Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 74448	2006-11-23 00:32:00	Brash resigns	leonidas5 (2306)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
501398	2006-12-12 07:52:00	Any man/woman who owns a company cannot be on the side of his/her workers, that is to be expected, but when there are few rules to curtail exploitation then the boss will turn into a tyrant. Can't be any other way. Strict regulation is required to counteract human nature. The workers have to recognize that the work they do one week goes to pay their wages the next. That is all. The "capitalist pigs" was a joke. I used it to get a point across. Suggest you read this book: www.garfield.library.upenn.edu	zqwerty (97)
501399	2006-12-12 08:04:00	I'm not detracting from your statements Terry but where exactly did Nicky get these e-mails from? In my opinion he sourced them from one of four places. First up, and least probable, is an unknown sleuth who did it for the money and sold the information to Nicky. Option number two is to look at who had the most to gain from this : take your pick was it John K, Bill E or both? Thirdly, was it someone extremely close to Don to get access to all this information, like his secretary? Or fourthly, and IMHO the most probable source, was it sourced by the Government using something like the SIS? I say most probable, because Helen and Winnie knew a lot more about this before anyone else - how so? If that were true, would you be so quick to defend Helen and her policies? The other thing I find ironic is that all and sundry are here criticising politicians for being dishonest. Come on people. Is this anything new? Would you trust a politician? With your life? With your money? No no no. This is absolutely nothing new. And Don consulted right wing parties to assist him with what - right wing policies? So what? Would it be a crime for Helen to consult left wing parties on matters of left wing policy? Absolutely not! This is what they do. Yes I understand the issue was one of denial - but hey, show me a politician that hasn't stretched the truth, told a lie, or through omission didn't admit to something......Don's issue was he was caught. End of case. I can guarantee the boot would be on the other foot if all of Helen's e-mails and diary notes etc were exposed to the public. Now wouldn't that make interesting reading? The same goes for any of the other political party leaders. Who wouldn't want to read some of Rodneys or Tariana's e-mails? So come on people, this is nothing new. Politicians are intrinsically dishonest. Show me Helen's e-mails and then we can have a full and open discussion on the merits of individuals, their policies and they way they regard the public. They don't call the halls of the Beehive 'Helengrad' for nothing..... Andrew	andrew93 (249)
501400	2006-12-12 08:40:00	Hager claims that he received the documentation that forms the basis of his book from 6 National Party sources who were concerned at the direction the party was taking. I agree with what you say Andrew, about the honesty or lack of it or the perception of lack of honesty among politicians, whether of the left or of the right. As Hager says in his preface; "It is not that the activities and themes described in this book have never happened before: such cynicism is found to varying degrees in most eras and parties. But this study of the National Party covers a period of extremely cynical political behaviour. And what is unique is the opportunity it offers to observe politics close up and in the politicians' own words." (my emphasis) There was deliberate deception to withhold from "the chattering masses" the true political agenda, in order to win the election, as they knew and acknowledged they could never have won by presenting the Douglas/Richardson/Brash/ACT policies of privatisation of health, schools, or even getting rid of the anti-nuclear policy 'by lunchtime' :) Maybe I do wear a cloth cap at times, maybe in reaction to the rise of the New Right, but I still regard myself, despite Ciceros witty cracks as still the same 'conventional conservative' that I have always been. I haven't changed from the days of Churchill and Macmillan, it's folk like Cic. who have moved towards Genghis Kahn, Thatcher, Regan, Bush, Douglas and now Brash :) Edit: Back in 1945, I just could not understand why there was so much antagonism towards Churchill, and on the streets too, towards anyone who supported Churchill and the Tories. After all, England would have capitulated to Hitler if it had not been for Churchill. From that moment on despite only being a lad, I was anti-Labour. The current so-called Labour Party is nothing in any way shape or form like the old traditional UK Labour movement, despite the spin to try to make it look so.	Terry Porritt (14)
501401	2006-12-12 08:54:00	Hi Terry I wasn't aware of the plan to privatise health and education. Irrespective of ones political leanings, that is a big no no. If this is a matter of cost control, why pick on the two of the most important Government services? Education is the key for the future of this country and free public healthcare goes without saying - it must be accessible to all and sundry without regard for ones financial standing (like justice, in theory....yeah right). The largest financial drain, hands down, is social welfare and like it or lump it (and as much as I dislike Mike C) the Govt super fund is going some way to addressing that problem. As for the anti-nuke policy, that needs to be enshrined in legislation such that a referendum is required to change it. Our anti-nuke stance is one of the many things that makes NZ truly unique. So at the risk of sounding like a fence-sitter, I think the answers are a matter of moderation and balance - enough policies and laws to protect the workers and the disadvantaged, but sufficiently loose to let the entrepreneurs make money. Is such a view utopian? Or can it realistically be achieved? People at the political extremes tend to view the policies of the Government of the day having gone too far in the other direction - I suspect the reality is that provided there is a mutual dissatisfaction then an equilibrium has been attained......much to everyone’s dissatisfaction. .......just my musings for a Tuesday night. Too much thinking for one day......over and out. Cheers, Andrew	andrew93 (249)
501402	2006-12-12 11:50:00	Has anybody read that book 'Hollow Man' yet. It was supposed to be based on e-mails etc..... Being in the IT industry, I just thought it was strange that none of the people accusing him of stuff realized that the same source of the leaked e-mail, could well have been the instigator of said e-mail all the while Brash didn't have a clue and still doesn't. Its a pity we rely so heavy on the word of the media who after all, have agenda's at the end of the day!... :2cents: "Hidden Agenda" by John Pilger is a book worth reading. He has twice won British journalism's highest award. He shows how pathetic journalism has become in this day and age	mikebartnz (21)
501403	2006-12-12 12:01:00	There was/is nothing remarkable about Rogernomics. It is basic free-market economics where government rules with a light hand and people are freed from rules and regulations to live their own lives. Reagan and Thatcher implemented these policies before Roger Douglas was heard of. And the standard of living in both the US and Britain has grown markedly in the past 20 years. I'm not sure about Britain's national debt but the US has one that I don't envy and then you have to add on privatised debt and it gets even worse. There are also more people living below the poverty line than there used to be. While the free market sounds alright in theory so to some people does communism but theory and practice are two different things	mikebartnz (21)
501404	2006-12-12 12:16:00	What's good for "the economy" is not necessarily good for those being economised?	R2x1 (4628)
501405	2006-12-13 00:54:00	What's good for "the economy" is not necessarily good for those being economised? Hmmmm...........the idea is that if an economy grows, then that provides an economic cake which all citizens benefit from, simply by living within it. That doesn't mean equality of wealth but the general standard of living rises for all. I can say after visiting India that the poor in NZ are immensely rich compared with poor Indian people. The trouble is, we live in such splendid isolation that we simply don't recognise how well-off New Zealanders are. This leads to another problem of conventional economics - growth is the touchstone for quality of life. I believe that the world is coming up against a brick wall and "growth" will stop. Why? Simply because the planet has finite resources and we are stripping those away at an accelerating rate. Take water - much of it is pumped out of underground aquifers which have taken thousands of years to fill. They will run dry. But worse, humans are killing the biomass of the planet faster than it can be replaced. No doubt we'll survive as a species - but there will be a lot of starvation and death in the meantime. On that cheery note - Merry Christmas All :thumbs:	Winston001 (3612)
501406	2006-12-13 01:27:00	The other thing I find ironic is that all and sundry are here criticising politicians for being dishonest. Come on people. Is this anything new? Would you trust a politician? With your life? With your money? No no no. This is absolutely nothing new. And Don consulted right wing parties to assist him with what - right wing policies? So what? I think the "so what" that I find intriguing is that Brash denied all this - consulting "right wing parties" for "right wing policies". Why deny this unless Brash felt that he had done something wrong (or done something that might be perceived as wrong). He wouldn't deny such associations unless he wanted to influence how he is perceived. At least the other parties are not afraid to show their colours. Hmmmm...........the idea is that if an economy grows, then that provides an economic cake which all citizens benefit from, simply by living within it. That doesn't mean equality of wealth but the general standard of living rises for all. The problem is when the improvements accrue disproportionately. Put very simplistically, a 10% increase across the board may result in a 7.5% increase for those who are already well off, while others get merely 2.5% Everyone may benefit, but the gap may widen as a result, creating a generally improved society, but one where it is harder to get ahead. :2cents:	Lizard (2409)
501407	2006-12-13 04:26:00	Hmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . the idea is that if an economy grows, then that provides an economic cake which all citizens benefit from, simply by living within it . That doesn't mean equality of wealth but the general standard of living rises for all . I can say after visiting India that the poor in NZ are immensely rich compared with poor Indian people . The trouble is, we live in such splendid isolation that we simply don't recognise how well-off New Zealanders are . This leads to another problem of conventional economics - growth is the touchstone for quality of life . I believe that the world is coming up against a brick wall and "growth" will stop . Why? Simply because the planet has finite resources and we are stripping those away at an accelerating rate . Take water - much of it is pumped out of underground aquifers which have taken thousands of years to fill . They will run dry . But worse, humans are killing the biomass of the planet faster than it can be replaced . No doubt we'll survive as a species - but there will be a lot of starvation and death in the meantime . On that cheery note - Merry Christmas All :thumbs: I would like the aquifers becoming empty confirmed,that suggests that they are not being refilled ex the mountains .	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16