| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 60840 | 2005-08-14 23:44:00 | Who are you gonna vote for?? (Govt Election) | rmcb (164) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 381221 | 2005-08-17 05:54:00 | Um, I know this will upset you Veale but I don't care about the people earning their living off felling trees. Really I don't. When they introduced the spinning jennie weavers rioted, when they introduced modern wheels, wheelmakers lost their jobs, when electric power became common, candle makers were out of work.... Guess the theme here, - jobs become extinct people have to move on. It happens in all other industries, in all other jobs, from factory workers to professionals, why should it NOT happen here? Get used to it, learn another trade or skill. Why should we keep on with failed and outdated situations just to keep a doomed industry that just rapes the land. Surpisingly the fishing industry is in the same "boat". Having raped the oceans soon there will be few jobs around for fishermen, look at Nelson now, do you want to keep them in money as well, and just kill the last remaining fish? Wallow in your disgust, it makes no difference, time and jobs evolve and move on. Interesting netchicken. Your retort contains no material evidence to back up your claims. To compare the felling of trees on the West Coast with the fishing industry is plain ignorant and childish in thinking. Logging on the West Coast involved "selective logging", to you, being obviously ignorant as to what this means is explained as follows. Trees are selected according to their timber yeild. Basically this means the biggest ones go and the smaller ones are left. This opens the tree canopy allowing the smaller trees more access to nutrients (sunlight, soil etc). This in turn allows these trees to grow and the process is repeated. Because of this it is also termed sustainable logging. The majority of trees were taken from back country lots that hosted visitors maybe once or twice a year, usually hunters. Unfortunately fishermen are unable to dive under the water and selectively pick out the biggest fish amongst (like trees i will agree) the millions that exist, making your comparison foolish, but from you, most expected. Comments from armchair activists such as yourself are seldom appreciated, especially when your arguments are fraught with inaccuracies. Jobs do evolve, but when people such as yourself support a government party that likes to screw with people lives because of a couple of trees you can obviously see it is unappreciated by those affected by the consequences. I cannot really complain myself, I am now allowed to operate a 100 ton digger at Stockton mine and am able to push over the same number of trees in an hour than I could previously cut in a day. This coal is now trucked to steel mills and burnt, producing more carbon dioxide than all those wonderful trees could ever convert to oxygen. The wonders of evolution aye chicken! With this in mind, do you really consider the "Green" Party to be the full quid? Out of sight really is out of mind dont you think? Oh, and apparantly Solid Energy has access to another 200ha of land....another round of rape and pillaging for everyone please... :D |
Veale (536) | ||
| 381222 | 2005-08-17 06:25:00 | Labour. Helen Clark will keep NZ an independent nation as David Lange did. Don Brash just cant wait to get into bed with Bush & Blair. The three Bs. Howard is not worth mentioning. The illegal war continues and it's going to be when not if the US uses major Nuclear weapons. They are already using depleted uranium in their weapons with the resulting deformed babies being born to Service personnel & to the women of the nations they have invaded. Never mind the huge percentage increase in Cancer. Tax cuts, Interest rates, Pensions etc are very minor in comparison. Yes I'm nearing retirement age and can't afford DSL, so what. Please Help Keep NZ Nuclear Free. |
Sue (33) | ||
| 381223 | 2005-08-17 08:25:00 | Yay Sue On Safari . National will only take us back to their last episode of floggihg off the family silver to their cronies . And de-regulating, and the taxpayer (us) ends up paying for the shonky work done by "enterprising" builders and developers who brought upon us the 'leaky building syndrome . ' |
mark c (247) | ||
| 381224 | 2005-08-17 12:30:00 | Omg i cannot believe people are taking that balding ape of a party president, Don (oh so) Brash so seriously, i just have to look at him and i laugh my head off. His oh so cunning stategies that really dont mean anything in the long term, his constant attacks at trivial actions and policies of rival parties." Seriously who would want that man representing our lovely country anywhere, i shudder at the thought... Anyway i shall be voting for Greens as a vote for a green will keep national out just as much as a labour vote will. haha ;-) And i shall vote for some random (no party) ross guy from the SIT who told me hes in it just for the money... Finnally some honesty... ... |
jackrulz (2216) | ||
| 381225 | 2005-08-17 13:37:00 | Greg: I'm sad to learn you don't vote, having read in your previous posts that you have kids. It's fine for young ones with only themselves to think of to see voting as irrelevant (Been there, done that myself once upon a time) But when you've a family, political parties can matter a lot in terms of help with raising kids - money & education & health etc. Even if you don't trust their promises, just assessing WHAT they promise is illuminating in terms of families. (And the other thing is, of course - Nobody who doesn't vote has any right whatsoever to criticise the government on any subject whatsoever. Anyone who's not prepared to make that effort must realise it's only fair that their opinions will be seen as totally worthless) |
Laura (43) | ||
| 381226 | 2005-08-17 14:05:00 | Not voting is a statement in itself,and a perfectly respectable choice to make, The belief that this makes someone uneligable to comment on anything from that point on is pure drivel. While I will vote this year I have certainly abstained in the past, Voting is deciding on what one thinks is the lesser of 2 evils (or 3 or 4 idiots) and I would hate to think that I helped get any of these morons into jobs...even if it is to keep an even bigger moron from getting the job. Personally I would rather see them taken outside and roughed up a bit..... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 381227 | 2005-08-17 20:33:00 | I disagree Metla, not voting is not a choice, it is an abrogation of a citizen's responsibility for the continuance of democracy . Throughout history untold numbers of people have died fighting for the right to vote, the right for self determination and freedom . Throughout the world people continue to die fighting for that right, and we do nothing else, we should exercise that privilege, simply because we can . Use it or lose it, as the saying goes . Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 381228 | 2005-08-17 20:49:00 | It just goes to show how different we all are. I too think that not voting is quite valid....'a plague on both your houses'. However what would be even better is a voting system that includes an anti-vote, ie you vote against the person or party you most dislike, or you think is the least deserving. Then at the end, they count up the number of votes for and against, and if the number against is greater, then out! |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 381229 | 2005-08-17 21:27:00 | I never voted for a few elections after I became eligible. The reason for that was I believed (like others) that not voting for anyone gave me a valid reason to ***** at whoever was in. However, I have changed my view in that I believe to not vote is to be mediocre and sit on the fence; to be happy with whoever is in parliament (well you must be, you never voted for change). This kind of thinking therefore doesn't give you a say (you had your opportunity to have it on election day, but never took it). It also doesn't give you the right to *****. You only get that right if you voted for someone else and they never made it into government. Just my thoughts on the matter.. |
Myth (110) | ||
| 381230 | 2005-08-17 21:36:00 | It just goes to show how different we all are. I too think that not voting is quite valid....'a plague on both your houses'. However what would be even better is a voting system that includes an anti-vote, ie you vote against the person or party you most dislike, or you think is the least deserving. Then at the end, they count up the number of votes for and against, and if the number against is greater, then out! Great idea Terry. Somewhere sometime I have heard of this system. If I knew what search words to enter, it would be an interesting Google. Met has a point, as usual, but actually all of you have missed the real point, which is once we become an Oz state, voting will be compulsory: this is where TRUE democracy resides, right? BTW, I still read the odd post (elsewhere) that people voted for Kerry not because they thought he would be a great president, but only to get rid of Bush. Morons? Ahh give us a break Met. Even the Bishop is a genius compared to morons like George W. Brash and Helen are intelligent, really, its just the nature of the job that makes apparent morons out of them. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | |||||