General Debate 27 March 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment151

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (151)

Login to comment or vote

hj

Cultural identity. Ministry Of Social Development (Previously Ministry of Works)

Desired outcomes

New Zealanders share a strong national identity, have a sense of belonging and value cultural diversity. Everybody is able to pass their cultural traditions on to future generations. Māori culture is valued and protected.

The desired outcomes recognise the importance of a shared national identity and sense of belonging, and the value of cultural, social and ethnic diversity. They recognise New Zealand is a multicultural society, while also acknowledging that Māori culture has a unique place. For example, under the Treaty of Waitangi, the Crown has an obligation to protect the Māori language.

Cultural identity is an important contributor to people’s wellbeing. Identifying with a particular culture helps people feel they belong and gives them a sense of security. An established cultural identity has also been linked with positive outcomes in areas such as health and education.87 It provides access to social networks, which provide support and shared values and aspirations. Social networks can help to break down barriers and build a sense of trust between people, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as social capital.
However, strong cultural identity expressed in the wrong way can contribute to barriers between groups. And members of smaller cultural groups can feel excluded from society if others obstruct, or are intolerant of, their cultural practices.

http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/cultural-identity/
Compare this

A more plausible explanation of the growth in anti-immigrant sentiments in Europe is the public’s perceived threat to the very essence of their national identity and a sense of belonging, which are anchored in their cultural, social, religious and economic institutions. The threat is seen to emanate from immigrant communities that fail to integrate into the societies of their host countries and often challenge existing institutions, all encouraged by official policies of multiculturalism.

http://hgrubel.blogspot.co.nz/2010/12/multiculturalism-in-trouble.html
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:01am
hj

Harvard Sociologist Says His Research Was ‘Twisted’
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-was-twisted/30357
“A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still”

http://www.ilanamercer.com/TheMiseryOfDiversity.htm
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:11am
Longknives

Fuck this is getting beyond a joke…

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11226231

“New Zealand is the new Liverpool. Co-writer Joel Little is the new George Martin and Scott McLachlan, Lorde’s manager, is the new Brian Epstein..”

Seriously- Comparing Lordy with the Beatles?? Get a fucking grip….
12 6
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:13am
Harriet

In a country where almost nothing seems normal, state-sanctioned haircuts aren’t that unusual when the primary goal is to stomp out Western influence.
Last year, North Korean women were told to do their part in representing the state by choosing from one of eighteen hairdos the Kim regime had officially sanctioned. Men only had ten hairstyles to choose from at the time.

And now they only have one!!!!!!!!!

North Korea has issued guidelines requiring all men to wear their hair just like their supreme leader Kim Jong-un, a South Korean news outlet has reported.
The state-ordered “fashion guidelines” were introduced in the capital Pyongyang about two weeks ago and are now being rolled out across the country, the Korea Times reported.

Seriously – it isn’t that bad at all! 😎

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1322440641/557/6043557.jpg

———————————–

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/03/26/weird-kim-jong-un-mandates-all-men-wear-his-haircut-n1814941
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:21am
bhudson

So Auckland Transport has a $10m budget hole due, in part, to reduced use of public transport and Len wants to press on with his train set. Oh, and also hike parking charges and penalties to try to force people to use services they clearly do not want to.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11227086
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:21am
Chuck Bird

Did anyone see Third Degree about the Fox Glacier crash where CAA buried half the plane without looking at vital parts like the control column?
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:24am
Keeping Stock

Just in case you need a reason NOT to vote for the Internet Party in September, Pam Corkery’s threat should help you in your decision-making.

Keep ’em ON Pam!

http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/need-reason-not-to-vote-for-dotcom.html
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:26am
James Stephenson

New Zealand is the new Liverpool

Have we started sending death threats to people who say bad things about us?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11226204

http://www.3news.co.nz/Whale-Oil-blogger-takes-death-threats-to-police/tabid/423/articleID/330224/Default.aspx

Oh, right, as you were.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:27am
Nookin

Harriet

Paranoia setting in. He thinks that an imaginary assassin will not know which one is him.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:31am
hj

Harvard Sociologist finds increased diversity reduces social cohesion but says Carry On Diversity (Starring Sid James).

Given these manifest benefits, what is the impact of
this diversity on social solidarity and cohesion in the
short to medium run? I won’t try to summarize com-
plex social science in a few sentences here; I urge you
to read the “E Pluribus Unum” article. Suffice it to
say that retaining social cohesion in the context of
increased ethnic diversity is one of the pressing
issues of our time.
As you will see when you read “E Pluribus Unum,”
my intention is not to argue against diversity and
immigration but to point out that if we do nothing,
the reweaving of our communities may take half a
century, judging from our past experience. By focus-
ing concertedly on bolstering social solidarity in the
decades ahead, we can dramatically shorten this
period. In this task of reintegration, the United
States should feel more confident than many other
countries. Racial and ethnic lines of division are not
drawn by God or written in our genes. They are
socially constructed, and as social constructions we
can also deconstruct them, as our own history
demonstrates. Wave upon wave of ethnic immi-
grants arrived on America’s shores; we responded
with policies based on our motto of “e pluribus
unum” (from many one), not by bleaching the new-
comers into some pale copy of earlier arrivals but by developing a more multihued American identity. We
gradually redrew racial boundaries that used to
divide Poles from Italians from Irish, and that
encouraged brutal ethnic vengeance. Over the twen-
tieth century, we gradually erased religious bound-
aries that used to divide Catholic from Protestant
from Jew. Clearly we still have work to do in decon-
structing racial and ethnic cleavages and fostering
social justice and social solidarity, but it now seems
like a joke to describe the wedding of an Irish
Catholic and an Italian Catholic as a “mixed mar-
riage,” as it was described in the 1960s. As I wrote
in “E Pluribus Unum,” the challenge is to foster a
more encompassing sense of “we.”

http://www.ncl.org/publications/ncr/98-1/Putnam.pdf
imagine the programs they will have in store for us?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:33am
Manolo

Disciples of Len the Lecher:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/26/mayor-charlotte-arrested-on-public-corruption-charges/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/26/california-state-senator-arrested-in-fbi-sweep/

The mayor of Charlotte, N.C. — the state’s largest city and the site of the 2012 Democratic National Convention — was arrested Wednesday on public corruption charges and accused of taking bribes after an FBI sting.

Charlotte Mayor Patrick Cannon, a 47-year-old Democrat, is facing theft and bribery charges, U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. Cannon is accused of soliciting and accepting bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as real estate developers who wanted to do business in Charlotte.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:44am
Harriet

“….imagine the programs they will have in store for us?…”

They only have one programme for the likes of us HJ – lining us up against a wall!
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:50am
Pete George

Chuck, I saw that and it looks alarming.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 8:51am
igm

How is Lecher going to sort out Auckland’s budget discrepancy? There sure as hell won’t be any financial support from the leeches that voted this reprobate into power, owing to the fact very few are ratepayers, just the usual whinging non-productive demanders of society. Come on Auckland, along with obese German criminal Slobcom, Lecher must be tossed out.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 9:27am
hj

Harriet Says:
They only have one programme for the likes of us HJ – lining us up against a wall!
…..
In that post he lists the (usual fare) advantages of immigration. I imagine we would be encouraged to enjoy foreign language and food whlie fishing, pruning roses and population pressures are downplayed. Much like the glowing portrayal of Auckland (“powerhouse of the economy”) in the left-wing NZ Geographic.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 9:36am
insider

@ Chuck And Pete

It was TAIC that did the Fox investigation and buried the evidence. CAA were effectively excluded. They strongly disagree with the TAIC findings but TAIC refuse to discuss it or consider challenges to their thinking.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 9:45am
hj

Let Them Eat Diversity.
Corporations like diversity since:

multiculturalism and diversity more generally are even more effective as a legitimizing tool, because they suggest that the ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model of social justice is not that the rich don’t make as much and the poor make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or women.

The truth is, it’s hard to find any political movement that’s really against neoliberalism today, the closest I can come is the Tea Party. The Tea Party represents in my view, not actually a serious, because it’s so inchoate and it’s so in a certain sense diluted, but nonetheless a real reaction against neoliberalism that is not simply a reaction against neoliberalism from the old racist Right. It’s a striking fact that what the American Left mainly wants to do is reduce the Tea Party to racists as quickly as humanly possible. They’re thrilled when some Nazis come out and say “Yeah, we support the Tea Party” or some member of the Tea Party says something racist, which is frequently enough. But you can’t understand the real politics of the Tea Party unless you understand how important their opposition to illegal immigration is. Because who’s for illegal immigration? As far as I know only one set of people is for illegal immigration, I mean you may be [as a Marxist], but as far as I know the only people who are openly for illegal immigration are neoliberal economists.

First of all, neoliberal economists are completely for open borders, in so far as that’s possible. Friedman said years ago that, “You can’t have a welfare state and open borders,” but of course the point of that was “open the borders, because that’ll kill the welfare state.” There’s a good paper you can get off the web by Gordon Hanson, commissioned by whoever runs Foreign Affairs, and the argument is that illegal immigration is better than legal immigration, because illegal immigration is extremely responsive to market conditions.

and it explains why swank TV journalists can keep their vaunted economic positions yet still be fighters for social justice (John Campbell).
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 9:52am
Yvette

I have in the past thought MMP to have quite a gap in its logic that any Party List Member, either expelled or gone AWOL, can become an Independent Member then form a party him or herself, so it has a Member without being elected … say the New Zealand Ngatzi Party, for example … it just seemed sill before
Just mentioning now … as it just seemed silly before 🙂

Wonder if Dotcom and Hone would have a position for Tame Iti in the new Ngati Reich …
had just sort crossed my mindfield as well 🙂

Wonder how many of Winston’s supporters, kind of my years, would be a little miffed or disappointed at Peters’ visits, seeking a betrayal of John Key, as they themselves may have personal memories of less friendly interaction with Germans who were a bit more open with the flag than keeping it in their cellars?
Maybe Winston should have asked Dotcom more questions of him, than those he asked in Parliament for him.
Maybe not so funny 🙁
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 9:55am
griffith

13 facts

Global warming is here, happening now, and we caused it.
There’s more warming in the pipeline. Even if we could stop the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere today (and we can’t), the planet would carry on warming up for 30 years or more. There is nothing we can do that will stop this.
The world needs to keep atmospheric greenhouse gas levels as low as possible to try to limit the amount of damage from climate change. Kyoto is only the beginning.
Ignoring climate change won’t make it go away. The climate sceptics – including the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition – are now irrelevant.
NZ is likely to be a good place to be, at least in the next 20-30 years, because it is expected to warm up more slowly than most of the rest of the world. Our agriculture may get a boost from the extra warmth.
NZ is vulnerable to what climate change does to the rest of the world. If Europe, North America or Asia are hard hit by climate change, we’ll feel the impact here, in our pockets.
NZ is vulnerable to what the rest of the world does to combat climate change. Restrictions on air travel or food miles campaigns could hit our economy hard. We need to be clever, and proactive, to avoid the tyranny of distance, and be seen to have a low carbon footprint.
Water will be a flashpoint. Increased risk of drought on the east coast of both islands will put more and more pressure on water resources, while increasing rainfall intensity will make damaging floods more common.
NZ is well placed to become a low-carbon economy – even a world-leader – but it’s not going to be easy, and getting there will challenge a lot of our comfortable assumptions about how things should be done.
Electricity and carbon-based fuels are pivotal issues. Building a low carbon energy infrastructure might mean wind farms in iconic landscapes or more hydro power in fragile river systems, and weaning our transport system off fossil fuels could transform agriculture and the landscape as crops are grown for biofuels.
Coping with climate change and reducing carbon emissions is going to shape national and international politics in coming decades. In NZ, taxpayers should “follow the money” as emitters and forest owners jostle for emissions holidays or credits.
Lifeboat NZ: the world will perceive NZ as a great place to live. What happens if climate refugees from the Pacific or Asia knock on the door, or our half million expat Kiwis all decide to come home to ride out the rigours of climate change?
There is a real risk that climate change could be faster and more dangerous than currently expected. Watch the sea ice in Arctic Ocean, and the ice caps on Greenland and the West Antarctic. What’s happening there is already dramatic. If it gets worse, get worried.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/13-facts-about-global-warming/

life boat NZ

How valuable will seats become.

How do we value those seats

A lot more thought needs to go into immigration policy than the short term economic benifit of yearly change in GDP.
3 12
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 9:58am
ShawnLH

It should always be made clear that while academic multiculturalism is not a good thing, being a form of Cultural Marxist control, the simple fact of living in a multi-ethnic country is neither here nor there. Ethic diversity is not a problem (usually) but State enforced “diversity” is.

Or, in short, blame the State, not immigrants.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:01am
Harriet

hj#

Multi culturalism is different to populating. NZ does probably need an increased population – but it doesn’t need any further multi culturalism.

Here is the evidence that multi-culturalism makes things very hard on 2nd and 3rd generations:

Aussie Greek kids fight more with their parents than the Greek kids in Greece do because there is the ‘Greek way’ v’s the ‘aussie way’ in Australia, yet the ‘Greek way’ is really that of their parents and grand parents.

While in Greece there is only the ‘Greek way’ which is a reflection of contemporary Greece!!!!

In other wrords immigrants retain out dated customs from their old culture due to the singular influence of their parents and grand parents. In other words again – multi-culturalism is not much more than paternalism!

In Aussie, Greek kids who were 3rd generation were shocked to find that unlike them, people in Greece their own age do not know the old customs and ways of the Greeks. This was due to the first wave of Greek immigrants to Aussie installing those customs and values into their children and grand children – while Greece had ‘naturally moved on’ in the world.

Other nationalities find the same thing happening in their old countries; the country moves on, but the immigrants to aussie retain the old ways and install them into their children and grand children. And the children suffer because of it. Fighting occurs.

The average marriage age of Greeks in aussie was younger than that of those in Greece!! I don’t know if this is still the case though.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:17am
ShawnLH

The Jew haters supported by your taxes.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/26/israel-us-say-good-riddance-to-un-crackpot/?intcmp=latestnews

Stuff the UN!
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:19am
Fletch

Those of a liberal bent may not like this, but George W. Bush is smart – likely smarter than you. Actually, the writer of the next piece says he was “brilliant”

This was written by Keith Hennessey who was very close with George W. Bush, and he wanted to set the record straight about President Bush’s intellect.

I teach a class at Stanford Business School titled “Financial Crises in the U.S. and Europe.” During one class session while explaining the events of September 2008, I kept referring to the efforts of the threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who were joined at the hip in dealing with firm-specific problems as they arose.

One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”

The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.

I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”

More silence.

I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.

I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.

I am not kidding. You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you. Were he a student here today, he would consistently get “HP” (High Pass) grades without having to work hard, and he’d get an “H” (High, the top grade) in any class where he wanted to put in the effort.

For more than six years it was my job to help educate President Bush about complex economic policy issues and to get decisions from him on impossibly hard policy choices. In meetings and in the briefing materials we gave him in advance we covered issues in far more depth than I have been discussing with you this quarter because we needed to do so for him to make decisions.

President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.

I use words like briefing and presentation to describe our policy meetings with him, but those are inaccurate. Every meeting was a dialogue, and you had to be ready at all times to be grilled by him and to defend both your analysis and your recommendation. That was scary.

We treat Presidential speeches as if they are written by speechwriters, then handed to the President for delivery. If I could show you one experience from my time working for President Bush, it would be an editing session in the Oval with him and his speechwriters. You think that me cold-calling you is nerve-wracking? Try defending a sentence you inserted into a draft speech, with President Bush pouncing on the slightest weakness in your argument or your word choice.

In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.

And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.

On one particularly thorny policy issue on which his advisors had strong and deep disagreements, over the course of two weeks we (his senior advisors) held a series of three 90-minute meetings with the President. Shortly after the third meeting we asked for his OK to do a fourth. He said, “How about rather than doing another meeting on this, I instead tell you now what each person will say.” He then ran through half a dozen of his advisors by name and precisely detailed each one’s arguments and pointed out their flaws. (Needless to say there was no fourth meeting.)

Every prominent politician has a public caricature, one drawn initially by late-night comedy joke writers and shaped heavily by the press and one’s political opponents. The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.

More – http://youngcons.com/president-george-w-bush-wasnt-unintelligent-in-fact-he-was-brilliant/
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:31am
griffith

Bush was sooooo smart was he

pure genius could only be responsable for this.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/f/War_on_Terror_Facts.htm

War on Terror Spending to Date

From FY 2001 – FY 2014, spending on the Overseas Contingency Operations to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was $1.492 trillion. This was a significant addition to the U.S. debt. This does not include the DoD base budget, the expenses incurred by other departments, such as the FBI or State Department, or the cost to run Homeland Security and the VA — all of which contributed to the nation’s security.

The War in Iraq lasted longer than the Vietnam War. More important, 4,488 U.S. soldiers were killed and 32,226 were wounded. More than $700 billion was spent on the Iraq War alone. (Source: ABC News, Final U.S. Troops Leave Iraq, March 19, 2013)

The true cost of the War on Terror is not just what it has added to the debt, but also the lost jobs that could have been created with those funds. Every $1 billion spent on defense creates 8,555 jobs and adds $565 million to the economy. However, that same $1 billion given to you as a tax cut would have stimulated enough demand to create 10,779 jobs and put $505 million into the economy as retail spending. And $1 billion in education spending adds $1.3 billion to the economy and creates 17,687 jobs. Perhaps for the health of the U.S. economy, the best defense is a good offense. Article updated December 18, 2013
3 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:38am
OneTrack

“Global warming is here, happening now, and we caused it.”

Pull the other one.

Sorry Griff, I just don’t agree (I used to be at least sympathetic to it, but then some fool (Green Party I think) said the “Science is settled” and that I should just STFU and pay more taxes). And now I hear they are trying to ban freedom of speech for evil “deniers” and/or lock them up. A convincing argument if we lived in a totalitarian nightmare. But, I guess, that’s their plan.
9 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:40am
griffith

OneTrack
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?west
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/drought-threatens-s-e-asia-food-price-gains-amid-haze.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/qld-drought–most-widespread-ever-recorded/5306044

I could argue the toss for hours
very distracting from the reality
every world-wide scientific body is caught up in your conspiracy………..

A projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science. – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#sthash.AgYw5vS5.dpuf
2 6
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:50am
stephieboy

The Sarah Palliin cheer squad will love this. She postulates the “God Possibility ” that Flight 370 flew directly to to heaven,

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/03/20/palin-wonders-if-flight-370-flew-directly-to-heaven-2/

There has to be a bit of lampooning by her or is really true that Sarah , as most of us have always suspected, is simply nuts.?
3 5
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:52am
Albert_Ross

hj at 8:01, we should think carefully before taking comments made about the impact of immigration on local cultural, social, economic and religious institutions in Europe as if they applied equally here in New Zealand. The roots of Western cultural, social, economic and religious institutions are indigenous and go very deep in Europe. That’s not the case here.

Do we think NZ would be a better place if immigrants in the nineteenth and twentieth century had made the same effort to adopt locally established cultural, social, economic and religious practices as we now seem to expect new immigrants to do?
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:53am
Ryan Sproull

Those of a liberal bent may not like this, but George W. Bush is smart – likely smarter than you. Actually, the writer of the next piece says he was “brilliant”

That’s a terrifying thought, that he illegally invaded Iraq and caused the death of so many innocent people and actually had some clue of what he was doing.
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:55am
mikenmild

stephie
I think you will find the Daily Currant is a satirical site. Not too far off what Palin might say, to be fair.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:55am
stephieboy

Shawn LH, am not sure about supported by our taxes but I’d have to say I would agree with Fox on the action of Richard Falks.I wonder what he teaches at Princeton.? Premature Senility.?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:56am
Fletch

griff, compared to Bush then, Obama is as smart as a sack of hammers (if we’re going by budget). Obama has wracked up a HUGE deficit; one that will likely take several lifetimes to pay back.

What would you rather W have done? Spend money on defending his country, or let the world be attacked by a tyrant.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 10:58am
Ryan Sproull

Obama has plenty of innocent blood on his hands, too.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:00am
Manolo

A sensible suggestion: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/letters-to-the-editor/9872796/Letter-How-about-a-tax-on-obesity
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:05am
griffith

Considering the mess left by the bush years he has done well to stop the spiraling waste on defence and erosion of liberty the whole war on terror has generated.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:06am
ShawnLH

“That’s a terrifying thought, that he illegally invaded Iraq ”

Under current law it was not illegal.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:06am
ShawnLH

“Considering the mess left by the bush years he has done well to stop the spiraling waste on defence and erosion of liberty the whole war on terror has generated.”

He has certainly not done the latter. In fact the erosion of liberty has become much worse under Obama.

State or no State, some form of defense is a necessity.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:09am
stephieboy

Ryall Sproull,

What innocent blood.? Did he invade and occupy Libya , Egypt and Syria??

Fletch, Obama inherited a gigantic deficit from GWB who tried to pay for a war on tax reductions and a credit card ( deficit spending and borrow, borrow). )

Yes Obana could of canceled GWB ‘s bail out of GM etc but that could of meant at least 20% unemployment.Entirely politically acceptable to teabaggers like you.?
Yes.?

Shawn L H , What erosion of liberties exactly.? Mythical FEMA camps claims of the paranoid far right.?
4 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:12am
ShawnLH

Liberals fall for fake story claiming Sarah Palin said Flight 370 flew to heaven.

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-fall-for-fake-story-claiming-sarah-palin-said-flight-370-flew-to-heaven

Oh dear. When it comes to people on the right who are Christian the brains of many secular liberals just fall on the floor. 🙂

Liberal gullibility at it’s best! 😉
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:13am
griffith

The Septic Tanks system of Government is fucked ..

Both presidential choices represent only the dollars that get them elected.
Any thought other wise is naive.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:16am
Ryan Sproull

Under current law it was not illegal.

It most certainly was illegal, and Bush and Powell’s “mobile labs” song and dance at the Security Council in an attempt to get a resolution making it legal demonstrates that they knew it. It was only after they failed and went ahead anyway that they fell back on claiming that resolution 1441 made it legal.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:19am
Ryan Sproull

Ryall Sproull,

What innocent blood.? Did he invade and occupy Libya , Egypt and Syria??

In addition to being illegal, his assassinations without trial of foreigners often involve collateral murder of people around the targets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:21am
Manolo

@stephieboy: you’re such a gullible feminist. Callow youth.
You’re better advised to Keep performing fellatio on Obama, a task that suits you better.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:24am
Weihana

Fletch (5,629 comments) says:
March 27th, 2014 at 10:58 am

griff, compared to Bush then, Obama is as smart as a sack of hammers (if we’re going by budget). Obama has wracked up a HUGE deficit; one that will likely take several lifetimes to pay back.

All government spending must be authorized by Congress Fletch.

But there is an important difference between deficit spending by Bush and Obama. Bush took on deficits during relatively good economic times to finance wars and tax cuts for the rich. At the very end of Bush’s term and through Obama’s term the deficit was increased to prevent a collapse of the financial system and to ensure the fall in aggregate demand as a result of the crash did not turn into a full blown depression.

Since the end of the recession in the United States the deficit has been slowly reducing. October 2013 through February 2014 recorded a 24% drop in the deficit from the same period a year ago.

A similar story is true in New Zealand. In response to the recession the National government started taking on deficits. The key difference is that New Zealand started from a point of relatively low national debt whereas Obama inherited a long history of running up the debt. Since WW2, the US national debt was at its lowest in 1974 and since then every budget, except for 1998-2001, has seen deficit spending.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:25am
Fletch

Bush got congressional approval – TWICE – before going to war – eg, both Democrats and Republicans had to agree.
In contrast, Obama went to war in Libya without congressional approval at all.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:26am
griffith

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f57/uscg-legal-search-question-119587.html

Sorry, but when it comes to Coast Guard boardings, you don’t have any rights.
I’m surprised how many boaters don’t know this. The US Coast Guard can board your boat any time they want, and look anywhere they want, without probable cause or a warrant. They can do this on the open sea, or while you’re asleep aboard in your marina at midnight. They can look through your bedsheets, in your lockers, in your bilges, in your jewelry box, or in your pockets. They can do it carrying just their sidearms, or they can do it carrying assault rifles. They can be polite about it or they can be rude, but mostly they’re polite.
If you’re an avid boater you can expect to be boarded every year or two.
I explain this to my guests aboard Condesa, some of whom are lawyers, and I’m met with disbelief: “But that’s a blatant violation of your constitutional rights! They need probable cause, or a warrant from a judge!”
“Not on a boat, my friend, not on a boat.”
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:27am
Fletch

Weihana, the U.S deficit has been decreasing? Pull the other one. That’s why they have to keep on raising the debt ceiling every time it is due, right?
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:28am
stephieboy

Ryan Sproull,

There is no evidence that the Obama administration has deliberately targeted and murdered civilians whether collateral or otherwise with e.g Drone attacks in the Yemen or Pakistan.
You just oppose this because its done by a Black Democrat President. Different story, naturally, if it was a Mitt Romney or Rand Paul.
Fletch, Obama did not have to get congressional approval re Libya as it was sanctioned by the UN and it was NATO that conducted the air strikes.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:28am
Weihana

Fletch (5,629 comments) says:
March 27th, 2014 at 10:58 am

What would you rather W have done? Spend money on defending his country, or let the world be attacked by a tyrant.

I would rather he did not continue the trend to reduce taxes on the wealthy in the mistaken belief that it will improve the economy and create jobs. The 2000s saw ZERO net job growth.

I would also rather he had not flushed billions of dollars down Iraq.

Bush inherited an economy that was beggining to turn the tide against ever increasing debt. He reversed course and put it back on its previous path of unsustainable debt and when the economy eventually burst a bubble the United States was in a weaker economic position to be able to weather the storm.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:31am
Weihana

Fletch (5,631 comments) says:
March 27th, 2014 at 11:28 am

Weihana, the U.S deficit has been decreasing? Pull the other one. That’s why they have to keep on raising the debt ceiling every time it is due, right?

You seem mistaken as to what the terms “deficit” and “debt” mean. I suggest you refresh your understanding of those terms. A reduction in the deficit does not imply no increase in national debt since a lower deficit is still a deficit.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:33am
Ryan Sproull

There is no evidence that the Obama administration has deliberately targeted and murdered civilians whether collateral or otherwise with e.g Drone attacks in the Yemen or Pakistan.

You don’t think the drone strikes are happening?!

You just oppose this because its done by a Black Democrat President. Different story, naturally, if it was a Mitt Romney or Rand Paul.

As it happens, I oppose terrorism whoever is committing it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:33am
Tom Jackson

Continued from last night

Full communism would mean no property rights.

Libertarianism is compatible with no living person having full property rights.

Let’s say that Kupe the explorer discovers New Zealand, and that he does whatever Locke thinks you have to do to make it property. New Zealand is now his property. He goes back to Hawaiki (it helps if you imagine him as Billy T James) and says: “Youse fullas can come live on my islands if you like, as long as you obey my rules”. So people do. When he dies, Kupe bequeaths New Zealand not to the particular people who live there, but to the set of all people who shall come to reside on the islands and adds that they must periodically hold elections, and that the will of the elected government must be sovereign with the exception that it can never transfer full property rights over any land, but only a form of leasehold. In accordance with his wishes, a government is elected that later decides to tax a portion of everyone’s income if they are resident in New Zealand. The government has this power because Kupe granted it sovereignty and he was the only person ever to have full property rights over the land in New Zealand. So Kupe has created a welfare state democracy that a Libertarian must support – otherwise they would not be respecting Kupe’s right as the original owner to do with his property as he wished.

A communist society could arise from similar circumstances, depending on the wishes of the founder.

Your rather bizarre claim may be true of some forms of “Libertarian” socialism, which give lip service to freedom, but are prepared to override that in the violent pursuit of economic equality, but Rothbardian Libertarianism is based on the Non-Aggression principle which precludes any kind of State violence and tyranny. A society that was communist or fascist would therefore not be Libertarian, or in any way compatible with Libertarianism as that term is understood today.

That’s not true. Libertarianism does not prevent private tyranny over one’s own property. So, for example, if I owned all the land in New Zealand, I could ask anything I wanted of people who want to live here. They are free to leave, but it’s my property and I can do with it as I wish as long as I violate no one else’s rights. In this case I have not violated anyone else’s rights, since they are on my property and I get to set the rules on my property. I can also bequeath my property to a corporation, or create a special sort of corporation that does what a state does (I can do this because I am the owner of New Zealand, and I get to set the rules about how my property is used).

So you’re just wrong on that count.

The basic mistake in your analysis is to start in the wrong place, with an end (in your case property rights), rather than a moral/ethical principle upon which everything else must stand. This is the same mistake most people on KB make. They start with an end, and then ride roughshod over moral principles by justifying any means to get to that end. This is true of most of the Capitalists here as well as the Socialists, Democracy proponents, and Left Wing Anarchists.

Name me one Libertarian who doesn’t believe in some form of Nozick’s theory of entitlement.

In almost every post here by most of the commentators, people are justifying the means by the ends.

Not at all. I’m treating property rights as deontological principles, as ends in themselves, which are derived by deduction from a fundamental principle of self-ownership (which is itself a form of property right).

Rothbardian Libertarianism, which is the only true political philosophy of freedom, does not make that mistake. It starts with a moral principle, and rejects any means to freedom or rights or any other good, that does not conform to that principle.

What I said is perfectly compatible with Rothbardian libertarianism, and with all conceivable forms that generate strong property rights.

The Non-aggression principle is that it is always wrong for any person, or group of persons, to initiate force against any other. This precludes any kind of tyrannical government or violence.

That is not true.

I may use force against trespassers on my property if they will not leave. By being on my property without my permission they are initiating aggression against me, and I have a right to enforce my property rights by removing them, or having them removed from the property.

This right can be transferred by voluntary exchange to an abstract entity such as a corporation, or use to create a corporate entity that functions as a state, as described above. If you say this cannot be done, then you are interfering with a person’s right to do with their property as they see fit.

The State claims ownership, but this claim is not moral, it is a form of theft.

It depends on the historical facts of property acquisition. Here in New Zealand, the original tribal owners of property voluntarily ceded sovereignty to the British Crown, so you have no complaint against being taxed here. You are free to leave if you wish.

The essential problem for libertarians is that a just distribution of property will depend completely upon the historical record of exchanges, and this may, and usually does, entail that the only property rights individuals have are conditional ones.

I’m sorry about that, but that’s just how the theory works.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:37am
Ryan Sproull

Why does Stephieboy think that a socialist like me would support Mitt Romney or Rand Paul?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:37am
griffith

I oppose Obama’s actions because it is violation of sovereign borders and war is not ok.

It is the lest damaging method for the USA to continue its illegal violation of national boundaries.

It is also using the methods of the guerrilla warfare used against the USA in a very up front and personal way towards the muslim fanatical aggressors.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:39am
Weihana

stephieboy (864 comments) says:
March 27th, 2014 at 11:28 am

You just oppose this because its done by a Black Democrat President. Different story, naturally, if it was a Mitt Romney or Rand Paul.

Is Rand Paul’s views on foreign policy different to his father? Just curious cause my understanding is that his father supports a very radical shift in US foreign policy to promote isolationism rather than projecting power through satellites states.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:39am
stephieboy

Ryan Sproull, I see Mitt and Rand not extreme enough for you. ? What about say ex KKK Imperial Wizard Dave Duke getting your endorsement.?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:45am
stephieboy

weihana, what “satellite states “are you specifically referring to .??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:48am
Ryan Sproull

Ryan Sproull, I see Mitt and Rand not extreme enough for you. ? What about say ex KKK Imperial Wizard Dave Duke getting your endorsement.?

Again, why do you think a socialist like me would support right-wingers like you’re listing?

Also, can you confirm again that you don’t believe drone strikes are happening?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:49am
tom hunter

…. the U.S deficit has been decreasing? Pull the other one.

Sigh. Actually he’s correct Fletch. It’s the US debt you’re thinking of – that continues to increase, as it must when deficits are being continually run.

Admittedly Weihana is just running interference for Obama, in that none of Obama’s budgets have ever been passed by Congress. They’ve never even got votes from Democrats because their spending demands were that insane. Had they ever been implemented we would never have seen a reduction in the deficit. You can thank the GOP taking over the House in 2010 for what deficit reduction has occurred – and that includes tax cuts for the 99% – but it’s had to be done in the most clunky manner:

All government spending must be authorized by Congress Fletch.

Indeed, which is why there has not been a budget passed by the USA for the past few years, since 2010 in fact. The GOP-controlled House passes its budget; the Democrat-controlled Senate under Harry Reid’s leadership simply refused to bring those GOP House budgets up for a floor vote in the Senate (can’t risk division with Democrat Senators voting for it), and did not even bother producing one themselves, and of course, as already noted, Obama’s budgets were dead in the water.

That’s why there has been all this nonsense with continuing resolutions. But it at least has had the advantage of stalling the previous dramatic increases in Federal government spending that started as early as January 2007 when the Democrats took control of the Senate and House. Naturally these years are referred to as “The Bush Budgets” and Congress is not referred to. The spending increases for 2007 caused Bush to veto the thing and the 2008 budget was signed off by Obama in early 2009, as planned by Reid and Pelosi who did not even bother sending it to Bush. It should be noted that that budget, drawn up long before the GFC hit, contained huge spending increases in discretionary spending, as had the 2007 budget.

And more running interference ….

Bush took on deficits during relatively good economic times to finance wars and tax cuts for the rich.

A blatant piece of partisan demagoguery. I guess Weihana was too young to remember the multi-trillion dollar Dotcom meltdown of 2000, which had already turned into a full-blown recession by the time Bush took office, plus the trillion-dollar-plus hit the economy took from the 9/11 attacks later in 2001. Bush and the GOP Congress responded to that in the same way that Obama has done: increased Federal government spending, increased deficits, and tax cuts for everybody to allow increased consumer spending in the economy. Judging from the way that deficits peaked in 2002/2003 and then steadily declined through the “relatively good economic times”, it would appear that Bush and the GOP did exactly what Weihana and other Keynesians demand in such situations.

Now I don’t agree with Keynesian approaches, but if it’s silly for Fletch to claim Bush-GOP did not pull a Keynes, then it’s equally silly to claim he did not do it at least as well as Obama, and judging by the post-Dotcom/911 recovery compared to the post GFC recovery Bush arguably did Keynes smarter!
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:56am
stephieboy

Yes drone strikes do happen and are certainly are controversial. But there is no evidence they are used deliberately and intentionally to target civilians and children.
But there is evidence that the Taliban ,both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, use villages for cover and Mosques, schools and hospitals for munition dumps and storage.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 11:57am
Weihana

stephieboy (867 comments) says:
March 27th, 2014 at 11:48 am

weihana, what “satellite states “are you specifically referring to .??

I’m not referring to any… specifically. 🙂

But I have in mind any of those states through which the US exercises military or political influence. I don’t wish to cite any particular nation as an example because I’m not interested in discussing whether that particular nation would count as a “satellite state” or to evaluate the specific extent to which influences is exercised. My point is simply to question whether Rand Paul would have a foreign policy similar to Obama, or indeed other Republicans.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:00pm
griffith

Don’t talk about the war on terror and the multi trillion dollar global impact of that 😉
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:02pm
Ryan Sproull

Yes Drone strikes do happen and certainly are controversial but there is no evidence they are used deliberately and intentionally used to target civilians and children.

The drone strikes are assassinations, which are illegal.

And the US knows full well that they cause the collateral murder of children and other civilians, which means they are intentionally acting in ways they know will murder children.

But there is evidence that the Taliban ,both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, use villages for cover and Mosques, schools and hospitals for munition dumps and storage.

That same logic could be used to justify the WTC attacks.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:07pm
tom hunter

Between

… What about say ex KKK Imperial Wizard Dave Duke getting your endorsement
…
There is no evidence that the Obama administration has deliberately targeted and murdered civilians whether collateral or otherwise with e.g Drone attacks in the Yemen or Pakistan.
…
You just oppose this because its done by a Black Democrat President. Different story, naturally, if it was a Mitt Romney or Rand Paul.
…
Fletch, Obama did not have to get congressional approval re Libya as it was sanctioned by the UN and it was NATO that conducted the air strikes

You know, between these comments and the classic KOCH BROTHERS EVIL EVIL reference the other day, I’m beginning to think that Stephieboy does not actually read anything about US politics beyond Whitehouse press statements. Which leads to hilarious questions like this from Ryan Sproull ….

Why does Stephieboy think that a socialist like me would support Mitt Romney or Rand Paul?

Because Stephieboy does not actually read anything about ….

…. my god, he’s Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the ultimate pull-string robot for the Democrats! Here she is denying what even the NYT had discussed in detail, with WH sources for good measure – Obama Rep. Debbie Schultz denies the NDAA Secret Kill List

Idiot
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:10pm
Pete George

The Internet Party has launched it’s website. It’s not easy to read white text on a dark purple background, otherwise it looks ok.

The ten point action agenda sounds fine but it’s vague and most parties could claim similar. It keeps stating that details will come later in a ‘manifesto’.

It’s early stages with a lot of work to go. In particular they need to come up with some credible candidates. Until then it’s an interesting work in progress.

The Internet Party’s ‘Action Agenda’
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:15pm
griffith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

…..
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:18pm
tom hunter

Good grief Griff. You’re opposed to gay marriage and donating vast sums to hospitals?

I know you claim you’re a right-winger but do you have to be so cruel and harsh. 🙂
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:23pm
stephieboy

tom hunter,

The alleged kill list allegations,background,

“September 14, 2001: By enacting Senate Joint Resolution 23, Congress granted President George W. Bush the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

and this,

“The implication in the label is that Obama somehow has assembled a personal “kill list”. Zero evidence has been presented to support that. What has been presented is that the president is personally reviewing the individual cases presented to him. Would you feel better if this duty were delegated? Should it be handled by a court? What court has the jurisdiction and security clearance? Who’s to say that there isn’t already a court reviewing these cases? Still, a president that takes this duty upon himself would get the last review and veto. Would you want to take that away?”

http://67.228.115.45/showthread.php?t=246250

Your alleged “kill list ” belongs to the creative imagination of a Fredrick Forsyth or Robert Ludlum. Your video link was a rhetorical question addressed to a Republican member of Congress
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:26pm
griffith

😆

right wing?

I prefer to consider Griff tm much more interested in the rational study of the situation without resorting to the group think of political affiliation.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:33pm
stephieboy

Ryan Sproull, you engage in logic chopping and fully blown rhetoric re Drone attacks.You furnish the evidence that such attacks are used to deliberately murder and target families and there children.?
You can’t because there is none. Instead you slide into crude propaganda and rhetoric.
The same logic to attack the WTC.???
Ah are you sating that 19 hijackers did not deliberately choose to attack the towers etc.??
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:44pm
tom hunter

Your video link was a rhetorical question addressed to a Republican member of Congress

My god you are her!

Mitt was never a Republican member of Congress – you’ve been corrected on this by others before – and the question asked of Dimbulb Schultz was not rhetorical but a straightforward one of how she thought Mitt should deal with Obama’s “kill list” if he won and inherited the issue. The questioner was obviously not prepared for Schultz’s claim that she had no idea what he was talking about, given that it had been a huge story in the NYT!

You can read the original article here. I think you’ll actually like it, given that it’s basically a puff piece on the terrible moral, ethical and legal dilemmas poor President Obama must face in choosing who on the list will live and who will die – that’s why the NYT called it a “kill list” rather than the painful sophistry of “What has been presented is that the president is personally reviewing the individual cases presented to him”.

Chuckle. Sure, Stephieboy, sure.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:53pm
Manolo

The promises of the grossly obese German:
* Cheaper, unlimited, high-speed internet for all New Zealanders
* Stop the government from spying on citizens
* Reform copyright laws
* Make government work for its citizens, not the other way around
* Encourage green technologies and protect the environment.
* Boost innovation and high-tech jobs in New Zealand
* Strengthen New Zealand’s independence
* Introduce a government-sponsored digital currency
* Modernise schools and the education system
* Nominate election candidates who are experts in important areas of social policy.

Also launched was an app people can use to join online, with a $1.29 membership fee for three years.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:56pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan Sproull, you engage in logic chopping and fully blown rhetoric re Drone attacks.You furnish the evidence that such attacks are used to deliberately murder and target families and there children.?

When you know that doing something will kill someone and then you do that thing, that’s called deliberately killing them.

And that’s in addition to the fact that assassinations are illegal even if they only hit their target.

You can’t because there is none. Instead you slide into crude propaganda and rhetoric.
The same logic to attack the WTC.???
Ah are you sating that 19 hijackers did not deliberately choose to attack the towers etc.??

I am saying that they deliberately chose to attack the towers and that someone could claim that they were trying to hit military personnel who were in offices amongst civilians. It would be absurd for them to say that, and it is absurd for you to claim the US is innocent of the deaths of the people they kill when they blow up people who are walking down the street.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 12:59pm
tom hunter

…. without resorting to the group think of political affiliation.

Well in that case I’d be a little more careful in future about falling for the Raise-Funds-and-Turn-out-Low-Information-Voters-With-Evil-Boogeymen tactic being run by the US Democratic Party and constantly referred to by NZ lefties who believe themselves to be … informed.

By contrast I’ll bet that not one in a hundred NZ lefties know the name Tom Steyer or what he’s up to – but then I know they don’t care anyway. All grist to the partisan mill.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:03pm
Manolo

A ~~proud~~ completely discredited Graeme Edgeler poses for a photograph.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/03/internet-party-launch-at-coatesville-reichstag/

Undoubtly, the salary paid by his master Kim DotCom pay must be very, very good.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:17pm
Monique Angel

So that’s what Graeme Edgler looks like. Thought he’d be older. Respectable face of the Internet Party.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:22pm
Monique Angel

surely if it was a proper Internet Party they’d have had a poster of their avatars. Guys all pumped up muscle and carrying Claymores and the token female with a big chest and a crossbow.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:26pm
griffith

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-kicks-initiative-recognize-climate-change-risks

The report provides three key messages for every American about climate change:

Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.
We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.
The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do…………..

That is ok Tom you can not separate your politics from the output of the worlds scientific community.

Unfortunately I can not separate the conclusions of science from my politics because science is based on rational thought.

— Politics is not.

It is both a reflection of humanity rational frailty and an artifice..

It is however a vaiable and often successful avenue to promote change.

As is this blog.

Thanks to DPF.

His liberal approach to censership and tolerance.
3 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:28pm
Ryan Sproull

A proud completely discredited Graeme Edgeler poses for a photograph.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/03/internet-party-launch-at-coatesville-reichstag/

Undoubtly, the salary paid by his master Kim DotCom pay must be very, very good.

Salary? Is Edgeler working full-time for The Internet Party?
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:29pm
Manolo

@Monique: a long mercenary career awaits Mr Edgeler. 😀
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:31pm
mikenmild

He is their lawyer apparently. I’m unsure whether that is a full-time commitment.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:31pm
Ryan Sproull

He is their lawyer apparently. I’m unsure whether that is a full-time commitment.

I was under the impression he was on some kind of consultancy retainer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:38pm
mikenmild

Yes, it’s hard too imagine a fledgling political party needing an electoral law specialist full-time. Perhaps he is full-time though, but will never get paid…
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:41pm
Ryan Sproull

I think it’s a bit unfair to tar him with the Dotcom brush if the Internet Party is just one of any number of consultancy gigs he has going as an electoral-law specialist.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:46pm
Ryan Sproull

Some very interesting commentary on The Internet Party’s constitution:

http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-the-internet-party-whatever-happens/?p=308839#post308839

Very authoritarian, top-heavy power structure, is my initial impression.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 1:49pm
Weihana

tom hunter (3,907 comments) says:
March 27th, 2014 at 11:56 am

I guess Weihana was too young to remember the multi-trillion dollar Dotcom meltdown of 2000, which had already turned into a full-blown recession by the time Bush took office, plus the trillion-dollar-plus hit the economy took from the 9/11 attacks later in 2001.

The US did not have two consecutive quarters of negative growth so I’m not sure “full-blown recession” would be an apt description here.

Moreover, it seems to be a rather retrospective justification to argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq along with the Bush tax cuts were a “Keynesian” response to the Dotcom-bubble.

Now I don’t agree with Keynesian approaches, but if it’s silly for Fletch to claim Bush-GOP did not pull a Keynes, then it’s equally silly to claim he did not do it at least as well as Obama, and judging by the post-Dotcom/911 recovery compared to the post GFC recovery Bush arguably did Keynes smarter!

Barely, and this was atop another bubble and technically without actually going into recession.

However, insofar as Keynesian economics means to support whatever tax cuts and whatever spending in response to economic slowdown then I disagree with it as well. I don’t think all tax cuts are equal nor is all spending equal. Activity for the sake of activity produces nothing long term. Iraq was a hole. Afghanistan was a (albeit more understandable) hole.

I concede though it’s too easy to blame Bush for America’s economic situation. There is a long history of taxation being shifted away from capital and onto workers fueling inequality as well as a long history of deficit spending, whether boom or bust.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 2:14pm
ShawnLH

This, by stephie, is correct:

“There is no evidence that the Obama administration has deliberately targeted and murdered civilians whether collateral or otherwise with e.g Drone attacks in the Yemen or Pakistan.”

This is stupid and offensive:

“You just oppose this because its done by a Black Democrat President.”

And this is disgusting and at least should earn him some demerit points if not a temp ban:

“Ryan Sproull, I see Mitt and Rand not extreme enough for you. ? What about say ex KKK Imperial Wizard Dave Duke getting your endorsement.?”

Who are you stephie to accuse others of racism just because they don’t support Obama? What a crock of shit. And FFS, Ryan is a left wing socialist anarchist, putting anywhere Romney or Rand, let alone the KKK, is just plain retarded. You really like to just piss on people for your own amusement don’t you? You give nobody the respect of actually listening to what they say and what they really believe. If they take one step outside your little political reservation they get labeled the scum of the earth and you shit on them from the great height you think you occupy.

I don’t like Obama and do not support most of his policies. I’m also two thirds Native American, Cherokee to be precise. Are you going to accuse me of sympathy for the KKK?

What a dick.
7 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 3:20pm
Ryan Sproull

It seems that because I have disagreed with something Stephieboy said in the past, he’s put me in the mental category of “people who disagree with me”, which is a large box with a long list of assumptions he makes about its contents.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 3:25pm
Monique Angel

@Manolo. Indeed. Looks like he might have the required dexterity for a rogue /thief character class.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 3:29pm
stephieboy

Shawan LH, since you obviously don’t identify with the far right as per say Dave Duke then who do you identify with.?
You mentioned yesterday Murry Rothbard and my reading of him is that has morphed over time from liberal left to radical right.
So where do you sit on this kind of political continuum.??
Frankly I found you quite confusing making yourself an apparently “one size fits all.”
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 3:39pm
ShawnLH

I have actually explained that to you repeatedly stephieboy, you just don’t listen.

Your simplistic notion of what constitutes “left” and “right” are not helping either.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 3:43pm
Ryan Sproull

You can travel far west of Christchurch without ever ending up at Piha.

Uh…

Sure. I’m going with that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 3:44pm
ShawnLH

Ok, one last time.

“who do you identify with.?”

People who believe in the non-aggression principle.

“The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force principle—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person’s rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.[2] Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, coercive taxation, and military drafts. NAP is the foundation of most present-day libertarian philosophies.”

“You mentioned yesterday Murry Rothbard and my reading of him is that has morphed over time from liberal left to radical right.”

The first problem is that you haven’t read Rothbard at all, you have read about him, largely from those who disagree with him. You cannot claim to have an accurate understanding of Libertarians, or any other subject, when all you do is Google your thinking and reading.

The second problem is your linear and simplistic definition of left and right and what constitutes radical.

Most Libertarians see themselves as neither left nor right, conservative or liberal, in the way these terms are used in popular speech. I suspect some other political philosophies do the same. Assuming that highly loaded phrases like “radical right” or “extreme left” are definitive or even describing the same thing every time they are used is simply naive.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 3:59pm
Ryan Sproull

Most political questions I’m asked are akin to “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Like… “Are you for or against higher taxes?” “Are you for or against legalising gay marriage?” “Do you think the minimum wage should be higher or lower?”

Any answer I give will be misleading.

I’m against taxes, but by the same token I’m against capitalism. I’m for gay marriage, but against legalising any kind of marriage. I think workers should be paid more, but I don’t think they should need the State to force it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 4:18pm
cha

I do hope this is the real thing – Russian news reader reporting on the death of Fred Phelps loses it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wug0am22pGE
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 4:22pm
nasska

Shawn

….”I’m also two thirds Native American, Cherokee to be precise.”…..

Sometime when you’re off the firewater could you have a go at explaining to me how you can claim to be 66.66% of any ancestry.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 4:34pm
ShawnLH

I believe that everyone, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual preferences, has the right to life, liberty and property. I’m opposed to compulsory taxation, and for private property anarchism and genuine free trade. I’m personally against gay marriage, but also against the State defining, legalizing, or criminalizing any form consensual marriage. I think workers should be paid a just wage, but I don’t think I, or any person, including the State, can define and enforce what that is for all people in all circumstances. I’m opposed to all forms of aggressive violence , but maintain the right to use defensive violence against any who attack my or my neighbors life, liberty and property.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 4:36pm
mikenmild

Hair splitting nasska. He could have 21 Cherokee great-great-grandparents out of 32 and that would be damn close to two thirds.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 4:38pm
Ryan Sproull

Cherokee mother, Cherokee great-grandfather on the father’s side. That gives you 20/32 Cherokee. Basically two-thirds.

I knew learning maths at school would come in handy one day.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 4:38pm
Ryan Sproull

Oh shit. I could have just counted great-great-grandparents like Mikenmild did.

MAAAAAAAAATHS!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 27, 2014 4:39pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Dotcom and Mein Kampf

A Haast-Hollyford toll road? »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

National's privatised child-abuse camps
No Right Turn
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Hey Bryce What About How The Unions Buy Influence When Labour Leads The Government
No Minister
Waikato Med School – National’s zombie “pet project” won’t die
Point of Order
8pm Live Tonight: The Working Group with Simon Wilson, Ani O’Brien and Damien Grant
The Daily Blog
Bill Maher on the election and “progressophobia”
Utopia
THE BIG DAY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Open mike 05/11/2024
The Standard
What would Sumner say about Trump and Vance’s pro-tariff rhetoric?
Not PC
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
NZ media’s “propagandisation” of the US Election
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz