Survey from the National Party

Forums › Off topic › Survey from the National Party

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#660715 24-Jul-2012 02:02

networkn:

But what you say isn't right anyhow, otherwise there would be no need for public records and transparency in governance. e.g. If the Government owned it all itself, it wouldn't have to tell use what it wants to do in the Budget, or in Acts.

Wow! Just wow!

Lol, you are way too easy.

Anyway, I am now at the stage of poking fun at people. I think I'll find better things to do now.

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#660727 24-Jul-2012 07:00

It might just be me, but this discussion has now officially reached the point where all I hear is this.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#660818 24-Jul-2012 09:28

Brendan: My partner recently received a survey from the National Party in the mail box.

It's a curious thing on closer inspection - it wants you to tick the three issues that are important to you, and provides a list.

All of the options are pretty clearly stated, and clear in their meaning. Except one.

Selling minority shares in four energy SOEs and Air New Zealand

Now, the thing I note about this one 'issue' is how ambiguously it is worded. It is worded so that it can be interpreted in two mutually exclusive ways:
1. it's important to sell the assets, and I am interested in this.
2. the selling is important because it shouldn't happen.

Is national trying to 'game' the survey such that the results can be interpreted in any way they wish? Imagine all the people who might interpret it as (2) above and these are counted as 'support' for the sale.

Why are they ramming it through - there is no doubt it not wanted? Why this ambiguous 'survey'? Why a survey now, at all (timing)?

The most important thing in National's agenda is taking public assets and giving them to their corporate cronies. Noting must get in the way of this. Pillaging the state the top priority of conservative parties everywhere. The GOP in the US did the same in 2001: cut taxes....explode the deficit...then use the debt as an excuse to privatise state functions....or just stop delivering them.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660830 24-Jul-2012 09:42

The most important thing in National's agenda is taking public assets and giving them to their corporate cronies. Noting must get in the way of this. Pillaging the state the top priority of conservative parties everywhere. The GOP in the US did the same in 2001: cut taxes....explode the deficit...then use the debt as an excuse to privatise state functions....or just stop delivering them.

Yes yes the rich are out to get the poor, the poor are helpless and never make bad choices, they are just manipulated by the rich so they never get a hand up...

/me rolls his eyes

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#660840 24-Jul-2012 10:07

Brendan: ...
I think the point is that as tax payers, we ALL already own equal shares in these assets.

Actually none of us own shares ("equal" or otherwise) in these assets at all, nor do we have any other form of "ownership". Unless you have rights that the rest of us do not have we do not have any of the rights that ownership would deliver to us.

Just some basic examples, we do not get to elect the board members and determine their remuneration, nor do we vote to retain or otherwise the auditors and to accept their reports or not. We also do not have any rights to attend shareholder meetings. All those are the basic rights of owners.

Of course, if you buy some shares, as even the leader of the Labour Party is now saying NZ'ers should do (Morning Report, 24 July, 2012), you will become one of the owners and get those rights. In fact you will have much more say, little though that may be, as to their futures than you now have.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660847 24-Jul-2012 10:19

John2010:
Brendan: ...
I think the point is that as tax payers, we ALL already own equal shares in these assets.

Actually none of us own shares ("equal" or otherwise) in these assets at all, nor do we have any other form of "ownership". Unless you have rights that the rest of us do not have we do not have any of the rights that ownership would deliver to us.

Just some basic examples, we do not get to elect the board members and determine their remuneration, nor do we vote to retain or otherwise the auditors and to accept their reports or not. We also do not have any rights to attend shareholder meetings. All those are the basic rights of owners.

Of course, if you buy some shares, as even the leader of the Labour Party is now saying NZ'ers should do (Morning Report, 24 July, 2012), you will become one of the owners and get those rights. In fact you will have much more say, little though that may be, as to their futures than you now have.

I admire your patience and persistence :)

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#660860 24-Jul-2012 10:42

networkn:
I admire your patience and persistence :)

. You and some others too.

May be why I have always got on very well with every union I have had to work with (including in the rough and tough 1970's - errrr, I was very young then

, chucked in at the deep end). That probably unbelievable to Brendan though.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660863 24-Jul-2012 10:45

John2010:
networkn:
I admire your patience and persistence :)

. You and some others too.

May be why I have always got on very well with every union I have had to work with (including in the rough and tough 1970's - errrr, I was very young then , chucked in at the deep end). That probably unbelievable to Brendan though.

I don't mind debate, so long as it's productive, seems to me at this point it's 95% trolling from Brendan.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#660944 24-Jul-2012 12:19

I don't usually start posts with my personal background, but in this case I'll make an exception.

I graduated from Vic with a Bachelors in Politics, worked for a government department and now work in media. I've read more political books than I care to mention from Ayn Rand through Plato and the other two then Hobbs and ending up with Marx and Howard Zinn, side detours through S. E. Finer, Jay Stanley included. I usually start the day with Morning Report. OK, I'm not all knowing but I'm not uninformed either.

Sadly, I am creeping towards being what I am going to call an "informed non-voter". They say the greatest threat to democracy isn't revolution but apathy, what I am currently feeling is closer to disgust.

So, it is in this spirit I ask this question:

What is worse, the seemingly blatant corruption of National who are doing it for the money or the champagne liberalist detachment of Labour who seem to really not understand that many of us are struggling and are removed from the concerns of middle NZ?

C

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Idiot

8 posts

Wannabe Geek

#660947 24-Jul-2012 12:22

Brendan: Ahh, I think we have a sock puppet here:

Idiot:
1. What is a credible official source? What is their argument for keeping 100% ownership of these assets? And why would there be a credible official source on what the argument against a partial sale of state assets is?

Statistics NZ is the only source for statistics that NZ Government may officially use. By Law.

The rest of your comment is barely intelligible.

You also attempt to use ad hominem, but you actually discredit yourself, since you're the only person who misused "them".

You clearly do not even know what "ad hominem" means.

Given that your user name is very clearly accurate, I'll not bother with the rest. It made no more sense than the above.

How would Statistics New Zealand determine what the argument against state asset sales is? I would have thought the best argument against would be what we should be concerned with.

You used statistics not from Statistics New Zealand to attempt to show the majority of voters were against the partial sale of state assets. One which didn't state it was a partial sale, and the other asked for a preference. Neither of these actually support your statement. Obviously, a partial sale is not the same as a complete sale. And just because people would prefer a capital gains tax doesn't mean they're against a partial sale of state assets. And what you prefer also isn't necessarily what you think should be done. So you've misused these statistics.

You didn't really even answer the first question and you seem to want something that isn't a statistic from Statistics New Zealand.

Ad hominem, from wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

The key point to why what you did was ad hominem, "pointing out a negative characteristic". You attempted to point out a misuse of the word "them" most likely to suggest the author's understanding of English isn't as good as yours. This is an attempt to show you are more intelligent than them. People generally are biased towards believing intelligent people's arguments. So you are attempting to negate the truth of what they said by pointing out a negative characteristic of them.

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#660957 24-Jul-2012 12:24

crackrdbycracku:
What is worse, the seemingly blatant corruption of National who are doing it for the money or the champagne liberalist detachment of Labour who seem to really not understand that many of us are struggling and are removed from the concerns of middle NZ?

C

Neither; it's that there is no meaningful third choice (and no, not voting is not a meaningful choice either). You can't even vote independent in this country as a protest, electorates still being FPP as they are, because it's a completely wasted vote.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#660961 24-Jul-2012 12:33

Brendan:
trig42:
Yes, I'm not sure where the sense of entitlement came from.

It came from NZ LAW. I believe it even uses the words ENTITLED and GUARANTEED.

It is part of the Human Rights Act and the Social Security Act. May be others.

Wow, Brendan you are sounding like a communist, we have all seen where that leads.

So the workers are meant to prop up those who have not intention of working as they are entitled to free money. Have you thought about what heppens when the whole country thinks like that?

If I had my way the benefit would be food parcels and rent/basics paid, no free cash at all.

Mandatory army reserves service for unemployed on the benefit longer 3 months.

I ask you to ignore law for a moment and answer this.

If no-one worked where would the food and resources come from?

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#660974 24-Jul-2012 13:10

dickytim:

So the workers are meant to prop up those who have not intention of working as they are entitled to free money. Have you thought about what heppens when the whole country thinks like that?
We turn into Spain, and get to have seistas in the afternoons. Woohoo!

If I had my way the benefit would be food parcels and rent/basics paid, no free cash at all.
If I had my way I'd be sitting on a golden toilet seat, eating chocolate.

Mandatory army reserves service for unemployed on the benefit longer 3 months.
Mandatory army reserves would cost a lot more than keeping someone on a benefit. You'd be throwing cash down my golden toilet, and the country would be even further in debt

I ask you to ignore law for a moment and answer this.

If no-one worked where would the food and resources come from?
Trees, the ground, animals. Where it used to come from before packaged foods were invented

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660986 24-Jul-2012 13:23

vinnieg:
dickytim:

So the workers are meant to prop up those who have not intention of working as they are entitled to free money. Have you thought about what heppens when the whole country thinks like that?
We turn into Spain, and get to have seistas in the afternoons. Woohoo!

If I had my way the benefit would be food parcels and rent/basics paid, no free cash at all.
If I had my way I'd be sitting on a golden toilet seat, eating chocolate.

Mandatory army reserves service for unemployed on the benefit longer 3 months.
Mandatory army reserves would cost a lot more than keeping someone on a benefit. You'd be throwing cash down my golden toilet, and the country would be even further in debt

I ask you to ignore law for a moment and answer this.

If no-one worked where would the food and resources come from?
Trees, the ground, animals. Where it used to come from before packaged foods were invented

Mandatory army reserves would NOT cost more, and certainly not more than the long term benefit which would come from people getting off their asses to be doing something.

Re your comment around food, you haven't thought this through. Where are people living in apartments going to get trees animals and access to the ground? If they can't be bothered to work for a living the chances of them hunting and gathering their own food == next to nil.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#660992 24-Jul-2012 13:33

crackrdbycracku: . I've read more political books than I care to mention from Ayn Rand through Plato and the other two then Hobbs and ending up with Marx and Howard Zinn, side detours through S. E. Finer, Jay Stanley included. I usually start the day with Morning Report. OK, I'm not all knowing but I'm not uninformed either.

C

Was that Calvin and Hobbs, or the other one ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9