|
|
 | | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:44:58 +1300 |
|
|
 |
ACT's policies, a summary from Rod Hide's recent speech-
Anyone who can offer a creditable criticism of the policies
below is welcome to do so. Lets hear from all of the leftist
mushbrains who reckon they disagree with ACT's policies when
they wouldn't have the faintest clue what they are.
What in respect of the five points below do you disagree with?
-----------------------------------------
NUMBER ONE, make New Zealand the safest country in the world:
The number one job of any government is to defend us from the
thugs and the bullies. That means the bad guys get caught and
their punishment fits their crime.
Our government is failing us. We are no longer safe in our
streets, at our work, in our homes. The police are stretched.
Sentencing is a joke.
The numbers of unthinkable attacks and murders this year has
been disgusting – and we’re only up to day 20.
I’m sick of hearing of about predators being supervised
rather than locked-up, elderly grandmothers assaulted and
bludgeoned to death, and young women in distress not having
their 111 calls answered.
ACT’s law and order policy will be the toughest.
After five years of Labour’s soft on crime, ACT will be in
government to end the pussy-footing and pampering.
We should begin by setting a goal: to make New Zealand the
safest country in the world. We can do that. We are after all a
small country, a long way away from the world’s trouble spots.
Helen Clark’s government has no goal in dealing with crime. It
has no solution. It’s too soft.
NUMBER TWO, more money in every worker’s pocket.
Hardworking Kiwis are overtaxed and over governed. Government
spends far too much. And it taxes even more. The forecast
government surplus is $6.5 billion.
That money should be returned to the New Zealanders who first
earned it.
We should drop the business AND top personal rate to 25 cents in
the dollar. We should extend the 15-cent rate up to $38,000.
We would go from four rates of income tax to just two.
The “cost” to the Government? About $5.8 billion a year. We
could drop tax and not cut one dollar of spending.
Someone on $40,000 a year would be $35.86 better-off a week.
Someone on $60,000 would be $66.55 better-off a week.
It’s simple, flatter and across the aboard. More money in
everyone’s pockets and, best of all, it would boost prosperity.
That is a tax cut for every worker. It would make for bigger pay
packets this year and every year.
Bigger pay packets help in so many ways.
There’s no doubt that student loans are huge burden. We need to
provide graduates with the wherewithal to pay their loans off
easier, quicker and with less financial strain. Across the board
tax cuts would do that.
Home mortgages are a problem. The answer is simple. Return to
the people who earned it that big surplus the Government is
sitting on. That’s ACT’s answer. Our tax cuts will be a big
boost for those with a big mortgage.
NUMBER THREE, enable New Zealanders to get on and prosper:
The best way to provide for better health, better education and
better retirement incomes is to build a more prosperous country.
The trouble is the Government is throttling our ability to
produce.
The good news is that cutting taxes is a good start to making
New Zealand more prosperous. It will boost investment and
entrepreneurship.
The Government thought they might embarrass us by having the
Treasury look at ACT’s tax policy. But Treasury concluded that
ACT’s claim that its tax cuts would produce 1 percent extra
growth was absolutely correct. That’s an extra $15 billion over
10 years! $15 billion that we wouldn’t otherwise have.
Tax cuts are a great way to boost the economy. But there’s much
that the Government can do.
For example, get out of business’s way. Helen Clark’s government
has introduced an array of new taxes, ACC levy hikes, piles of
paperwork, mountains of health and safety regulations, the new
Holidays Act, and now those in the hospitality industry have to
also act as smoking police. Such heavy-handed government is
stifling entrepreneurship and crushing business.
We desperately need a Regulatory Responsibility Act in New
Zealand to reign in the red tape
And let’s not forget one thing: farming remains the backbone of
New Zealand. Rural New Zealanders have had a rough deal under
Labour. Helen Clark doesn’t think rural votes are worth worrying
about – unless they come to town. Remember the fart tax?
Rural communities are plagued with crime. The police are miles
away. And our own government prosecutes you if you try to stick
up for yourself and your property.
Those in rural communities have become second-class citizens. If
you have a creek, river or lake on your property soon everyone
in the country will be able to wander across your property
without having to ask. That no-trespass rule won’t apply if you
live in town. That shows the double standard.
Put ACT into government and we will have a government that will
defend private property, not pinch it. A government that
recognises and values the hard work of rural communities.
NUMBER FOUR, colour-blind government:
New Zealanders don’t care about skin colour or ethnicity. We
judge people by their character and their actions – not by their
race.
So too should our government.
To do otherwise is racist.
It’s a core New Zealand value that people be treated equally
irrespective of their race, religion or creed.
It’s also the key to living successfully and peacefully in an
increasingly diverse and multiracial society. Helen Clark
doesn’t get that. She wants to pigeon-hole New Zealanders in
boxes – and have different polices depending on what box you are
in.
The coming election will give New Zealanders a choice: a
government given over to a racial pecking order or one that is
blind to a person’s race.
ACT was the first party to call for one law for all New
Zealanders. We will be the party that will deliver it.
NUMBER FIVE, immigration policies that serve New Zealand:
Unlike some other political parties, ACT supports immigration.
We are a supporter of the new New Zealander. If it weren’t for
immigration over the past 15 years this country, particularly
this city, would be a much poorer place.
In government we will encourage immigration but with a
difference. We want new New Zealanders with the skills and
attributes this country needs if we are to reach our potential
in the 21st century.
We need a positive immigration policy for New Zealand -- one
that is hard-headed and designed with the best interests of New
Zealand as its objective.
And the best immigration policy of all! Economic and social
policies so that our young people travel the world but come back
to work and to live because of the opportunities and the
lifestyle here at home.
We need our best and brightest if we are to succeed and prosper.
NUMBER SIX, social policy that delivers:
Our government is quick to point to bigger budgets if there are
any doubts in the delivery of its social programme.
But pouring in more money doesn’t guarantee better outcomes.
Just look at health. The Government claims it has increased
spending by over 30 percent. Yet official figures show the
number of elective surgery operations has increased by less than
one percent. Total waiting lists have moved little – from
189,000 to 175,000 – and again the Government’s own figures show
over a thousand New Zealanders died while on the waiting list in
the year to August 2004. That’s right, died waiting.
Billions and billions extra have been thrown into health but for
what result?
We shouldn’t measure government success by how much money we
throw at a problem. We should be looking at the results. Sadly
for taxpayers this government all-too often just pats itself on
the back simply for spending more money.
We need to involve the private sector more in healthcare not
less. Unfortunately, for New Zealanders Helen Clark’s government
is ideologically opposed to private health care.
The same with schools. It’s tough for families who want to send
their children to an independent school. They have to pay twice.
Once through their taxes. And again through school fees. ACT
says that’s wrong. We want to give parents the choice. Under
ACT, the money will follow the child whether that child goes to
a private or state school.
Just imagine the opportunity that will give to parents and to
their children. They will for once be able to afford to send
their children to a school of their choice whether that be a
Christian school, a specialist school or to a government school.
It will be their choice.
The one-size fits-all state-run education system needs to be
opened up to choice and to competition. I believe that school
choice is the one policy that will best provide us with a bright
future. Education is the key to our future success.
And does anyone believe we are buying a better society by
throwing more and more money at welfare? There are jobs to be
had but no one to fill them Paradoxically we have 350,000
working age adults languishing on benefits.
As ACT’s Deputy Leader Muriel Newman explained in a speech at
the weekend we are doing no one any favours with a welfare
system that sucks too many in and lets too few out. We need to
reform welfare so once again it looks after the truly needy but
doesn’t trap those who can work and contribute and live
fulfilling lives independent of the state.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke
|
|
| | From: | Mrs Norris | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:56:19 +1300 |
|
|
| Redbaiter wrote:
> ACT's policies, a summary from Rod Hide's recent speech-
>
> Anyone who can offer a creditable criticism of the policies
> below is welcome to do so. Lets hear from all of the leftist
> mushbrains who reckon they disagree with ACT's policies when
> they wouldn't have the faintest clue what they are.
>
> What in respect of the five points below do you disagree with?
>
There are SIX points below.
> -----------------------------------------
>
> NUMBER ONE, make New Zealand the safest country in the world:
>
> The number one job of any government is to defend us from the
> thugs and the bullies. That means the bad guys get caught and
> their punishment fits their crime.
>
>
> NUMBER TWO, more money in every worker’s pocket.
>
> Hardworking Kiwis are overtaxed and over governed. Government
> spends far too much. And it taxes even more. The forecast
> government surplus is $6.5 billion.
>
> That money should be returned to the New Zealanders who first
> earned it.
>
> We should drop the business AND top personal rate to 25 cents in
> the dollar. We should extend the 15-cent rate up to $38,000.
>
> We would go from four rates of income tax to just two.
>
> The “cost” to the Government? About $5.8 billion a year. We
> could drop tax and not cut one dollar of spending.
>
>
> NUMBER THREE, enable New Zealanders to get on and prosper:
>
> The best way to provide for better health, better education and
> better retirement incomes is to build a more prosperous country.
>
> The trouble is the Government is throttling our ability to
> produce.
>
>
> NUMBER FOUR, colour-blind government:
>
> New Zealanders don’t care about skin colour or ethnicity. We
> judge people by their character and their actions – not by their
> race.
>
> So too should our government.
>
>
> NUMBER FIVE, immigration policies that serve New Zealand:
>
> Unlike some other political parties, ACT supports immigration.
> We are a supporter of the new New Zealander. If it weren’t for
> immigration over the past 15 years this country, particularly
> this city, would be a much poorer place.
>
>
> NUMBER SIX, social policy that delivers:
>
> Our government is quick to point to bigger budgets if there are
> any doubts in the delivery of its social programme.
>
> But pouring in more money doesn’t guarantee better outcomes.
>
> Just look at health. The Government claims it has increased
> spending by over 30 percent. Yet official figures show the
> number of elective surgery operations has increased by less than
> one percent. Total waiting lists have moved little – from
> 189,000 to 175,000 – and again the Government’s own figures show
> over a thousand New Zealanders died while on the waiting list in
> the year to August 2004. That’s right, died waiting.
>
> Billions and billions extra have been thrown into health but for
> what result?
>
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:59:52 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:56:19 +1300, Mrs Norris
wrote:
>Redbaiter wrote:
>> ACT's policies, a summary from Rod Hide's recent speech-
>>
>> Anyone who can offer a creditable criticism of the policies
>> below is welcome to do so. Lets hear from all of the leftist
>> mushbrains who reckon they disagree with ACT's policies when
>> they wouldn't have the faintest clue what they are.
>>
>> What in respect of the five points below do you disagree with?
>>
>
>There are SIX points below.
All of which sound very reasonable. So what's the problem?
--
Tarla
****
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the
intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well
preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in
a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn
out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
--Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
| | From: | Brian Dooley | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:41:21 +1300 |
|
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:59:52 +1300, Tarla
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:56:19 +1300, Mrs Norris
>wrote:
>
>>Redbaiter wrote:
>>> ACT's policies, a summary from Rod Hide's recent speech-
>>>
>>> Anyone who can offer a creditable criticism of the policies
>>> below is welcome to do so. Lets hear from all of the leftist
>>> mushbrains who reckon they disagree with ACT's policies when
>>> they wouldn't have the faintest clue what they are.
>>>
>>> What in respect of the five points below do you disagree with?
>>>
>>
>>There are SIX points below.
>
>All of which sound very reasonable. So what's the problem?
How about 'creditable' doesn't mean what he thinks it does.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
|
| | From: | John B | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:55:28 +1300 |
|
|
| "Brian Dooley" wrote in message
news:um96v0lj97jne2vpl3bosf22jkt7878jaa@4ax.com...
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:59:52 +1300, Tarla
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:56:19 +1300, Mrs Norris
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Redbaiter wrote:
> >>> ACT's policies, a summary from Rod Hide's recent speech-
> >>>
> >>> Anyone who can offer a creditable criticism of the policies
> >>> below is welcome to do so. Lets hear from all of the leftist
> >>> mushbrains who reckon they disagree with ACT's policies when
> >>> they wouldn't have the faintest clue what they are.
> >>>
> >>> What in respect of the five points below do you disagree with?
> >>>
> >>
> >>There are SIX points below.
> >
> >All of which sound very reasonable. So what's the problem?
>
> How about 'creditable' doesn't mean what he thinks it does.
And another one bites the dust. Are you counting Red? I can't be bothered. there
are too many of them in here.
--
John B
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:39:48 +1300 |
|
|
| John B says
> >
> > How about 'creditable' doesn't mean what he thinks it does.
>
> And another one bites the dust. Are you counting Red? I can't be bothered. there
> are too many of them in here.
>
Dooley shouldn't count, he never posts anything worth shit
anyway...
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:05:46 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Redbaiter" wrote in message
news:35c18lF4knvf2U2@individual.net...
>
I don't have a problem with any of this except................
I've heard this or variations of this for about the last thirty years from
all of the parties.
It never gets done.
Meet the new boss
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | Bob Howard | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:38:30 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Sharknwfk" wrote in message
news:41f0e20b$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Redbaiter" wrote in message
> news:35c18lF4knvf2U2@individual.net...
> >
> I don't have a problem with any of this except................
>
> I've heard this or variations of this for about the last thirty years from
> all of the parties.
>
> It never gets done.
>
> Meet the new boss
Except that the forebears of ACT were the Lange-Douglas government. Boy, did
they get things done after the Muldoon government let the country drift
along and stagnate.
Certainly some of the things ACT proposes comes in the category of broad
principle instead of strict policy. We all want to stop the ever
increasingly vicious crimes. Yet locking up more and more criminals is not
the answer if only because of the cost. Muriel Newman has campaigned to stop
crime at it's source by measures such as cutting down on welfare. Welfare
breeds crime as a by-product. I have just read a book from America where the
author did a study of crime and society there. He found strong links between
drugs, muggings etc. and welfare. Welfare seems to destroy self respect and
ambition.
ACT policies would once again turn the country upside down and that
frightens a lot of people. Labour offers security. It is in reality a
mirage.
Bob Howard.
|
|
| | From: | Brian Dooley | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:41:21 +1300 |
|
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:38:30 +1300, "Bob Howard"
wrote:
snip---
>I have just read a book from America where the
>author did a study of crime and society there. He found strong links between
>drugs, muggings etc. and welfare.
Of course he did.
No surprises there.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
|
| | From: | Bob Howard | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:29:10 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Brian Dooley" wrote in message
news:mp96v0pkfn9eoq43i0k0408ib7v048irhp@4ax.com...
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:38:30 +1300, "Bob Howard"
> wrote:
>
> snip---
>
> >I have just read a book from America where the
> >author did a study of crime and society there. He found strong links
between
> >drugs, muggings etc. and welfare.
>
> Of course he did.
>
> No surprises there.
If you agree with me why don't you support the party who will try to do
something about it and give people a stake in the country which in turn
gives them self respect and causes them to be less of a problem to all of
us? I am not saying ACT has all the answers. But they will do more than
Labour if only because they won't be worrying about beneficiaries' votes.
Bob Howard.
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:51:52 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:41:21 +1300, Brian Dooley
wrote:
>
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:38:30 +1300, "Bob Howard"
> wrote:
>
>snip---
>
>>I have just read a book from America where the
>>author did a study of crime and society there. He found strong links between
>>drugs, muggings etc. and welfare.
>
>Of course he did.
>
>No surprises there.
Bob has a habit of querying and analysing matters otherwise plainly
manifest to all but him.
But no harm done, and Usenet is its own democracy.
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:09:49 +1300 |
|
|
| Sharknwfk says
>
> "Redbaiter" wrote in message
> news:35c18lF4knvf2U2@individual.net...
> >
> I don't have a problem with any of this except................
>
> I've heard this or variations of this for about the last thirty years from
> all of the parties.
>
> It never gets done.
So it would be some special kind of fuckwit elector who kept
voting time and time again for the politicians who weren't doing
what they said they would or what was wanted, right???
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:41:21 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Redbaiter" wrote in message
news:35c67nF4jteqjU4@individual.net...
> Sharknwfk says
> >
> > "Redbaiter" wrote in message
> > news:35c18lF4knvf2U2@individual.net...
> > >
> > I don't have a problem with any of this except................
> >
> > I've heard this or variations of this for about the last thirty years
from
> > all of the parties.
> >
> > It never gets done.
>
> So it would be some special kind of fuckwit elector who kept
> voting time and time again for the politicians who weren't doing
> what they said they would or what was wanted, right???
Who said I voted?
I gave up voting sometime ago as with two parties and no real third party
alternative to keep them honest it was pointless.
I should have clarified that this is the sort of platform that I have heard
over the last thirty years from opposition parties.
We don't have a choice.
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:19:05 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Sharknwfk" wrote in message
news:41f0ea62$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Redbaiter" wrote in message
> news:35c67nF4jteqjU4@individual.net...
>> Sharknwfk says
>> >
>> > "Redbaiter" wrote in message
>> > news:35c18lF4knvf2U2@individual.net...
>> > >
>> > I don't have a problem with any of this except................
>> >
>> > I've heard this or variations of this for about the last thirty years
> from
>> > all of the parties.
>> >
>> > It never gets done.
>>
>> So it would be some special kind of fuckwit elector who kept
>> voting time and time again for the politicians who weren't doing
>> what they said they would or what was wanted, right???
>
> Who said I voted?
>
> I gave up voting sometime ago as with two parties and no real third party
> alternative to keep them honest it was pointless.
FFS, thats the exact attitude that lets the Nats and Labour get away with
all the bullshit.
>
> I should have clarified that this is the sort of platform that I have
> heard
> over the last thirty years from opposition parties.
>
> We don't have a choice.
Yes we do, just too many people are either too complacent or stupid to make
it. For sure the minor parties may be blowing smoke up our ass, but unless
we give them a chance we will never know.
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:56:21 +1300 |
|
|
|
"rob" wrote in message
news:Zq6Id.10211$mo2.767809@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Sharknwfk" wrote in message
> news:41f0ea62$1@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "Redbaiter" wrote in message
> > news:35c67nF4jteqjU4@individual.net...
> >> Sharknwfk says
> >> >
> >> > "Redbaiter" wrote in message
> >> > news:35c18lF4knvf2U2@individual.net...
> >> > >
> >> > I don't have a problem with any of this except................
> >> >
> >> > I've heard this or variations of this for about the last thirty years
> > from
> >> > all of the parties.
> >> >
> >> > It never gets done.
> >>
> >> So it would be some special kind of fuckwit elector who kept
> >> voting time and time again for the politicians who weren't doing
> >> what they said they would or what was wanted, right???
> >
> > Who said I voted?
> >
> > I gave up voting sometime ago as with two parties and no real third
party
> > alternative to keep them honest it was pointless.
>
> FFS, thats the exact attitude that lets the Nats and Labour get away with
> all the bullshit.
>
> >
> > I should have clarified that this is the sort of platform that I have
> > heard
> > over the last thirty years from opposition parties.
> >
> > We don't have a choice.
>
> Yes we do, just too many people are either too complacent or stupid to
make
> it. For sure the minor parties may be blowing smoke up our ass, but
unless
> we give them a chance we will never know.
Alright, what's the alternative?
How are you going to create a real third party?
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:57:52 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Sharknwfk" wrote in message
news:41f16c76@clear.net.nz...
>
> "rob" wrote in message
>> > I gave up voting sometime ago as with two parties and no real third
> party
>> > alternative to keep them honest it was pointless.
>>
>> FFS, thats the exact attitude that lets the Nats and Labour get away with
>> all the bullshit.
>>
>> >
>> > I should have clarified that this is the sort of platform that I have
>> > heard
>> > over the last thirty years from opposition parties.
>> >
>> > We don't have a choice.
>>
>> Yes we do, just too many people are either too complacent or stupid to
> make
>> it. For sure the minor parties may be blowing smoke up our ass, but
> unless
>> we give them a chance we will never know.
>
>
> Alright, what's the alternative?
>
> How are you going to create a real third party?
All thats required is enough people to wake up and vote for them. If
everybody in NZ who thinks as you do voted for a minor party the political
landscape may look very different in a years time.
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:44:39 +1300 |
|
|
|
"rob" wrote in message
news:SijId.10343$mo2.785147@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Sharknwfk" wrote in message
> news:41f16c76@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "rob" wrote in message
> >> > I gave up voting sometime ago as with two parties and no real third
> > party
> >> > alternative to keep them honest it was pointless.
> >>
> >> FFS, thats the exact attitude that lets the Nats and Labour get away
with
> >> all the bullshit.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I should have clarified that this is the sort of platform that I have
> >> > heard
> >> > over the last thirty years from opposition parties.
> >> >
> >> > We don't have a choice.
> >>
> >> Yes we do, just too many people are either too complacent or stupid to
> > make
> >> it. For sure the minor parties may be blowing smoke up our ass, but
> > unless
> >> we give them a chance we will never know.
> >
> >
> > Alright, what's the alternative?
> >
> > How are you going to create a real third party?
>
>
> All thats required is enough people to wake up and vote for them. If
> everybody in NZ who thinks as you do voted for a minor party the political
> landscape may look very different in a years time.
And that's my point.
They don't and never will because there isn't and never will be a viable
third party.
National and Labour have tied up centre left & right. The only way to create
a viable third party is to have them go further left or further right.
I don't know whether it's a byproduct of democracy but:
England - 2 parties
USA - two parties
NZ - two parties
The only way I can see around it is to go to STV.
Then there would be truer representation.
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | David Pears | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:09:21 +0930 |
|
|
| On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:44:39 +1300, "Sharknwfk"
wrote:
>I don't know whether it's a byproduct of democracy but:
>
>England - 2 parties
3 main parties, and a host a minor ones.
David
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:44:26 +1300 |
|
|
|
"David Pears" wrote in message
news:6q19v0t6ur6956q8nmvturt9n22up3dg2e@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:44:39 +1300, "Sharknwfk"
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know whether it's a byproduct of democracy but:
> >
> >England - 2 parties
>
> 3 main parties, and a host a minor ones.
And when were the Libs last in power?
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:37:32 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Sharknwfk" wrote in message
news:41f1cc28@clear.net.nz...
>> > How are you going to create a real third party?
>>
>>
>> All thats required is enough people to wake up and vote for them. If
>> everybody in NZ who thinks as you do voted for a minor party the
>> political
>> landscape may look very different in a years time.
>
> And that's my point.
>
> They don't and never will because there isn't and never will be a viable
> third party.
And thats my point, if people who dont vote because they're sick of the main
2 and dont see a viable third option did vote there would be a third party.
Its a catch22 isn't it.
>
> National and Labour have tied up centre left & right. The only way to
> create
> a viable third party is to have them go further left or further right.
Theres room in the middle. It seems both National and Labour are moving
further from the centre.
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:36:59 +1300 |
|
|
|
"rob" wrote in message
news:x9pId.10459$mo2.790215@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Sharknwfk" wrote in message
> news:41f1cc28@clear.net.nz...
>
> >> > How are you going to create a real third party?
> >>
> >>
> >> All thats required is enough people to wake up and vote for them. If
> >> everybody in NZ who thinks as you do voted for a minor party the
> >> political
> >> landscape may look very different in a years time.
> >
> > And that's my point.
> >
> > They don't and never will because there isn't and never will be a viable
> > third party.
>
> And thats my point, if people who dont vote because they're sick of the
main
> 2 and dont see a viable third option did vote there would be a third
party.
> Its a catch22 isn't it.
How long have people been voting for in new Zealand?
>
> >
> > National and Labour have tied up centre left & right. The only way to
> > create
> > a viable third party is to have them go further left or further right.
>
> Theres room in the middle. It seems both National and Labour are moving
> further from the centre.
Not a big enough hole.
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:57:13 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Sharknwfk" wrote in message
news:41f22ccb@clear.net.nz...
>
> "rob" wrote in message
> news:x9pId.10459$mo2.790215@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "Sharknwfk" wrote in message
>> news:41f1cc28@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> >> > How are you going to create a real third party?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All thats required is enough people to wake up and vote for them. If
>> >> everybody in NZ who thinks as you do voted for a minor party the
>> >> political
>> >> landscape may look very different in a years time.
>> >
>> > And that's my point.
>> >
>> > They don't and never will because there isn't and never will be a
>> > viable
>> > third party.
>>
>> And thats my point, if people who dont vote because they're sick of the
> main
>> 2 and dont see a viable third option did vote there would be a third
> party.
>> Its a catch22 isn't it.
>
> How long have people been voting for in new Zealand?
I'm not sure where you're trying to go here, but I meant people who dont
vote at all such as yourself. You all bitch and moan about politicians
being a bunch of bullshitters as an excuse, yet wont give any of the minor
parties a shot because you dont like wasting your vote. Which strikes me as
bizarre since not voting is the ultimate waste.
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:32:49 +1300 |
|
|
|
"rob" wrote in message
news:vcrId.10488$mo2.792228@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Sharknwfk" wrote in message
> news:41f22ccb@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "rob" wrote in message
> > news:x9pId.10459$mo2.790215@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >>
> >> "Sharknwfk" wrote in message
> >> news:41f1cc28@clear.net.nz...
> >>
> >> >> > How are you going to create a real third party?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> All thats required is enough people to wake up and vote for them.
If
> >> >> everybody in NZ who thinks as you do voted for a minor party the
> >> >> political
> >> >> landscape may look very different in a years time.
> >> >
> >> > And that's my point.
> >> >
> >> > They don't and never will because there isn't and never will be a
> >> > viable
> >> > third party.
> >>
> >> And thats my point, if people who dont vote because they're sick of the
> > main
> >> 2 and dont see a viable third option did vote there would be a third
> > party.
> >> Its a catch22 isn't it.
> >
> > How long have people been voting for in new Zealand?
>
> I'm not sure where you're trying to go here,
Okay, let's take it from the date that women were given the vote,1893.
That's 111 years. After all that time we still only have two major parties.
You all bitch and moan about politicians
> being a bunch of bullshitters as an excuse, yet wont give any of the minor
> parties a shot because you dont like wasting your vote. Which strikes me
as
> bizarre since not voting is the ultimate waste.
You're ascribing stuff to me that isn't correct.
I don't believe they're bullshitters. I believe that Democracy is a great
ideal but they put people in charge of it.
I don't believe it's wasting a vote, I believe 'Meet the new boss, same as
the old boss.'
A third party will never be a serious threat in New Zealand because of our
voting system and the fact that our two main parties are not defined enough.
In my memory, we haven't had an effective opposition since Muldoon led the
oppos.
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:28:20 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Sharknwfk" wrote in message
news:41f2c680$1@clear.net.nz...
>> > How long have people been voting for in new Zealand?
>>
>> I'm not sure where you're trying to go here,
>
>
> Okay, let's take it from the date that women were given the vote,1893.
> That's 111 years. After all that time we still only have two major
> parties.
Not strictly true. We have had 3 main parties in the past when Labour was
getting started , the Nats are an ammalgamation of the other two. So it can
happen if the movement hits a nerve with the people and well organised
And we have a new system of elections now, so you are pushing things going
down this path. The minor parties under MMP are doing a hell of a lot
better than they would have under FPP. I cant be bothered looking it up but
I believe if the last elections had been FPP then all but 3 MPs would be
National or Labour. Which would still have been very good compared to how
things have been from WW2 up till MMP. There is a strong chance that one of
those minor parties is in the ascendancy, time will tell which.
>
>
> You all bitch and moan about politicians
>> being a bunch of bullshitters as an excuse, yet wont give any of the
>> minor
>> parties a shot because you dont like wasting your vote. Which strikes me
> as
>> bizarre since not voting is the ultimate waste.
>
> You're ascribing stuff to me that isn't correct.
>
> I don't believe they're bullshitters. I believe that Democracy is a great
> ideal but they put people in charge of it.
>
> I don't believe it's wasting a vote, I believe 'Meet the new boss, same as
> the old boss.'
They were definatly the impression you gave when starting the discussion.
|
|
| | From: | Sharknwfk | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:33:09 +1300 |
|
|
|
"rob" wrote in message
news:pkBId.10556$mo2.803017@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Sharknwfk" wrote in message
> news:41f2c680$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> >> > How long have people been voting for in new Zealand?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure where you're trying to go here,
> >
> >
> > Okay, let's take it from the date that women were given the vote,1893.
> > That's 111 years. After all that time we still only have two major
> > parties.
>
> Not strictly true. We have had 3 main parties in the past when Labour was
> getting started , the Nats are an ammalgamation of the other two. So it
can
> happen if the movement hits a nerve with the people and well organised
> And we have a new system of elections now, so you are pushing things going
> down this path. The minor parties under MMP are doing a hell of a lot
> better than they would have under FPP. I cant be bothered looking it up
but
> I believe if the last elections had been FPP then all but 3 MPs would be
> National or Labour. Which would still have been very good compared to how
> things have been from WW2 up till MMP.
It still doesn't give them a real say in the running of the country.
There is a strong chance that one of
> those minor parties is in the ascendancy, time will tell which.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
> >
> > You all bitch and moan about politicians
> >> being a bunch of bullshitters as an excuse, yet wont give any of the
> >> minor
> >> parties a shot because you dont like wasting your vote. Which strikes
me
> > as
> >> bizarre since not voting is the ultimate waste.
> >
> > You're ascribing stuff to me that isn't correct.
> >
> > I don't believe they're bullshitters. I believe that Democracy is a
great
> > ideal but they put people in charge of it.
> >
> > I don't believe it's wasting a vote, I believe 'Meet the new boss, same
as
> > the old boss.'
>
> They were definatly the impression you gave when starting the discussion.
You obviously got the wrong impression.
We can only wait and see.
Thanks for the discussion.
--
Sharknwfk
|
|
| | From: | Mike Parsons | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | 24 Jan 2005 01:00:22 -0800 |
|
|
| Redbaiter wrote:
> Mike Parsons says
[AFTER MATTY WROTE, "With the present system, the funding of public
schools is proportional to the number of kids in the school. So the
money already "follows the child". Sure the independent schools cost
more, but isn't that the point, to keep out the riff-raff? Just think
what kind of horrible kids would arrive at private schools if they were
cheap!"]
(most of which you snipped, thus removing the context. Context is so
important, don't you think?)
.... I wrote:
> > They wouldn't be cheap. That's the point. They be able to put their
> > prices up straight away by about the same amount as the vouchers
> > funded.
This must have riled you some because you swore at me, forsooth! You
declared that I have "cronies", insinuated that I have a 'born to rule'
attitude, that I have messianic pretentions, then you told me to go
away in no uncertain terms. Just to be sure, you called me an "ignorant
patronising self serving parasitical socialist thief."
Boo hoo. I'm so hurt.
But the pain is good. Once again, I know I've won the argument. Thank
you.
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:06:02 +1300 |
|
|
| Mike Parsons says
>
> But the pain is good. Once again, I know I've won the argument. Thank
> you.
Don't thank me you patronising delusional socialist mungbean. No
assertion is quite so worthless as that made by an adversary who
appoints himself the umpire.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke
|
|
| | From: | morrisseybreen at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 02:04:33 -0800 |
|
|
| Redbaiter wrote:
.........
The word is IGNORAMI, Redbaiter. IGNORAMI.
Capisci?
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:10:01 +1300 |
|
|
| morrisseybreen@yahoo.com says
> Redbaiter wrote:
>
> ........
> The word is IGNORAMI, Redbaiter. IGNORAMI.
>
> Capisci?
>
>
From dictionary dot com.
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2004/05/08.
html
The correct plural form is ignoramuses. Since ignoramus in Latin
is a verb, not a noun, there is no justification for a plural
form ending in -I.
And anyway, even if by mistake I'd used ignorami, leftists would
never have understood.
Now fuck off...
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke
|
|
| | From: | philip | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:19:47 +1300 |
|
|
| morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:
> Redbaiter wrote:
>
> ........
> The word is IGNORAMI, Redbaiter. IGNORAMI.
>
> Capisci?
>
Surely "Capisce?"
Philip
(Il Capo...)
|
|
| | From: | Warwick | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:59:30 +1300 |
|
|
| On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:44:58 +1300, Redbaiter wrote:
> ACT's policies, a summary from Rod Hide's recent speech-
>
> Anyone who can offer a creditable criticism of the policies
> below is welcome to do so. Lets hear from all of the leftist
> mushbrains who reckon they disagree with ACT's policies when
> they wouldn't have the faintest clue what they are.
>
> What in respect of the five points below do you disagree with?
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> NUMBER ONE, make New Zealand the safest country in the world:
>
> The number one job of any government is to defend us from the
> thugs and the bullies. That means the bad guys get caught and
> their punishment fits their crime.
>
> Our government is failing us. We are no longer safe in our
> streets, at our work, in our homes. The police are stretched.
> Sentencing is a joke.
>
> The numbers of unthinkable attacks and murders this year has
> been disgusting – and we’re only up to day 20.
>
> I’m sick of hearing of about predators being supervised
> rather than locked-up, elderly grandmothers assaulted and
> bludgeoned to death, and young women in distress not having
> their 111 calls answered.
>
> ACT’s law and order policy will be the toughest.
>
> After five years of Labour’s soft on crime, ACT will be in
> government to end the pussy-footing and pampering.
>
> We should begin by setting a goal: to make New Zealand the
> safest country in the world. We can do that. We are after all a
> small country, a long way away from the world’s trouble spots.
>
> Helen Clark’s government has no goal in dealing with crime. It
> has no solution. It’s too soft.
>
> NUMBER TWO, more money in every worker’s pocket.
>
> Hardworking Kiwis are overtaxed and over governed. Government
> spends far too much. And it taxes even more. The forecast
> government surplus is $6.5 billion.
>
> That money should be returned to the New Zealanders who first
> earned it.
>
> We should drop the business AND top personal rate to 25 cents in
> the dollar. We should extend the 15-cent rate up to $38,000.
>
> We would go from four rates of income tax to just two.
>
> The “cost” to the Government? About $5.8 billion a year. We
> could drop tax and not cut one dollar of spending.
>
> Someone on $40,000 a year would be $35.86 better-off a week.
> Someone on $60,000 would be $66.55 better-off a week.
>
> It’s simple, flatter and across the aboard. More money in
> everyone’s pockets and, best of all, it would boost prosperity.
>
> That is a tax cut for every worker. It would make for bigger pay
> packets this year and every year.
>
> Bigger pay packets help in so many ways.
>
> There’s no doubt that student loans are huge burden. We need to
> provide graduates with the wherewithal to pay their loans off
> easier, quicker and with less financial strain. Across the board
> tax cuts would do that.
>
> Home mortgages are a problem. The answer is simple. Return to
> the people who earned it that big surplus the Government is
> sitting on. That’s ACT’s answer. Our tax cuts will be a big
> boost for those with a big mortgage.
>
> NUMBER THREE, enable New Zealanders to get on and prosper:
>
> The best way to provide for better health, better education and
> better retirement incomes is to build a more prosperous country.
>
> The trouble is the Government is throttling our ability to
> produce.
>
> The good news is that cutting taxes is a good start to making
> New Zealand more prosperous. It will boost investment and
> entrepreneurship.
>
> The Government thought they might embarrass us by having the
> Treasury look at ACT’s tax policy. But Treasury concluded that
> ACT’s claim that its tax cuts would produce 1 percent extra
> growth was absolutely correct. That’s an extra $15 billion over
> 10 years! $15 billion that we wouldn’t otherwise have.
>
> Tax cuts are a great way to boost the economy. But there’s much
> that the Government can do.
>
> For example, get out of business’s way. Helen Clark’s government
> has introduced an array of new taxes, ACC levy hikes, piles of
> paperwork, mountains of health and safety regulations, the new
> Holidays Act, and now those in the hospitality industry have to
> also act as smoking police. Such heavy-handed government is
> stifling entrepreneurship and crushing business.
>
> We desperately need a Regulatory Responsibility Act in New
> Zealand to reign in the red tape
>
> And let’s not forget one thing: farming remains the backbone of
> New Zealand. Rural New Zealanders have had a rough deal under
> Labour. Helen Clark doesn’t think rural votes are worth worrying
> about – unless they come to town. Remember the fart tax?
>
> Rural communities are plagued with crime. The police are miles
> away. And our own government prosecutes you if you try to stick
> up for yourself and your property.
>
> Those in rural communities have become second-class citizens. If
> you have a creek, river or lake on your property soon everyone
> in the country will be able to wander across your property
> without having to ask. That no-trespass rule won’t apply if you
> live in town. That shows the double standard.
>
> Put ACT into government and we will have a government that will
> defend private property, not pinch it. A government that
> recognises and values the hard work of rural communities.
>
> NUMBER FOUR, colour-blind government:
>
> New Zealanders don’t care about skin colour or ethnicity. We
> judge people by their character and their actions – not by their
> race.
>
> So too should our government.
>
> To do otherwise is racist.
>
> It’s a core New Zealand value that people be treated equally
> irrespective of their race, religion or creed.
>
> It’s also the key to living successfully and peacefully in an
> increasingly diverse and multiracial society. Helen Clark
> doesn’t get that. She wants to pigeon-hole New Zealanders in
> boxes – and have different polices depending on what box you are
> in.
>
> The coming election will give New Zealanders a choice: a
> government given over to a racial pecking order or one that is
> blind to a person’s race.
>
> ACT was the first party to call for one law for all New
> Zealanders. We will be the party that will deliver it.
>
> NUMBER FIVE, immigration policies that serve New Zealand:
>
> Unlike some other political parties, ACT supports immigration.
> We are a supporter of the new New Zealander. If it weren’t for
> immigration over the past 15 years this country, particularly
> this city, would be a much poorer place.
>
> In government we will encourage immigration but with a
> difference. We want new New Zealanders with the skills and
> attributes this country needs if we are to reach our potential
> in the 21st century.
>
> We need a positive immigration policy for New Zealand -- one
> that is hard-headed and designed with the best interests of New
> Zealand as its objective.
>
> And the best immigration policy of all! Economic and social
> policies so that our young people travel the world but come back
> to work and to live because of the opportunities and the
> lifestyle here at home.
>
> We need our best and brightest if we are to succeed and prosper.
>
> NUMBER SIX, social policy that delivers:
>
> Our government is quick to point to bigger budgets if there are
> any doubts in the delivery of its social programme.
>
> But pouring in more money doesn’t guarantee better outcomes.
>
> Just look at health. The Government claims it has increased
> spending by over 30 percent. Yet official figures show the
> number of elective surgery operations has increased by less than
> one percent. Total waiting lists have moved little – from
> 189,000 to 175,000 – and again the Government’s own figures show
> over a thousand New Zealanders died while on the waiting list in
> the year to August 2004. That’s right, died waiting.
>
> Billions and billions extra have been thrown into health but for
> what result?
>
> We shouldn’t measure government success by how much money we
> throw at a problem. We should be looking at the results. Sadly
> for taxpayers this government all-too often just pats itself on
> the back simply for spending more money.
>
> We need to involve the private sector more in healthcare not
> less. Unfortunately, for New Zealanders Helen Clark’s government
> is ideologically opposed to private health care.
>
> The same with schools. It’s tough for families who want to send
> their children to an independent school. They have to pay twice.
> Once through their taxes. And again through school fees. ACT
> says that’s wrong. We want to give parents the choice. Under
> ACT, the money will follow the child whether that child goes to
> a private or state school.
>
> Just imagine the opportunity that will give to parents and to
> their children. They will for once be able to afford to send
> their children to a school of their choice whether that be a
> Christian school, a specialist school or to a government school.
> It will be their choice.
>
> The one-size fits-all state-run education system needs to be
> opened up to choice and to competition. I believe that school
> choice is the one policy that will best provide us with a bright
> future. Education is the key to our future success.
>
> And does anyone believe we are buying a better society by
> throwing more and more money at welfare? There are jobs to be
> had but no one to fill them Paradoxically we have 350,000
> working age adults languishing on benefits.
>
> As ACT’s Deputy Leader Muriel Newman explained in a speech at
> the weekend we are doing no one any favours with a welfare
> system that sucks too many in and lets too few out. We need to
> reform welfare so once again it looks after the truly needy but
> doesn’t trap those who can work and contribute and live
> fulfilling lives independent of the state.
Number one is fucked up. Sentences are not soft, increasing them does very
little if anything toward reducing crime. Experience has proven it.
Crime statistics will only be reduced by improving the odds of detection or
legalizing drugs.
The rest of it is unobjectionable rhetoric, but as Shark points out, there
is nothing new about it.
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:36:48 GMT |
|
|
| On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:59:30 +1300, Warwick wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:44:58 +1300, Redbaiter wrote:
>
>> ACT's policies, a summary from Rod Hide's recent speech-
>>
>> Anyone who can offer a creditable criticism of the policies
>> below is welcome to do so. Lets hear from all of the leftist
>> mushbrains who reckon they disagree with ACT's policies when
>> they wouldn't have the faintest clue what they are.
>>
>> What in respect of the five points below do you disagree with?
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> NUMBER ONE, make New Zealand the safest country in the world:
>>
>> The number one job of any government is to defend us from the
>> thugs and the bullies. That means the bad guys get caught and
>> their punishment fits their crime.
>>
>> Our government is failing us. We are no longer safe in our
>> streets, at our work, in our homes. The police are stretched.
>> Sentencing is a joke.
>>
>> The numbers of unthinkable attacks and murders this year has
>> been disgusting – and we’re only up to day 20.
>>
>> I’m sick of hearing of about predators being supervised
>> rather than locked-up, elderly grandmothers assaulted and
>> bludgeoned to death, and young women in distress not having
>> their 111 calls answered.
>>
>> ACT’s law and order policy will be the toughest.
>>
>> After five years of Labour’s soft on crime, ACT will be in
>> government to end the pussy-footing and pampering.
>>
>> We should begin by setting a goal: to make New Zealand the
>> safest country in the world. We can do that. We are after all a
>> small country, a long way away from the world’s trouble spots.
>>
>> Helen Clark’s government has no goal in dealing with crime. It
>> has no solution. It’s too soft.
>>
>> NUMBER TWO, more money in every worker’s pocket.
>>
>> Hardworking Kiwis are overtaxed and over governed. Government
>> spends far too much. And it taxes even more. The forecast
>> government surplus is $6.5 billion.
>>
>> That money should be returned to the New Zealanders who first
>> earned it.
>>
>> We should drop the business AND top personal rate to 25 cents in
>> the dollar. We should extend the 15-cent rate up to $38,000.
>>
>> We would go from four rates of income tax to just two.
>>
>> The “cost” to the Government? About $5.8 billion a year. We
>> could drop tax and not cut one dollar of spending.
>>
>> Someone on $40,000 a year would be $35.86 better-off a week.
>> Someone on $60,000 would be $66.55 better-off a week.
>>
>> It’s simple, flatter and across the aboard. More money in
>> everyone’s pockets and, best of all, it would boost prosperity.
>>
>> That is a tax cut for every worker. It would make for bigger pay
>> packets this year and every year.
>>
>> Bigger pay packets help in so many ways.
>>
>> There’s no doubt that student loans are huge burden. We need to
>> provide graduates with the wherewithal to pay their loans off
>> easier, quicker and with less financial strain. Across the board
>> tax cuts would do that.
>>
>> Home mortgages are a problem. The answer is simple. Return to
>> the people who earned it that big surplus the Government is
>> sitting on. That’s ACT’s answer. Our tax cuts will be a big
>> boost for those with a big mortgage.
>>
>> NUMBER THREE, enable New Zealanders to get on and prosper:
>>
>> The best way to provide for better health, better education and
>> better retirement incomes is to build a more prosperous country.
>>
>> The trouble is the Government is throttling our ability to
>> produce.
>>
>> The good news is that cutting taxes is a good start to making
>> New Zealand more prosperous. It will boost investment and
>> entrepreneurship.
>>
>> The Government thought they might embarrass us by having the
>> Treasury look at ACT’s tax policy. But Treasury concluded that
>> ACT’s claim that its tax cuts would produce 1 percent extra
>> growth was absolutely correct. That’s an extra $15 billion over
>> 10 years! $15 billion that we wouldn’t otherwise have.
>>
>> Tax cuts are a great way to boost the economy. But there’s much
>> that the Government can do.
>>
>> For example, get out of business’s way. Helen Clark’s government
>> has introduced an array of new taxes, ACC levy hikes, piles of
>> paperwork, mountains of health and safety regulations, the new
>> Holidays Act, and now those in the hospitality industry have to
>> also act as smoking police. Such heavy-handed government is
>> stifling entrepreneurship and crushing business.
>>
>> We desperately need a Regulatory Responsibility Act in New
>> Zealand to reign in the red tape
>>
>> And let’s not forget one thing: farming remains the backbone of
>> New Zealand. Rural New Zealanders have had a rough deal under
>> Labour. Helen Clark doesn’t think rural votes are worth worrying
>> about – unless they come to town. Remember the fart tax?
>>
>> Rural communities are plagued with crime. The police are miles
>> away. And our own government prosecutes you if you try to stick
>> up for yourself and your property.
>>
>> Those in rural communities have become second-class citizens. If
>> you have a creek, river or lake on your property soon everyone
>> in the country will be able to wander across your property
>> without having to ask. That no-trespass rule won’t apply if you
>> live in town. That shows the double standard.
>>
>> Put ACT into government and we will have a government that will
>> defend private property, not pinch it. A government that
>> recognises and values the hard work of rural communities.
>>
>> NUMBER FOUR, colour-blind government:
>>
>> New Zealanders don’t care about skin colour or ethnicity. We
>> judge people by their character and their actions – not by their
>> race.
>>
>> So too should our government.
>>
>> To do otherwise is racist.
>>
>> It’s a core New Zealand value that people be treated equally
>> irrespective of their race, religion or creed.
>>
>> It’s also the key to living successfully and peacefully in an
>> increasingly diverse and multiracial society. Helen Clark
>> doesn’t get that. She wants to pigeon-hole New Zealanders in
>> boxes – and have different polices depending on what box you are
>> in.
>>
>> The coming election will give New Zealanders a choice: a
>> government given over to a racial pecking order or one that is
>> blind to a person’s race.
>>
>> ACT was the first party to call for one law for all New
>> Zealanders. We will be the party that will deliver it.
>>
>> NUMBER FIVE, immigration policies that serve New Zealand:
>>
>> Unlike some other political parties, ACT supports immigration.
>> We are a supporter of the new New Zealander. If it weren’t for
>> immigration over the past 15 years this country, particularly
>> this city, would be a much poorer place.
>>
>> In government we will encourage immigration but with a
>> difference. We want new New Zealanders with the skills and
>> attributes this country needs if we are to reach our potential
>> in the 21st century.
>>
>> We need a positive immigration policy for New Zealand -- one
>> that is hard-headed and designed with the best interests of New
>> Zealand as its objective.
>>
>> And the best immigration policy of all! Economic and social
>> policies so that our young people travel the world but come back
>> to work and to live because of the opportunities and the
>> lifestyle here at home.
>>
>> We need our best and brightest if we are to succeed and prosper.
>>
>> NUMBER SIX, social policy that delivers:
>>
>> Our government is quick to point to bigger budgets if there are
>> any doubts in the delivery of its social programme.
>>
>> But pouring in more money doesn’t guarantee better outcomes.
>>
>> Just look at health. The Government claims it has increased
>> spending by over 30 percent. Yet official figures show the
>> number of elective surgery operations has increased by less than
>> one percent. Total waiting lists have moved little – from
>> 189,000 to 175,000 – and again the Government’s own figures show
>> over a thousand New Zealanders died while on the waiting list in
>> the year to August 2004. That’s right, died waiting.
>>
>> Billions and billions extra have been thrown into health but for
>> what result?
>>
>> We shouldn’t measure government success by how much money we
>> throw at a problem. We should be looking at the results. Sadly
>> for taxpayers this government all-too often just pats itself on
>> the back simply for spending more money.
>>
>> We need to involve the private sector more in healthcare not
>> less. Unfortunately, for New Zealanders Helen Clark’s government
>> is ideologically opposed to private health care.
>>
>> The same with schools. It’s tough for families who want to send
>> their children to an independent school. They have to pay twice.
>> Once through their taxes. And again through school fees. ACT
>> says that’s wrong. We want to give parents the choice. Under
>> ACT, the money will follow the child whether that child goes to
>> a private or state school.
>>
>> Just imagine the opportunity that will give to parents and to
>> their children. They will for once be able to afford to send
>> their children to a school of their choice whether that be a
>> Christian school, a specialist school or to a government school.
>> It will be their choice.
>>
>> The one-size fits-all state-run education system needs to be
>> opened up to choice and to competition. I believe that school
>> choice is the one policy that will best provide us with a bright
>> future. Education is the key to our future success.
>>
>> And does anyone believe we are buying a better society by
>> throwing more and more money at welfare? There are jobs to be
>> had but no one to fill them Paradoxically we have 350,000
>> working age adults languishing on benefits.
>>
>> As ACT’s Deputy Leader Muriel Newman explained in a speech at
>> the weekend we are doing no one any favours with a welfare
>> system that sucks too many in and lets too few out. We need to
>> reform welfare so once again it looks after the truly needy but
>> doesn’t trap those who can work and contribute and live
>> fulfilling lives independent of the state.
>
>Number one is fucked up. Sentences are not soft, increasing them does very
>little if anything toward reducing crime. Experience has proven it.
>Crime statistics will only be reduced by improving the odds of detection or
>legalizing drugs.
>
>The rest of it is unobjectionable rhetoric, but as Shark points out, there
>is nothing new about it.
Nor will its proponent ever have to account for the costs of
implementing such hypothetical policies nor for the societal costs of
the unforeseen consequences of them should they ever be enforced.
And where's the ACT budget showing how all this will be costed and
afforded? Scotch mist, as ever.
Shallow-minded rhetoric from a supremely shallow and self-promoting
politician who, more than most, has made it an art form.
No wonder Bedwetter is so enamoured of the cocksure but vapid little
pleb.
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:07:19 +1300 |
|
|
| Newsman says
>
> Nor will its proponent ever have to account for the costs of
> implementing such hypothetical policies nor for the societal costs of
> the unforeseen consequences of them should they ever be enforced.
And at the moment, these "costs" exist only in the mind of
commie English immigrants and naysayers like Newsman, who en
masse arrived and settled here at a social cost that far
exceeded anything that is likely to arise from any of the above
policies.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke
|
|
| | From: | Warwick | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:11:46 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:07:19 +1300, Redbaiter wrote:
> Newsman says
>
>>
>> Nor will its proponent ever have to account for the costs of
>> implementing such hypothetical policies nor for the societal costs of
>> the unforeseen consequences of them should they ever be enforced.
>
> And at the moment, these "costs" exist only in the mind of
> commie English immigrants and naysayers like Newsman, who en
> masse arrived and settled here at a social cost that far
> exceeded anything that is likely to arise from any of the above
> policies.
Your failure to notice the cost component in those 6 points is an excellent
example of why people who think like you should never ever be placed in
positions of authority.
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Warwick" wrote in message
news:1nhb3phfzgx1k.1juq1bxk5b8an.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:07:19 +1300, Redbaiter wrote:
>
>> Newsman says
>>
>>>
>>> Nor will its proponent ever have to account for the costs of
>>> implementing such hypothetical policies nor for the societal costs of
>>> the unforeseen consequences of them should they ever be enforced.
>>
>> And at the moment, these "costs" exist only in the mind of
>> commie English immigrants and naysayers like Newsman, who en
>> masse arrived and settled here at a social cost that far
>> exceeded anything that is likely to arise from any of the above
>> policies.
>
> Your failure to notice the cost component in those 6 points is an
> excellent
> example of why people who think like you should never ever be placed in
> positions of authority.
Lets look shall we
Point 1. More money spent on Police and Jails, ok fair one Warwick.
Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the surplus so no
'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
Point 3. Blah blah, no costs mentioned
Point 4. Ditto
Point 5. Ditto again
Point 6. A bit vague, but looks to me like making sure the money spent on
Hospitals and schools actually does what its meant and promoting private
schemes, which could well be a saving to the government. And getting people
off welfare which would a saving.
As for the societal costs, there is nothing in there that seems overly
draconian so I would imagine it would be none to bugger all.
|
|
| | From: | Warwick | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:03:09 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the surplus so no
> 'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
Being available to afford the cost does not make it free. It is still a
cost.
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:41 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Warwick" wrote in message
news:1dnf5aswv6rfa.lgoidy8tpqat$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
>
>> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the surplus so
>> no
>> 'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
>
> Being available to afford the cost does not make it free. It is still a
> cost.
Is that all you are able to address?
Cutting taxes is not a cost because it is not the governments money. We pay
taxes so the government can pay for the services that are considered vital
for our society to function and fair enough. But having the government
sitting on a *$7 Billion surplus* is taking the piss.
Divide that surplus by the amont of taxpayers in NZ and figure out how much
you have been robbed.
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:23:04 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:41 +1300, "rob" wrote:
>
>"Warwick" wrote in message
>news:1dnf5aswv6rfa.lgoidy8tpqat$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
>>
>>> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the surplus so
>>> no
>>> 'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
>>
>> Being available to afford the cost does not make it free. It is still a
>> cost.
>
>Is that all you are able to address?
>
>Cutting taxes is not a cost because it is not the governments money. We pay
>taxes so the government can pay for the services that are considered vital
>for our society to function and fair enough. But having the government
>sitting on a *$7 Billion surplus* is taking the piss.
So how much less should that surplus be, and why?
>Divide that surplus by the amont of taxpayers in NZ and figure out how much
>you have been robbed.
How are your savings going at the moment? How's the ol' credit card
showing up these days?
Anything put by for a rainy day or are you just another spend spend
spend New Zealander with no thought of tomorrow, but only to ready to
whinge on the day that nanny state comes up short on your expectations
of it when you've blown it?
|
|
| | From: | rob | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:32:25 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Newsman" wrote in message
news:41f2c2ca.2852187@news.actrix.co.nz...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:41 +1300, "rob" wrote:
>
>>
>>"Warwick" wrote in message
>>news:1dnf5aswv6rfa.lgoidy8tpqat$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the surplus
>>>> so
>>>> no
>>>> 'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
>>>
>>> Being available to afford the cost does not make it free. It is still a
>>> cost.
>>
>>Is that all you are able to address?
>>
>>Cutting taxes is not a cost because it is not the governments money. We
>>pay
>>taxes so the government can pay for the services that are considered vital
>>for our society to function and fair enough. But having the government
>>sitting on a *$7 Billion surplus* is taking the piss.
>
> So how much less should that surplus be, and why?
It should be $0 exactly. Impossible I know, but as I said $7 billion is a
sick joke.
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:20:46 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:32:25 +1300, "rob" wrote:
>
>"Newsman" wrote in message
>news:41f2c2ca.2852187@news.actrix.co.nz...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:41 +1300, "rob" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Warwick" wrote in message
>>>news:1dnf5aswv6rfa.lgoidy8tpqat$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the surplus
>>>>> so
>>>>> no
>>>>> 'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
>>>>
>>>> Being available to afford the cost does not make it free. It is still a
>>>> cost.
>>>
>>>Is that all you are able to address?
>>>
>>>Cutting taxes is not a cost because it is not the governments money. We
>>>pay
>>>taxes so the government can pay for the services that are considered vital
>>>for our society to function and fair enough. But having the government
>>>sitting on a *$7 Billion surplus* is taking the piss.
>>
>> So how much less should that surplus be, and why?
>
>It should be $0 exactly. Impossible I know, but as I said $7 billion is a
>sick joke.
But I also asked why?
So, any ideas?
|
|
| | From: | grimly bubble | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:05:32 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Newsman" wrote in message
news:41f2edad.985640@news.actrix.co.nz...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:32:25 +1300, "rob" wrote:
>
> >
> >"Newsman" wrote in message
> >news:41f2c2ca.2852187@news.actrix.co.nz...
> >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:41 +1300, "rob" wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Warwick" wrote in message
> >>>news:1dnf5aswv6rfa.lgoidy8tpqat$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the
surplus
> >>>>> so
> >>>>> no
> >>>>> 'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
> >>>>
> >>>> Being available to afford the cost does not make it free. It is still
a
> >>>> cost.
> >>>
> >>>Is that all you are able to address?
> >>>
> >>>Cutting taxes is not a cost because it is not the governments money.
We
> >>>pay
> >>>taxes so the government can pay for the services that are considered
vital
> >>>for our society to function and fair enough. But having the government
> >>>sitting on a *$7 Billion surplus* is taking the piss.
> >>
> >> So how much less should that surplus be, and why?
> >
> >It should be $0 exactly. Impossible I know, but as I said $7 billion is
a
> >sick joke.
>
> But I also asked why?
>
> So, any ideas?
7 billion is a sick joke becasue the Governement hasn't produced any quality
health, justice, education, roading solutions or environmental protection.
7 billion spent on what it was stolen for may mean that my friend would not
be dying now, he would have been treated properly and on time when his
devastating symptoms appeared.
More spent on prisons and quick court appearances my mean that the useless
criminals would be incarcerated appropriately. More on roading would mean
that the traffic problems in Auckland and other cities would be alievialted
and thus the time people are forced to spend in gridlock could be turned
into productivity and extra on education would mean that people would get
real useable skills to take to the market place.
A whole lot of reduction in Government staffing levels would free up
billions more and so would a reformation of all welfare benefits.
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:01:29 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:05:32 +1300, "grimly bubble"
wrote:
>
>"Newsman" wrote in message
>news:41f2edad.985640@news.actrix.co.nz...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:32:25 +1300, "rob" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Newsman" wrote in message
>> >news:41f2c2ca.2852187@news.actrix.co.nz...
>> >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:41 +1300, "rob" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"Warwick" wrote in message
>> >>>news:1dnf5aswv6rfa.lgoidy8tpqat$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> >>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the
>surplus
>> >>>>> so
>> >>>>> no
>> >>>>> 'costs' and a bonus of an extra 1% growth.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Being available to afford the cost does not make it free. It is still
>a
>> >>>> cost.
>> >>>
>> >>>Is that all you are able to address?
>> >>>
>> >>>Cutting taxes is not a cost because it is not the governments money.
>We
>> >>>pay
>> >>>taxes so the government can pay for the services that are considered
>vital
>> >>>for our society to function and fair enough. But having the government
>> >>>sitting on a *$7 Billion surplus* is taking the piss.
>> >>
>> >> So how much less should that surplus be, and why?
>> >
>> >It should be $0 exactly. Impossible I know, but as I said $7 billion is
>a
>> >sick joke.
>>
>> But I also asked why?
>>
>> So, any ideas?
>
>7 billion is a sick joke becasue the Governement hasn't produced any quality
>health, justice, education, roading solutions or environmental protection.
>7 billion spent on what it was stolen for may mean that my friend would not
>be dying now, he would have been treated properly and on time when his
>devastating symptoms appeared.
>
>More spent on prisons and quick court appearances my mean that the useless
>criminals would be incarcerated appropriately. More on roading would mean
>that the traffic problems in Auckland and other cities would be alievialted
>and thus the time people are forced to spend in gridlock could be turned
>into productivity and extra on education would mean that people would get
>real useable skills to take to the market place.
>
>A whole lot of reduction in Government staffing levels would free up
>billions more and so would a reformation of all welfare benefits.
Which is all very well but doesn;t answer the question I posed which
simply asks how much less should the surplus be, and why?
Care to have a go at the figure that it should stand at? Give a
justification for any reduced figure you propose because what the hell
is the point of bleating the same old "The government should....blah
blah blah"? It advances the debate not one iota.
|
|
| | From: | grimly bubble | | Subject: | Re: FOR THE BRAINWASHED LEFTIST IGNORAMUSES | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:41:54 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Newsman" wrote in message
news:41f3746d.2646078@news.actrix.co.nz...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:05:32 +1300, "grimly bubble"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Newsman" wrote in message
> >news:41f2edad.985640@news.actrix.co.nz...
> >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:32:25 +1300, "rob" wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Newsman" wrote in message
> >> >news:41f2c2ca.2852187@news.actrix.co.nz...
> >> >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:18:41 +1300, "rob" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>"Warwick" wrote in message
> >> >>>news:1dnf5aswv6rfa.lgoidy8tpqat$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> >>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:31:46 +1300, rob wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Point 2. Cut taxes. Proposed cuts are still well within the
> >sur |
|
|