I get rid of babies for people who have them but don't want them and don't know what to do with them. I stuff them down the insinkerator. It's important that I have the baby before the skull starts to harden otherwise it's harder for the insinkerator.

Call me to discuss fees. Volume discounts on 4 babies or more.

Your missing out on a vital market with your plan here.

Sell the video!

[CCS]

WTF?! Then everybody would be doing it!

Oh yeah, I can also get rid of cats as well but they cost twice as much because they have claws and they struggle. 'Sedate' the cat beforehand and I'll do a discount.

[crocos]

Eeh, just microwave it beforehand.

[CCS]

I'm not doing the microwaving. 1) I don't want to have to clean the bloody cat fur off the microwave, 2) Have you ever tried getting a cat into a microwave?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by GM

I love how these guys use the words 'vested interests' as if it were a dirty word, but then attack the use of the words 'nanny state' in the same breath.

By 'these guys' I assume you're referring to Professor Hoek? And did you even read the whole article? In the context of corporations which have a financial interest in in the Govt. not concerning themselves with the health and well-being of its citizens - then I think it's fair to say here it is a dirty word.

[chubby]

Working For Families, lol

yeah, right- dick.
the poor,whining 'middle-class'.


lucky the torys actual mates are being looked after.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0185/latest/DLM3123806.html?search=tsill_taxation_resel&p=1

[chubby]

http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/eve...ed-until-2014/

“Over the 2011 to 2015 March years, nominal GDP is expected to be a cumulative $15 billion lower than in the Half Year Update (around 1.5% of nominal GDP over the whole period). This is mostly related to the weaker outlook we were seeing prior to the February earthquake, which accounts for $10 billion of this change.”

Guess “two-third of everything changed since Treasury realised their forecast for recovery was wrong” doesn't have the same oomph. What's changed is that we haven't come out of the recession as well as we'd hoped; what hasn't changed is that we are still stuck in the same hole – indebted, underperforming and aging fast. The earthquake was an additional kick in the nuts, but even if it didn't happen, we'd still be in the same position today.

[doppelgänger of someone]

This is more like a economics rant rather than politics, but there is this one thing about the economy that has been bugging me: there is a housing bubble going on (as in Australia), because the house price vs average income ratio in Aus/NZ is one of the highest in the world. Especially in NZ, when the economy is down the shitter house price is still pretty high.

Wtf will happen when the bubble burst? Are we going down the path of US or Ireland? My guess is: maybe.

People are saying 'oh record commodities price driven by Asia will keep NZ economy up' (and by the same token, Australia's). The relatively high interest rate of Aus/NZ compared with say, US, will also keep the cheap capital flowing in. And Aus/NZ don't have the same kind of shenanigans in US or Ireland.

Well there are two things wrong with this: 1. this is the kind of talk that made the bubble in the first place. 2. sometimes bubble bursts not because of clear reason (hell if everybody think straight there would never have been a bubble!). The bubble could burst because of some kind of panic attack nobody saw it coming. When that unpredictable event reminds people that they are ALL sitting on grossly overvalued properties, they WILL panic sell and drive the price shapely down. Or when the overseas monies are reminded of the fact that their relatively high return depends on this housing bubble, they WILL ruthlessly pull out of Aus/NZ and park their money elsewhere, while leaving the local property market high and dry.

THEN the whole economy goes down the toilet.

Also, all the frauds and mismanagment in US and Ireland came about only AFTER the bubble bursted. Who is to say there is no such things going on in Aus/NZ right now? (In retrospect I think Labour could have done a LOT more to cool the property market, and National aren't exactly doing a bang up job either.)

Recently I read that Steve Keen, from University of Western Sydney, has been banging on about the bubble for a long time. At least I know I'm not the only loon in the room.

[Ab]

Someone whose opinion I trust on such matters recently said to me, in a boozy discussion of the bubble, "if the value of your house dropped by a third tomorrow, would you still be equity positive? If so, don't panic. But be prepared for the value of your house to drop by a third at any moment."

you can imagine the hasty back-of-the-beer-coaster calculations that followed.

Australia has almost inconceivable mineral wealth. Australia is safe while China and Japan and India are buying coal and iron ore and gold and silver and uranium.

New Zealand has... um... tourism?