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
381231	2005-08-17 22:20:00	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-{) Lets say for argument sake,the choice was Stalin or Hitler,you would suggest that it would be right to vote for one or the other?	Cicero (40)
381232	2005-08-17 22:28:00	I've split this out into a point by point, mostly because I felt you were rather harsh on netchicken, making several personal attacks I didn't feel were necessary or constructive . Interesting netchicken . Your retort contains no material evidence to back up your claims . On the other hand, neither does yours, or mine . They are all just opinion . To compare the felling of trees on the West Coast with the fishing industry is plain ignorant and childish in thinking . I would have to disagree, both are involved in mining a natural resource, that given time will rebuild itself . 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 . I spoke to the person who runs the environmental science course at the university here about this last night . Selective Logging works very well, if you are in a forest with a very low number of species of tree, such as the pine forests in the states . In a forest with a large number of species (such as NZ native bush) you slowly destroy the species you are harvesting . It just becomes mining with less noticable impact . Environmental groups that recomend it are usually doing so because the alternitive is clear felling . The majority of trees were taken from back country lots that hosted visitors maybe once or twice a year, usually hunters . So tourism is the only reason we should keep our forests? 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 . The comparision is still more than valid, the point (as I saw it) was that forestry, like fishing, was an industry that has been using a natural resource which is now becoming depleted, and is now facing problems because of it . Personal attacks are not nice . Comments from armchair activists such as yourself are seldom appreciated, especially when your arguments are fraught with inaccuracies . Isn't that the point of an argument, to point out the inaccuracies of the other side? 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 I had a conversation some time ago about a mine, I'm not sure if it was Stockton, obtaining a large amount of DoC land to mine with the same Environmental Scientest I mentioned earlier . At the time there was a huge public outcry about this . They were in favor of allowing the mining devolopment, because to obtain the rights to the land the mining company had to create a signifigant environmental benifit somewhere else (I forget the details of what they had to do) . It was a matter of what was best for the environment overall . In summary I'm sorry that your livelyhood was affected veale, but I'm far from convinced that the arguements you supplied for continued logging of native forests are vaild . -Qyiet	qyiet (6730)
381233	2005-08-18 00:09:00	Rather than expand on each point (no matter how incorrect your responses were) I will say this . Logging on the West Coast had existed for at least 100 years prior to it being abolished . With the amount of native bush that exists still, you would have to clear fell for the next 100 years to notice even a minor difference . By this time, natural regrowth would start to occur anyhow . And to clairfy why I made harsh comments and "personal attacks???" it is for this reason . The 14,000 or so occupants of the West Coast have no real chance to defend our right to use the resources located in our back yard merely because "armchair activists" such as netchicken and yourself sit back in your own raped and pillaged regions thinking "ooo, so much lovely native forest, looks so beautiful on tv, lets save the West Coast" , then go and vote based on a biased green view without little thought to the repercussions experienced by those living here . Your environmental science lecturer may have quoted you "Forestry 101" word for word, but from experience (both mine and older workers) I have found this is not the case . Dunno where you sourced your Stockton information but it is irrelevant . After much opposition from more active envionmentalists (unlike netchicken and yourself) more destruction will thankfully ensue . :thumbs: My advice is to stick to issues in your own electorate and make your party vote based on what is in your best interests which unless you're a tree hugging hippy will probably not involve trees . Or come on down to the wild West Coast and I will personally escort you round our pillaged forests and then you can make your own opinions based on first hand experience as opposed to Jeanette and Robs "Electric Kool-Aid West Coast Trip" . :D And im spent . Veale	Veale (536)
381234	2005-08-18 01:22:00	Sigh, Veale assumes because he is there he has a greater right to the use or misuse of the forestry resource than anyone else . Big deal, get over it . Got news for you veale, I enjoy the west coast visiting it numerous times a year for tramping and recreation . The change from primary production to tourism is the future of the coast, if you don't like it then tough, as I said at the beginning I am not interested in the whines of the unemployed . Nor am I moved by threats to keep out . You, and timber felling, are an anacronism, a holdover from the past . Time the issue was put to bed and the forests were allowed to stay in peace . Your excuses to carry on felling are the same as the South Americans use for felling the Amazon rain forest, or the rapacious companies stripping the forests in Malasia use, or the same as people give for trying to justify any detrimental activity on the basis of "we have done it in the past we should be allowed to do it now" . Such as eating whales . . . Such a weak argument and personal abuse only shows how desperatly you hang onto something that is past it .	netchicken (4843)
381235	2005-08-18 02:50:00	Not voting is perfectly acceptable in my books, I do like Terry's idea of voting for/against a party. This would be very nice indeed. In my books, if you don't vote you don't have the right to ***** about who is in Government as you never contributed to who got there in the first place.	Jeremy (1197)
381236	2005-08-18 03:07:00	LOL they all complete idiots really as how many have actually done what they said they are going to do? in the time stipulated? Not voting is fine, i have not voted a few times due to the fact i thought them all useless, and none of them helped me before during or after the elections . apart from the fact i dont understand some of their logic or ideas thats best for NZ's . . . . . . . things that will affect me now, are family support, student loans . . . . . and tax i spose . but health would be a good one . . . . . its important to most people at some point in time, especially when you dont have health . . . . :D It seems to me that the idea of being a PM, is great you get lots of $$ you can do and say almost anything, you get to live away from home lots, and get to act like a nob . . . . . . I have yet to meet someone in a political party that i would like to call a friend as they all seem to have hidden agenders . . . . . . or genders maybe . . . :p yeah and undecided, not taken any notice really, dont have time . . . . . or inclination to get down and dirty with politics . . . . Oh yeah and the dont vote no right to complain idea, well if i didnt or dont vote again, thats my choice and im not likely to complain about it, or who gets in, as they all a bunch of wallys . my motto is get on with it, no time to grizzle, lifes awasting . so whats the point of moaning about a pack of "I AM's" ? theyll have enuf to say with out the rest of us chipping in with our :2cents: worth . . . . . . . . . . . . :lol: beetle	beetle (243)
381237	2005-08-18 03:21:00	Whats up netchicken, more replies for you . Sigh, Veale assumes because he is there he has a greater right to the use or misuse of the forestry resource than anyone else . Correct, as a great misuser of our forestry resource and ratepayer, i pride myself in these rights . Got news for you veale, I enjoy the west coast visiting it numerous times a year for tramping and recreation . The change from primary production to tourism is the future of the coast, if you don't like it then tough, as I said at the beginning I am not interested in the whines of the unemployed . Nor am I moved by threats to keep out . You, and timber felling, are an anacronism, a holdover from the past . Time the issue was put to bed and the forests were allowed to stay in peace . The money you spend here is much appreciated . It contributes significantly to the "booming" Tourism industry which makes up 5% of the local economy . Your "tough" comment however, is misplaced, I do like it . I now enjoy 30% more pay and am currently about 25% more environmentally destructive (give or take 5%) . Your excuses to carry on felling are the same as the South Americans use for felling the Amazon rain forest, or the rapacious companies stripping the forests in Malasia use, or the same as people give for trying to justify any detrimental activity on the basis of "we have done it in the past we should be allowed to do it now" . Such as eating whales . . . Yep, one of our greatest pleasures was wiping out scores of indigenous people living in villages scattered throughout Paparoa National Park after destroying the surrounding landscape . This method was later passed onto the Amazonian and Malaysian Forestry Workers so they could perfect it . Please research more before posting back netchicken you are beginning to repeat yourself, and as noted above, filling your replies full of incorrect comparisons . :waughh: www . google . co . nz is only a click away Veale .	Veale (536)
381238	2005-08-18 03:27:00	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-{) And I too would fight for the same right, Even if I chose not to exorcise that right, At the very least it defines the type of country we are,even if my vote doesn't help define who the actual government is .	Metla (12)
381239	2005-08-18 04:56:00	Labour. That dork Don Brash is a pointy head who's never had a proper job in his life and he claims to represent the "ordinary working New Zealander". I bet he doesn't even know any.(And he wouldn't want to either.)This can be said of our current Prime Minister. A Political Science Graduate, then MP and then Prime Minister. What job did she ever hold for any significant period (i.e. 5-10 years) to appreciate what it is like to be an employee or worker as she is a member of the original "workers" party. As to Brash, his history with "Fabian Society" (do a search on this with conspiracy to see) and bank connections, also put question marks on his motivations as well. Still if he gave me at least $200+ per month in the hand, I may be tempted (as alluded to on the www.scoop.co.nz).	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
381240	2005-08-18 06:18:00	The future PM of NZ, Phil Goff (you heard it here first), will get my vote. Why? Because he's a good man. I'm not so sure about the party vote yet... A Electorate Vote - National Candidate (Johnathan Coleman). My current M.P - Ann Hartley has done nothing for the electorate (ever!) Party Vote - Labour or the Greens. I'm too liberal (in the American sense) to vote for National, Act or NZ First, I don't like the idea of fundamentalist religious figures in parliament (so no United Future either). I guess I'll make up my mind later on.	Ash M (46)
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