Re: NZ Politics Thread
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:32 am
No argument on that , but he does a good job of dishing up the slops that the Auckland Establishment want the oiks to think.Seneca of the Night wrote:Rudman is an ignorant idiot.
No argument on that , but he does a good job of dishing up the slops that the Auckland Establishment want the oiks to think.Seneca of the Night wrote:Rudman is an ignorant idiot.
Not any moreEnzedder wrote:Of course with one-half of the act, Canadian Lauren Southern now banned from entering Australia by the Department of Home Affairs and Immigration, the issue is hypothetical.
Seneca of the Night wrote:What does the first amendment have to do with new Zealand? I suspect the truth is we don't really know what free speech means in new Zealand.
The wizard used to say stuff on feminism in the town square in Christchurch that would get him into all sorts of hot water today.
He rarely enters fights he won’t win. Farrar is very intelligent and very careful and taking on the spinoff likely means the spinoff f**ked up proper.Seneca of the Night wrote:Farrar is really really pissed with the spinoff:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/07/the_ ... again.html
I don't think I've ever seen him angry.
A bit dramatic, I think.Wilderbeast wrote:He rarely enters fights he won’t win. Farrar is very intelligent and very careful and taking on the spinoff likely means the spinoff f**ked up proper.Seneca of the Night wrote:Farrar is really really pissed with the spinoff:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/07/the_ ... again.html
I don't think I've ever seen him angry.
How so?Jay Cee Gee wrote:A bit dramatic, I think.Wilderbeast wrote:He rarely enters fights he won’t win. Farrar is very intelligent and very careful and taking on the spinoff likely means the spinoff f**ked up proper.Seneca of the Night wrote:Farrar is really really pissed with the spinoff:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/07/the_ ... again.html
I don't think I've ever seen him angry.
It's probably going better than when Ardern was in place.Enzedder wrote:I note the country is still proceeding sweetly despite Winston peters being at the helm - to a deafening silence from the right.
Where is the unholy mess that he was going to lead us into, my right wing friends?
It started well, but has certainly jumped the shark.Santa wrote:I've never had cause to look at the Spinoff before this. It is predictably bad.
Give them time. They're being patient.Enzedder wrote:I note the country is still proceeding sweetly despite Winston peters being at the helm - to a deafening silence from the right.
Where is the unholy mess that he was going to lead us into, my right wing friends?
So why were all the Nats supporter going off at him before he even started? That was my point - no straw men involved at all.Seneca of the Night wrote:Helluva straw man from Enzedder there. Winston has more of a clue than Cindy even half cut.Santa wrote:It's probably going better than when Ardern was in place.Enzedder wrote:I note the country is still proceeding sweetly despite Winston peters being at the helm - to a deafening silence from the right.
Where is the unholy mess that he was going to lead us into, my right wing friends?
Enzedder wrote:I note the country is still proceeding sweetly despite Winston peters being at the helm - to a deafening silence from the right.
Where is the unholy mess that he was going to lead us into, my right wing friends?
Seneca of the Night wrote:Anyone would think Winston is a Conservative. Its baffling.Thai guy wrote:Winston with the help of ministers has the nut jobs eating out of his hand.
His high profile media comments as acting prime minister have been designed to keep the righties quiet. 'Disappointed with nurses', 'let the white supremacists speak', 'referendum on Maori seats', 'I hate fake beef, so should you'.
So too the announcements, P-8s, R&D investment in Taranaki, defence strategy paper.
He's even got Farrar praising him which is a pheromone-like signal to the entire right wing in NZ to approve also. They can't help themselves.
Thai guy wrote: His high profile media comments as acting prime minister have been designed to keep the righties quiet. 'Disappointed with nurses', 'let the white supremacists speak', 'referendum on Maori seats', 'I hate fake beef, so should you'.
Agree. Perhaps we could have a constitution that bans political partiesFat Old Git wrote:Sadly for many it seems that where politics is concerned the most important result is to ensure your "side" is upsetting the other "side".
Not the best recipe for a bright future.
+1Enzedder wrote:Agree. Perhaps we could have a constitution that bans political partiesFat Old Git wrote:Sadly for many it seems that where politics is concerned the most important result is to ensure your "side" is upsetting the other "side".
Not the best recipe for a bright future.
Sounds good. Other than the part where you need a majority of votes in the legislature to make laws.Kahu wrote:+1Enzedder wrote:Agree. Perhaps we could have a constitution that bans political partiesFat Old Git wrote:Sadly for many it seems that where politics is concerned the most important result is to ensure your "side" is upsetting the other "side".
Not the best recipe for a bright future.
A parliament made up solely of electorate MPs sounds good to me
How would it be any different to conscience votes?Tehui wrote:
Sounds good. Other than the part where you need a majority of votes in the legislature to make laws.
If the laws aren't good enough to make it to a majority based on quality, then fudge 'em. We may end up with less laws.Tehui wrote:Sounds good. Other than the part where you need a majority of votes in the legislature to make laws.Kahu wrote:+1Enzedder wrote:Agree. Perhaps we could have a constitution that bans political partiesFat Old Git wrote:Sadly for many it seems that where politics is concerned the most important result is to ensure your "side" is upsetting the other "side".
Not the best recipe for a bright future.
A parliament made up solely of electorate MPs sounds good to me
Conscience votes are one off events though. People would inevitably form alliances and factions to get their projects over the line, which is the primary reason why political parties came into existence.Kahu wrote:How would it be any different to conscience votes?Tehui wrote:
Sounds good. Other than the part where you need a majority of votes in the legislature to make laws.
what like having the free will of voluntarily co-operating to achieve a shared vision without being bound by the constraints of toeing a party line?Tehui wrote:Conscience votes are one off events though. People would inevitably form alliances and factions to get their projects over the line, which is the primary reason why political parties came into existence.Kahu wrote:How would it be any different to conscience votes?Tehui wrote:
Sounds good. Other than the part where you need a majority of votes in the legislature to make laws.
Why hasn't nobody else thought of this?!Kahu wrote:what like having the free will of voluntarily co-operating to achieve a shared vision without being bound by the constraints of toeing a party line?Tehui wrote:Conscience votes are one off events though. People would inevitably form alliances and factions to get their projects over the line, which is the primary reason why political parties came into existence.Kahu wrote:How would it be any different to conscience votes?Tehui wrote:
Sounds good. Other than the part where you need a majority of votes in the legislature to make laws.
Somebody meant to say anybody instead of nobody.guy smiley wrote:Tehui wrote: Why hasn't nobody else thought of this?!
Well, nobody isn't a real person dude.
Auckland Uber AllesEnzedder wrote:If the laws aren't good enough to make it to a majority based on quality, then fudge 'em. We may end up with less laws.Tehui wrote:Sounds good. Other than the part where you need a majority of votes in the legislature to make laws.Kahu wrote:+1Enzedder wrote:
Agree. Perhaps we could have a constitution that bans political parties
A parliament made up solely of electorate MPs sounds good to me
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zeal ... ected.htmlThe plan could cost $12 million more than the budgeted $23 million, Stuff reports.
Cause the stakes are so low? Even if everything he says is true (and I've no reason to doubt it's not), what are the consequences for the Spinoff? Nothing, it's not a defamation matter.Wilderbeast wrote:How so?Jay Cee Gee wrote:A bit dramatic, I think.Wilderbeast wrote:He rarely enters fights he won’t win. Farrar is very intelligent and very careful and taking on the spinoff likely means the spinoff f**ked up proper.Seneca of the Night wrote:Farrar is really really pissed with the spinoff:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/07/the_ ... again.html
I don't think I've ever seen him angry.