The Challenge of Good Faith

[steve]

The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful and
backward looking".

Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

That would mean revealing they lied - again.

But it is interesting to see them take their place in queue as part of the
right wing gangbang following a Labour Party win in the election.

It's a tri-ennial event since 1999.

For those who'd prefer to know the truth, I can recommend ww.greensorg.nz.

If you do have a look, you only risk losing any unfounded preconceptions you
may have about Green party policy in transport, energy, agriculture and
technology.

It does make wonder what the right have going for them if the only way they
can win is to lie.

[steve]

Post by steve
I can recommend ww.greensorg.nz.

finger-trouble: www.greens.org.nz

[John B]

Post by steve

Post by steve
I can recommend ww.greensorg.nz.

finger-trouble: www.greens.org.nz

Ooooooooooooooooooooo... sounds 'touchy-feely' good, so it *must*
be true, eh, Steve? You dopey twat.

[John B]

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as
"fanciful and backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How

could

Post by steve
they?

They don't need to. It's axiomatic.

Post by steve
That would mean revealing they lied - again.

You are the liar here you wittering useless communist. :-P

[rob]

Post by steve
For those who'd prefer to know the truth, I can recommend
www.greens.org.nz.
If you do have a look, you only risk losing any unfounded preconceptions you
may have about Green party policy in transport, energy, agriculture and
technology.

I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost? Also concerning to me is the greens
belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and that thier
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of big
government its the greens.

Hopefully in the future (far future probably) the greens will move more
toward the center than the far left where they now reside and drop thier
labours little patsys routine, I might just consider them worthy of my tick
then.

[steve]

Post by rob

Post by steve
For those who'd prefer to know the truth, I can recommend
www.greens.org.nz.
If you do have a look, you only risk losing any unfounded preconceptions you
may have about Green party policy in transport, energy, agriculture and
technology.

I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost?

The goal is sustainability. With that in mind:

If it is going to cost more than it does now - AND be sustainable where
present practices are not sustainable - then the additional cost reflects
the real one we have been avoiding.....

...but we can't avoid that real cost for long or indefinitely without
negative consequences we would prefer to avoid if we stopped to think about
it.

So paying the real cost now ends up being "cheaper" in the long run if we
bear in mind the damage done or non-renewable resources consumed by
avoiding the 'real' cost.

Post by rob
Also concerning to me is the
greens belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and
that thier
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of
big government its the greens.

Land management requires looking at land in a given area as a whole.
Individual land uses DO have effects on the wider area and these must all
be understood and curtailed where they are actually harmful. The individual
owner might not like that....but that is what must be done - and IS done
today - where individual land use conflicts with long term sustainability
of land use in that instance - or in the area as a whole.

The tax issue is actually a response to current market theory. Blame the
market guys for saying you can discourage bad practices by taxing them and
encourage good practices by not taxing them or taxing them at a reduced
rate.

To that extent, this idea is already a move away from telling people what to
do.

Post by rob
Hopefully in the future (far future probably) the greens will move more
toward the center than the far left where they now reside and drop thier
labours little patsys routine, I might just consider them worthy of my
tick then.

The Greens aren't on the "far left" at all by any rational measure of
"left". This is one of the great fictions that has been perpetrated by the
self-interested liars on the right.

.....seeking a sustainable interaction with the environment we live in isn't
left or right....It's common sense.

The alternative is unsustainable activity..and that makes no sense.

You work it out.

[baggly grimmel]

Post by steve

Post by rob

Post by steve
For those who'd prefer to know the truth, I can recommend
www.greens.org.nz.
If you do have a look, you only risk losing any unfounded

preconceptions

Post by steve

Post by rob

Post by steve
you
may have about Green party policy in transport, energy, agriculture and
technology.

I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost?

If it is going to cost more than it does now - AND be sustainable where
present practices are not sustainable - then the additional cost reflects
the real one we have been avoiding.....
...but we can't avoid that real cost for long or indefinitely without
negative consequences we would prefer to avoid if we stopped to think about
it.
So paying the real cost now ends up being "cheaper" in the long run if we
bear in mind the damage done or non-renewable resources consumed by
avoiding the 'real' cost.

Post by rob
Also concerning to me is the
greens belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and
that thier
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of
big government its the greens.

Land management requires looking at land in a given area as a whole.
Individual land uses DO have effects on the wider area and these must all
be understood and curtailed where they are actually harmful. The individual
owner might not like that....but that is what must be done - and IS done
today - where individual land use conflicts with long term sustainability
of land use in that instance - or in the area as a whole.
The tax issue is actually a response to current market theory. Blame the
market guys for saying you can discourage bad practices by taxing them and
encourage good practices by not taxing them or taxing them at a reduced
rate.
To that extent, this idea is already a move away from telling people what to
do.

Post by rob
Hopefully in the future (far future probably) the greens will move more
toward the center than the far left where they now reside and drop thier
labours little patsys routine, I might just consider them worthy of my
tick then.

The Greens aren't on the "far left" at all by any rational measure of
"left". This is one of the great fictions that has been perpetrated by the
self-interested liars on the right.
.....seeking a sustainable interaction with the environment we live in isn't
left or right....It's common sense.
The alternative is unsustainable activity..and that makes no sense.
You work it out.

This is absurd Greeny doctrin many wise people have worked out that it is
full of holes.

The purpose of this crap is so you can portray wisdome to the completely
ignorant and claim some political power. You are just a brain dead commie
wanker living a 20 year old myth. Snap out of it withers you dangerous
lying commie psycho.

[steve]

Post by baggly grimmel

Post by steve
The alternative is unsustainable activity..and that makes no sense.
You work it out.

This is absurd Greeny doctrin many wise people have worked out that it is
full of holes.

Yes...sustainability is an "absurd greenie doctrin"......according to
shit-for-brains Dribbley here.

[rob]

Post by steve

Post by rob
I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost?

If it is going to cost more than it does now - AND be sustainable where
present practices are not sustainable - then the additional cost reflects
the real one we have been avoiding.....
...but we can't avoid that real cost for long or indefinitely without
negative consequences we would prefer to avoid if we stopped to think about
it.
So paying the real cost now ends up being "cheaper" in the long run if we
bear in mind the damage done or non-renewable resources consumed by
avoiding the 'real' cost.

Fair one, but whats sustainability, does it take advancing technology into
account?

Post by steve

Post by rob
Also concerning to me is the
greens belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and
that thier
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of
big government its the greens.

Land management requires looking at land in a given area as a whole.
Individual land uses DO have effects on the wider area and these must all
be understood and curtailed where they are actually harmful. The individual
owner might not like that....but that is what must be done - and IS done
today - where individual land use conflicts with long term sustainability
of land use in that instance - or in the area as a whole.

I have issues with government telling me how to run my farm, it seems that
the Greens agriculture policies will do nothing but hurt my bottom line, and
despite what townies think there isn't that much to spare.

Post by steve
The Greens aren't on the "far left" at all by any rational measure of
"left". This is one of the great fictions that has been perpetrated by the
self-interested liars on the right.
.....seeking a sustainable interaction with the environment we live in isn't
left or right....It's common sense.

So why such hatred for National, if the Greens really were a central party
they wouldn't have spent their entire campaign sucking up to Labour would
they?

[baggly grimmel]

Post by rob

Post by steve

Post by rob
I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost?

If it is going to cost more than it does now - AND be sustainable where
present practices are not sustainable - then the additional cost reflects
the real one we have been avoiding.....
...but we can't avoid that real cost for long or indefinitely without
negative consequences we would prefer to avoid if we stopped to think about
it.
So paying the real cost now ends up being "cheaper" in the long run if we
bear in mind the damage done or non-renewable resources consumed by
avoiding the 'real' cost.

Fair one, but whats sustainability, does it take advancing technology into
account?

Post by steve

Post by rob
Also concerning to me is the
greens belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and
that thier
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of
big government its the greens.

Land management requires looking at land in a given area as a whole.
Individual land uses DO have effects on the wider area and these must all
be understood and curtailed where they are actually harmful. The individual
owner might not like that....but that is what must be done - and IS done
today - where individual land use conflicts with long term

sustainability

Post by rob

Post by steve
of land use in that instance - or in the area as a whole.

I have issues with government telling me how to run my farm, it seems that
the Greens agriculture policies will do nothing but hurt my bottom line, and
despite what townies think there isn't that much to spare.

Post by steve
The Greens aren't on the "far left" at all by any rational measure of
"left". This is one of the great fictions that has been perpetrated by the
self-interested liars on the right.
.....seeking a sustainable interaction with the environment we live in isn't
left or right....It's common sense.

So why such hatred for National, if the Greens really were a central party
they wouldn't have spent their entire campaign sucking up to Labour would
they?

Precisely, what a bunch of urban theorists could possibly understand about
the real practical issues of farming is beyong me. What is very clear is
given the chance, withers and his ilk would take control of your property in
the blink of an eye given a gnats chance.

[steve]

Post by rob

Post by steve

Post by rob
I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how
much are all those good ideas going to cost?

If it is going to cost more than it does now - AND be sustainable where
present practices are not sustainable - then the additional cost reflects
the real one we have been avoiding.....
...but we can't avoid that real cost for long or indefinitely without
negative consequences we would prefer to avoid if we stopped to think about
it.
So paying the real cost now ends up being "cheaper" in the long run if we
bear in mind the damage done or non-renewable resources consumed by
avoiding the 'real' cost.

Fair one, but whats sustainability, does it take advancing technology into
account?

It's being able to carry on the activity indefinitely as you're using
renewable resources and not degrading the nvironment.

Advanced technology absolutely has an important role to play.

The idea that Greens are Luddites is crap.

Having said that, Greens are sceptical of the glowing claims companies often
make with respect to certain technologies - like GE - and concerned about
the risks they represent.

But even with GE, Greens have no objection to laboratory research.....They
just don't want this stuff released into the environment with no
accountability or liability if things go wrong.

These concerns have proven to be justified.....as Britain now has several
spray-resistant superweeds spreading across the countryside.....which the
makers said wasn't possible.

Companies who will say anything to make a profit let down the honest
companies very badly - and render an entire area of possible innovation to
public fears of being mislead - at a cost to the taxpayer.

If a GE organism invades your property and clogs your drains - for example -
it's up to you to pay the thousands of dollars required to have it
tested....and then pay to sue the company that created it.

So anyone with a clue says: "Why should I expose myself to that risk for
someone else's profit? Keep it in the lab, thanks."

It's a reasonable question....and a reasonable response.

Post by rob

Post by steve

Post by rob
Also concerning to me is the
greens belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and
that thier
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of
big government its the greens.

Land management requires looking at land in a given area as a whole.
Individual land uses DO have effects on the wider area and these must all
be understood and curtailed where they are actually harmful. The individual
owner might not like that....but that is what must be done - and IS done
today - where individual land use conflicts with long term sustainability
of land use in that instance - or in the area as a whole.

I have issues with government telling me how to run my farm, it seems that
the Greens agriculture policies will do nothing but hurt my bottom line,
and despite what townies think there isn't that much to spare.

What Green policy will hurt you and how?

I know Fed-Farmers chief, Charlie Pederson has been running around claiming
Greens think farmers "rape and pillage" their land.....and similar rubbish.

Can you be specific? I'm genuinely interested,

Post by rob

Post by steve
The Greens aren't on the "far left" at all by any rational measure of
"left". This is one of the great fictions that has been perpetrated by
the self-interested liars on the right.
.....seeking a sustainable interaction with the environment we live in isn't
left or right....It's common sense.

So why such hatred for National, if the Greens really were a central party
they wouldn't have spent their entire campaign sucking up to Labour would
they?

The Green Party doesn't hate National.

*I* have no faith or trust in anything National does......after having
observed them in operation for 23 years, that is the conclusion I have come
to.

[Bob Howard]

Post by rob
I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost? Also concerning to me is the greens
belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and that thier
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of big
government its the greens.

I agree with that. Even so there are some Green ideas I agree with.



Bob Howard.

[John B]

Post by Bob Howard

Post by rob
I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't

mind

Post by Bob Howard

Post by rob
saying that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put

me off

Post by Bob Howard

Post by rob
is how much are all those good ideas going to cost? Also

concerning

Post by Bob Howard

Post by rob
to me is the greens belief that they can tell people what to

do on

Post by Bob Howard

Post by rob
thier own land and that thier answer for every problem is to

bang a

Post by Bob Howard

Post by rob
tax on it. If any party reeks of big government its the

greens.

Post by Bob Howard
I agree with that. Even so there are some Green ideas I agree

with.

Post by Bob Howard
Bob Howard.

They aren't 'Green' ideas. They are just ideas, not exclusive to
the Greens. Just as love is not exclusive to Christians, or hate
to socialists.

[steve]

Post by steve

Post by rob
I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost? Also concerning to me is the

greens

Post by rob
belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and that

thier

Post by rob
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of

big

Post by rob
government its the greens.

I agree with that.

Why?

Please be specific.

The Greens favour reducing or even abolishing income tax and instead using
waste taxes to encourage better waste handling and management.

Folks looking for a tax cut could think hard on that one. It's a better deal
than anyone else has on offer as far as I know.

The Greens prefer taxes as incentives to do the right things - instead of
loads of regulations.

A Green government could be a small government if people took such ideas on
board and used them to best advantage in their own lives.

No mess -> nothing to regulate.

Post by steve
Even so there are some Green ideas I agree with.

Good to hear.

[BrentC]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:59:43 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by steve

Post by rob
I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost? Also concerning to me is the

greens

Post by rob
belief that they can tell people what to do on thier own land and that

thier

Post by rob
answer for every problem is to bang a tax on it. If any party reeks of

big

Post by rob
government its the greens.

I agree with that.

Why?
Please be specific.
The Greens favour reducing or even abolishing income tax and instead using
waste taxes to encourage better waste handling and management.
Folks looking for a tax cut could think hard on that one. It's a better deal
than anyone else has on offer as far as I know.
The Greens prefer taxes as incentives to do the right things - instead of
loads of regulations.
A Green government could be a small government if people took such ideas on
board and used them to best advantage in their own lives.
No mess -> nothing to regulate.

Post by steve
Even so there are some Green ideas I agree with.

Good to hear.

Green Ideas - its BS - the Green ideal has been subverted by social
engineers - their credibility is going the way of the doe doe - as Mrs
Davis said "bye bye" "bye bye"




**************

BrentC

[steve]

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:59:43 +1200, steve

.........

Post by BrentC
Green Ideas - its BS - the Green ideal has been subverted by social
engineers - their credibility is going the way of the doe doe - as Mrs
Davis said "bye bye" "bye bye"

I provide specific examples...and you respond with your usual fact-free
trash-talk.

That appears to be all you can manage. If you can do better - please do.

[BrentC]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:04:36 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:59:43 +1200, steve

.........

Post by BrentC
Green Ideas - its BS - the Green ideal has been subverted by social
engineers - their credibility is going the way of the doe doe - as Mrs
Davis said "bye bye" "bye bye"

I provide specific examples...and you respond with your usual fact-free
trash-talk.
That appears to be all you can manage. If you can do better - please do.

good on yah Steve - you haven't answered one question I have made
about the Labour Party fraud - you just come back with another
statement about the National Party - as if I cared about them. When
you answer my question/statement - I will address the dopey middle
ages social engineering policies of the Socialist Green Party of NZ -
not to be confused with the two new political green parties that are
due to be launched in the next few weeks in time for the next election
and as a counter for the subversion of green vslues in the current
Socialist Green Party of NZ :)





**************

BrentC

[unknown]

Post by BrentC
- their credibility is going the way of the doe doe

Doe doe Brent?


Patrick

[BrentC]

Post by unknown

Post by BrentC
- their credibility is going the way of the doe doe

Doe doe Brent?
Patrick

2 baby deer



**************

BrentC

[rob]

Post by steve
The Greens favour reducing or even abolishing income tax and instead using
waste taxes to encourage better waste handling and management.

Define waste for the dimwitted such as myself. Is it whatever the greens
decide doesn't fit thier ideals for an idyllic pollution free nation. What
about junkfood and booze?

I honestly don't see how it could work although the principal is sound
enough.

Post by steve
Folks looking for a tax cut could think hard on that one. It's a better deal
than anyone else has on offer as far as I know.
The Greens prefer taxes as incentives to do the right things - instead of
loads of regulations.

I have trouble with that one, their agriculture policy is little but
regulations.

Post by steve
A Green government could be a small government if people took such ideas on
board and used them to best advantage in their own lives.
No mess -> nothing to regulate.

Gotta make sure their isn't any mess or that every new thing wont create
one, also thier policys outside the enviromental scream big government.


We seem to be having this discussion about a month late :)

[steve]

Post by rob

Post by steve
The Greens favour reducing or even abolishing income tax and instead using
waste taxes to encourage better waste handling and management.

Define waste for the dimwitted such as myself.

Refuse.
Gargbage.
Rubbish.
Dirty water - grey and black.

Anything else that leaves your house or place of work to be disposed of
as effluent, waste, rubbish, unwanted <whatever>.....headed for the
tip/landfill/treatment plant.....

Post by rob
Is it whatever the greens
decide doesn't fit thier ideals for an idyllic pollution free nation. What
about junkfood and booze?

That's not rubbish.

Post by rob
I honestly don't see how it could work although the principal is sound
enough.

Worth exploring the idea....No harm done there.

Post by rob

Post by steve
Folks looking for a tax cut could think hard on that one. It's a better deal
than anyone else has on offer as far as I know.
The Greens prefer taxes as incentives to do the right things - instead of
loads of regulations.

I have trouble with that one, their agriculture policy is little but
regulations.

Any agriculture policy from any party will contain the potential for
loads of regulations. Most of it is obvious stuff that common sense
sorts will do anyway.....but you need the regulations for the marginal
idiots who will do anything - no matter how bad - as long as it isn't
"illegal".

If you think about it, each of us knows very few of the tens of
thousands of laws on the books.....and yet we break very few of them
simply by using our heads and doing what's best for everyone.

The law is for people who can't get their heads around simple stuff ilke
that.

Post by rob

Post by steve
A Green government could be a small government if people took such ideas on
board and used them to best advantage in their own lives.
No mess -> nothing to regulate.

Gotta make sure their isn't any mess or that every new thing wont create
one, also thier policys outside the enviromental scream big government.

Make that less mess. :-)

Of course there will be mess - at least until it's treated, re-cycled,
buried, burnt or whatever is needed to get rid of it in a good way that
won't poison land, air or water.

Post by rob
We seem to be having this discussion about a month late :)

Save it for next time. :-)

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to nz.soc.green.]

Post by rob

Post by steve
For those who'd prefer to know the truth, I can recommend
www.greens.org.nz.
If you do have a look, you only risk losing any unfounded preconceptions you
may have about Green party policy in transport, energy, agriculture and
technology.

I've voted right wing in the last 3 elections now, but don't mind saying
that the greens do have some good ideas. What has put me off is how much
are all those good ideas going to cost?

In the long run they will cost less.

Post by rob
Also concerning to me is the greens belief that they can tell people what
to do on thier own land and that thier answer for every problem is to bang
a tax on it.

Who owns the air, the sea, the waether?
should the benefit go to the strongest only?

Bye.
Jasen

[David]

Post by Jasen Betts
Who owns the air, the sea, the waether?
should the benefit go to the strongest only?

Survival of the strongest
or survival of the fittest?

-D

[Bob Howard]

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful and
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?
That would mean revealing they lied - again.
But it is interesting to see them take their place in queue as part of the
right wing gangbang following a Labour Party win in the election.
It's a tri-ennial event since 1999.
For those who'd prefer to know the truth, I can recommend ww.greensorg.nz.
If you do have a look, you only risk losing any unfounded preconceptions you
may have about Green party policy in transport, energy, agriculture and
technology.
It does make wonder what the right have going for them if the only way they
can win is to lie.

It's called opinion Steve. But anything that goes against your opinions is
lies or inferior thinking not up to your exalted standard. In spite of the
fact Helen was chummy with Jeanette during the election campaign, because
she needs them, I have little doubt she wishes the Greens would disappear
down a black hole.





Bob Howard.

[Barry Phease]

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful

and

Post by steve
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

It's called opinion Steve.

It is my opinion that you are 3 meters tall Bob! Now this opinion may be
ill founded, but while I keep it to myself it hurts no-one. However when
I put my opinion in print and expect people to take it seriously I should
do some research to back up my opinion. Otherwise I risk making a fool of
myself.

It is ludicrous to have opinions when there are no facts to back them up.
All they need to do to justify their "opinions" is to provide some
instances. Surely they could have looked at the Green policies and found
something to put into the editorial.

[Mike Parsons]

Post by Barry Phease

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

It's called opinion Steve.

It is my opinion that you are 3 meters tall Bob!

That would be a belief, not an opinion. Further, if it was a belief
impervious to evidence, it would be a delusion.

[steve]

Post by Barry Phease

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful

and

Post by steve
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

It's called opinion Steve.

It is my opinion that you are 3 meters tall Bob! Now this opinion may be
ill founded, but while I keep it to myself it hurts no-one. However when
I put my opinion in print and expect people to take it seriously I should
do some research to back up my opinion. Otherwise I risk making a fool of
myself.

But in saying Bob is 3 meters tall, you're betraying your bias against short
people.

Describing reality as opinion is one of the primary tools of the folks who
support the Right.

The backup position if that fails is to describe the evidence of reality as
being from a biased source and therefore it can be dismissed.

Failing that, simple denial will suffice.

Did I miss anything?

Post by Barry Phease
It is ludicrous to have opinions when there are no facts to back them up.

I agree....but it appears to be the standard mode of operation by many of
the Righties in this newsgroup.

Post by Barry Phease
All they need to do to justify their "opinions" is to provide some
instances. Surely they could have looked at the Green policies and found
something to put into the editorial.

The only one they could use would be the policy on marijuana....and the
reality that policy will never be enacted because no other party will back
it.....and support within the Green party for that policy is not universal.

It's a distraction that has hurt progress on the more important issues most
people support the Greens to further.

[BrentC]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:43:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by Barry Phease

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful

and

Post by steve
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

It's called opinion Steve.

It is my opinion that you are 3 meters tall Bob! Now this opinion may be
ill founded, but while I keep it to myself it hurts no-one. However when
I put my opinion in print and expect people to take it seriously I should
do some research to back up my opinion. Otherwise I risk making a fool of
myself.

But in saying Bob is 3 meters tall, you're betraying your bias against short
people.
Describing reality as opinion is one of the primary tools of the folks who
support the Right.
The backup position if that fails is to describe the evidence of reality as
being from a biased source and therefore it can be dismissed.
Failing that, simple denial will suffice.
Did I miss anything?

Yep - your lunch time pills




**************

BrentC

[steve]

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:43:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by Barry Phease

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful

and

Post by steve
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

It's called opinion Steve.

It is my opinion that you are 3 meters tall Bob! Now this opinion may be
ill founded, but while I keep it to myself it hurts no-one. However
when I put my opinion in print and expect people to take it seriously I
should
do some research to back up my opinion. Otherwise I risk making a fool
of myself.

But in saying Bob is 3 meters tall, you're betraying your bias against
short people.
Describing reality as opinion is one of the primary tools of the folks who
support the Right.
The backup position if that fails is to describe the evidence of reality
as being from a biased source and therefore it can be dismissed.
Failing that, simple denial will suffice.
Did I miss anything?

Yep - your lunch time pills

So...you really had nothing to say....but couldn't keep your mouth shut.

True to form.

[BrentC]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:56:58 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:43:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by Barry Phease

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful

and

Post by steve
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

It's called opinion Steve.

It is my opinion that you are 3 meters tall Bob! Now this opinion may be
ill founded, but while I keep it to myself it hurts no-one. However
when I put my opinion in print and expect people to take it seriously I
should
do some research to back up my opinion. Otherwise I risk making a fool
of myself.

But in saying Bob is 3 meters tall, you're betraying your bias against
short people.
Describing reality as opinion is one of the primary tools of the folks who
support the Right.
The backup position if that fails is to describe the evidence of reality
as being from a biased source and therefore it can be dismissed.
Failing that, simple denial will suffice.
Did I miss anything?

Yep - your lunch time pills

So...you really had nothing to say....but couldn't keep your mouth shut.
True to form.

You obviously can't read - one of my sentences has more depth and
incitefullness than 50 of your verbiage paragraphs.



**************

BrentC

[steve]

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:56:58 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:43:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by Barry Phease

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful

and

Post by steve
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?

It's called opinion Steve.

It is my opinion that you are 3 meters tall Bob! Now this opinion may be
ill founded, but while I keep it to myself it hurts no-one. However
when I put my opinion in print and expect people to take it seriously
I should
do some research to back up my opinion. Otherwise I risk making a
fool of myself.

But in saying Bob is 3 meters tall, you're betraying your bias against
short people.
Describing reality as opinion is one of the primary tools of the folks
who support the Right.
The backup position if that fails is to describe the evidence of reality
as being from a biased source and therefore it can be dismissed.
Failing that, simple denial will suffice.
Did I miss anything?

Yep - your lunch time pills

So...you really had nothing to say....but couldn't keep your mouth shut.
True to form.

You obviously can't read - one of my sentences has more depth and
incitefullness than 50 of your verbiage paragraphs.

In line with the thread elsewhere, we'll call that one of your opinions
completely unconnected without any supporting factual information.

This thread alone proves you wrong.....but proof isn't something you worry
about, obviously.

[John B]

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
Yep - your lunch time pills

So...you really had nothing to say....but couldn't keep your

mouth

Post by steve
shut.
True to form.

The number of times *YOU* have done just that, Steve.

What makes it OK for you and not for anyone else - correction -
anyone else YOU don't like?

You are extremely selective in your criticisms.

Arsehole!

LOL

[steve]

Post by John B

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
Yep - your lunch time pills

So...you really had nothing to say....but couldn't keep your

mouth

Post by steve
shut.
True to form.

The number of times *YOU* have done just that, Steve.
What makes it OK for you and not for anyone else - correction -
anyone else YOU don't like?
You are extremely selective in your criticisms.
Arsehole!
LOL

....and what IS one supposed to say to a nonsense post like this from you?

"Eeeek!" ????

[steve]

Post by Bob Howard

Post by steve
The Dom Post editoral today refers to Green party policies as "fanciful

and

Post by steve
backward looking".
Of course they don't substantiate that with any detail. How could they?
That would mean revealing they lied - again.
But it is interesting to see them take their place in queue as part of
the right wing gangbang following a Labour Party win in the election.
It's a tri-ennial event since 1999.
For those who'd prefer to know the truth, I can recommend
ww.greensorg.nz.
If you do have a look, you only risk losing any unfounded preconceptions

you

Post by steve
may have about Green party policy in transport, energy, agriculture and
technology.
It does make wonder what the right have going for them if the only way

they

Post by steve
can win is to lie.

It's called opinion Steve.

It's an opinion unconnected with any supporting facts.

That is a delusion to onself and lie to others if someone insists on
maintaining such an "opinion" in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Post by Bob Howard
But anything that goes against your opinions is
lies or inferior thinking not up to your exalted standard.

I always have time for opinions supported by the facts. If you feel I have
treated you harshly - and I have - it is because too often your opinions
fly in the face of the facts and remain impervious to correction when you
are confronted with information that invalidates your opinion.

I don't understand that you don't do this on purpose...and have concluded
that you must suffer some perceptual disorder that prevents you from
absorbing and integrating new information.

You seem like a perfectly nice and civil guy.....but it is quite impossible
to get you to change your opinions no matter how much verifiably correct
information one may provide to demonstrate you're wrong on a given point.

Post by Bob Howard
In spite of the
fact Helen was chummy with Jeanette during the election campaign, because
she needs them, I have little doubt she wishes the Greens would disappear
down a black hole.

Now that is a genuine opinion and I can't argue with it. But then, neither
of us really knows the truth on that one. We will have to wait and see in
the fullness of time.

[BrentC]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve
a Labour Party win in the election.

Man that is dicky - no party won the election - to saythat they did is
arrogance at it's extreme and dangerous for democracy


**************

BrentC

[steve]

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve
a Labour Party win in the election.

Man that is dicky - no party won the election - to saythat they did is
arrogance at it's extreme and dangerous for democracy

Your comment is extreme.

Labour will lead the next government because they won the most seats at the
election.

Therefore they won the election.

Simple. True. Flat-as.

Your reaction is understandable given the dissappointment you've
suffered.....but not accurate in my view.

If you want arrogant, how about Don Brash and National abolishing the Maori
seats without even asking Maori?

Labour hasn't done anything remotely close to being as high on the towering
scale of ponderous arrogance.

[BrentC]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:55:01 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve
a Labour Party win in the election.

Man that is dicky - no party won the election - to saythat they did is
arrogance at it's extreme and dangerous for democracy

Your comment is extreme.
Labour will lead the next government because they won the most seats at the
election.
Therefore they won the election.
Simple. True. Flat-as.
Your reaction is understandable given the dissappointment you've
suffered.....but not accurate in my view.
If you want arrogant, how about Don Brash and National abolishing the Maori
seats without even asking Maori?
Labour hasn't done anything remotely close to being as high on the towering
scale of ponderous arrogance.

More BS - that is dangerous - you are an apologist who can't or won't
accept the truths that have been spelt out to you - why is that -
personal dissatisfaction, small dick, abusive childhood, deformity?
why do you continually spout on about the Labour Party when it's
leader, ministers and members are proven to be lieing - hotel hallway
pissing fraudsters - it all went downhill when honest Jim was hounded
out of the Party - taken over by the crooks and supported by the
indolent and idiots.


**************

BrentC

[steve]

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:55:01 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve
a Labour Party win in the election.

Man that is dicky - no party won the election - to saythat they did is
arrogance at it's extreme and dangerous for democracy

Your comment is extreme.
Labour will lead the next government because they won the most seats at
the election.
Therefore they won the election.
Simple. True. Flat-as.
Your reaction is understandable given the dissappointment you've
suffered.....but not accurate in my view.
If you want arrogant, how about Don Brash and National abolishing the
Maori seats without even asking Maori?
Labour hasn't done anything remotely close to being as high on the
towering scale of ponderous arrogance.

More BS

How is it BS?

Promising to abolish the Moari seats and pointedly NOT asking Maori what
they think about it is the peak of arrogance.

That you think otherwise is more evidence of my original comments about the
inability of the Right to deal with reality in any way resembling honestly.

[BrentC]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:18:05 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:55:01 +1200, steve

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve
a Labour Party win in the election.

Man that is dicky - no party won the election - to saythat they did is
arrogance at it's extreme and dangerous for democracy

Your comment is extreme.
Labour will lead the next government because they won the most seats at
the election.
Therefore they won the election.
Simple. True. Flat-as.
Your reaction is understandable given the dissappointment you've
suffered.....but not accurate in my view.
If you want arrogant, how about Don Brash and National abolishing the
Maori seats without even asking Maori?
Labour hasn't done anything remotely close to being as high on the
towering scale of ponderous arrogance.

More BS

How is it BS?
Promising to abolish the Moari seats and pointedly NOT asking Maori what
they think about it is the peak of arrogance.
That you think otherwise is more evidence of my original comments about the
inability of the Right to deal with reality in any way resembling honestly.

Yep - snip away Steve - you never answer the hard questions - you know
the questions that shake your faith in a fraudulent political party.



**************

BrentC

[John B]

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:45 +1200, steve

Post by steve
a Labour Party win in the election.

Man that is dicky - no party won the election - to saythat

they did

Post by steve

Post by BrentC
is arrogance at it's extreme and dangerous for democracy

Your comment is extreme.
Labour will lead the next government because they won the most

seats

Post by steve
at the election.
Therefore they won the election.

Crap. They can't gover alone because THEY didn't WIN the elction!

Are you really that thick?

Post by steve
Simple. True. Flat-as.
Your reaction is understandable given the dissappointment

you've

Post by steve
suffered.....but not accurate in my view.
If you want arrogant, how about Don Brash and National

abolishing the

Post by steve
Maori seats without even asking Maori?

Why should they ask? What don't the govt ask you if they want to
to anything that affects you? Obviously you think they should.
But on the other hand you seem to think govt can do what it
likes.

Fuck, you really do want it both ways don't you, jerk?

Post by steve
Labour hasn't done anything remotely close to being as high on

the

Post by steve
towering scale of ponderous arrogance.

Did you really say that? What a lying khunt you are.