It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these >does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election.
Tony
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid sarcasm can you?
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these >>does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election.
Tony
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion ofThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every last one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. Normal process just like the last Labour government.
property rights
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about the right to own property?
object to.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the >incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid sarcasm >can you?
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these >>>does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>Tony
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion ofThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every last >one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. Normal >process just like the last Labour government.
property rights
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about the >right to own property?
object to.
Tony
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these >>does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election.
Tony
object to.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these >>>does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>Tony
object to.
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maoriseparatists and the generally useless.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>Once again Rich is a lying shit
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >believe that National have done that
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these >>>>does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>Tony
object to.
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I don't know who you think my comrades are, but do you have a cite for
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>Once again Rich is a lying shit
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>believe that National have done that
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>Tony
object to.
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites.
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>Once again Rich is a lying shit
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>believe that National have done that
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites.
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
Coming from a beacon of hypocrisy, who apparently doesn't know what hypocrisymeans....
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maoriseparatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>Once again Rich is a lying shit
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule"
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>> separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>> Tony
attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>> property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
object to.
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites.
believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
On 9/10/2016 6:20 PM, JohnO wrote:
Coming from a beacon of hypocrisy, who apparently doesn't know what hypocrisy means....The sad but amusing thing is that no-one in that rabble votes National
so why should the current government even notice?
On 9/10/2016 11:29 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless."Betcha rich drops this thread like a piece of red hot iron after that
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is disgraceful to deliberately disrupt the lives of other people like that. Tony
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>Once again Rich is a lying shit
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>>these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes >http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>It is disgraceful to deliberately disrupt the lives of other people like that. >Tony
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:Once again Rich is a lying shit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>>object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>>>these
separatists and the generally useless.
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>>Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray? >>>>>>Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>>believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes >>http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Thanks, I hadn't seen that article, which is why I asked the question.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>Once again Rich is a lying shit
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes >http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:23:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netMy comment had absolutely nothing to do with politics and predicatbly you had to make the thread political. The answer to your innane question is yes of course I can -
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>It is disgraceful to deliberately disrupt the lives of other people like that.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>wrote:Once again Rich is a lying shit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>>>object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, >>>>>>>>>>MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>>>>these
separatists and the generally useless.
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>>>Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray? >>>>>>>Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>>>believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes >>>http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
Tony
I agree Tony. It was at least probably safer than driving a tractor
up the steps of parliament among endangering other people - or
arranging trucks to clog roads for a much longer period protesting
against road user charges (which have I believe been further increased
under the current government, without any "industry" protest . .)
Can you suggest a better way for people to have their concerns heard?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 09:06:03 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 9/10/2016 11:29 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Betcha rich drops this thread like a piece of red hot iron after that
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
Rich has crawled under a rock
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:23:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netMy comment had absolutely nothing to do with politics and predicatbly
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:It is disgraceful to deliberately disrupt the lives of other people
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Once again Rich is a lying shit National didn't as you well know. >>>>>>But your comrades did.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, >>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>>>>net dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to >>>>>>>>>rule" attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth >>>>>>>>>erosion of property rights is likely to be one of the things the >>>>>>>>>protestors object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, >>>>>>>>>>>anarchists,And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each >>>>>>>>>>one of these does harm to those who think they have an ineffable >>>>>>>>>>right to election.
Maori separatists and the generally useless.
Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray? >>>>>>>>Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do >>>>>>>not believe that National have done that
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, >>>>Maori separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch- traffic-2016091018
like that.
Tony
I agree Tony. It was at least probably safer than driving a tractor up
the steps of parliament among endangering other people - or arranging >>trucks to clog roads for a much longer period protesting against road
user charges (which have I believe been further increased under the
current government, without any "industry" protest . .)
Can you suggest a better way for people to have their concerns heard?
you had to make the thread political. The answer to your innane question
is yes of course I can -
1. Use your vote in national and local elections to get the candidate
you want.
2. Have a meeting in Hagley Park or the Auckland Domain or one of a
hundred other places around the country 3. Place articles in the
newspapers 4. Get interviewed on television I give up....... there are
so many ways to get a point across without deliberately disrupting the
lives of others Simply unnaceptable behaviour and almost certainly has
the opposite effect to the one that this trash desires, I will bet it
loses thenm support but I dount they care because they mosty do it
either for money or because they get a thrill out of getting in the way
of ordinary people enjoying their lives. Many of them will be
sociopathic, I have watched the behaviour of some of these low lives in person and experienced the almost manic fervour they display.
Of course there are better ways and you know it!
Tony
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 23:29:58 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Thanks, I hadn't seen that article, which is why I asked the question.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:Once again Rich is a lying shit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>>object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these
separatists and the generally useless.
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>>Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray? >>>>>>Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>>believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes >>http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
I confirm my opinion that vandalising property as you described is
appalling, although the use of glue rather than destructive sparys
like acid may not meet many people's concept of vandalism - but I
agree that they should not have glued paper to bank windows. The
article didn;t seem to make much of the "vandalism"", ending the
article with
"But despite the disruption to some people's Saturday events, police
said the group was peaceful and no arrests were made."
From the video the culprits are probably identifiable, and the police
may well have been present when the gluing occured - doubtless the
bank can consider suing to recover any loss from the "vandalism", and
that is as it should be.
1- 7pm, Victoria Park, Auckland, todayThis has nothing at all to do with democracy, it has everything to do with thinly veiled political attempts to subvert common decency at the expense of ordinary caring people going about their daily lives. The very same people that exercised their democratic privilege and elected a government. I recall being stopped on my way to catch an airplane many years ago by an extremely officious little man who wanted to know where I was going and how often I did it etc. I later learned it had happened all over the region in an attempt to understand traffic flows and it was rush hour! I was terse but polite to him and explained that the delays he was causing made it possible that I may miss my plane and asked him to move away, he argued but a very large Traffic Officer walked up to him and told him to move back. That wasn't political, merely incompetent and unfairly intrusive . This series of actions is both political and incompetent and unfairly intrusive.
Details
New Zealanders from all walks of life are coming together on 10th
September in a Day of Action that will affirm our democratic rights
and support initiatives to build a fairer and more sustainable
society. There will be rallies, marches, music and speeches, in >family-friendly events that bring together a powerful movement for
change in towns and cities across Aotearoa New Zealand.
This is a time when families are struggling with high housing costs,
insecure work and stagnant wages. The gaps between the haves and
have-nots are widening in our society. Our rivers and seas are being >polluted, our native species are being wiped out and we are failing to
curb climate emissions.
The government is allowing tax advantages for multinationals and the
wealthy, and planning to privatise social services. They are ratifying
the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which would give new
rights to foreign corporations to sue our government over >democratically-agreed laws and policies, and override te Tiriti
rights.
Our peace-loving country is about to host an international weapons
show and give licences for deep sea oil drilling. It’s time to call a
halt. There are already too many advantages for corporations and the
wealthy. We need to reclaim our rights.
This is not the society we want to be. Through our Day of Action, we
will ‘join the dots’ between our issues and reclaim democratic rights
for citizens.
Our Day of Action on 10 September is a protest, but also an
affirmation of our hopes and aspirations for a fairer, more just, more >sustainable society. We will highlight and celebrate the positive >alternatives in communities in Aotearoa, inviting participation from
all those who are building a better future, whether through community >housing, supporting refugees and the homeless, growing organics and
working in community gardens, creating transport alternatives and
community renewable energy, divesting from fossil fuels, or supporting >community finance and local exchanges schemes.
Planning for the Day of Action in each community is being led by local
TPPA coalitions, and coordinated by the It’s Our Future network,
together with a growing number of allies.
Please join with the local TPPA campaign in your community to plan a
day of action.
Details of the events will follow. More details and links to It's Our
Future local groups can be found on the website
https://itsourfuture.org.nz/
Facebook events will be added at
https://www.facebook.com/ItsOurFutureNZ/ as venues and times are
confirmed for the myriad of events being held around the country on
that day…
See also:
https://itsourfuture.org.nz/day-of-action-across-aotearoa/
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 09:54:19 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 23:29:58 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Thanks, I hadn't seen that article, which is why I asked the question.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>wrote:Once again Rich is a lying shit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>>>object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these
separatists and the generally useless.
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>>>Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray? >>>>>>>Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>>>believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes >>>http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
I confirm my opinion that vandalising property as you described is >>appalling, although the use of glue rather than destructive sparys
like acid may not meet many people's concept of vandalism - but I
agree that they should not have glued paper to bank windows. The
article didn;t seem to make much of the "vandalism"", ending the
article with
Of course TV3 news didn't condemn the vandalism.
They are comrades in arms. Why else would a Marxist Minto
be given air time.
So you think the police are corrupt do you "Liberty"?"But despite the disruption to some people's Saturday events, police
said the group was peaceful and no arrests were made."
May be the police didn't want the great unwashed in their clean cells.
So you don;t think the bank has a valid case? Or is it just that you
From the video the culprits are probably identifiable, and the police
may well have been present when the gluing occured - doubtless the
bank can consider suing to recover any loss from the "vandalism", and
that is as it should be.
So the bank is forced has to spend more than what the damage cost.
and your comrades were marching for democracy. That has about as much >credibility as Minto and his comrades rioting in 1981 to help the black southAfricans.
which was all a load of crap.Racism OK with you too is it, "Liberty"?
It has all to do with Minto's deluded socialist dream.
1- 7pm, Victoria Park, Auckland, today
Details
New Zealanders from all walks of life are coming together on 10th
September in a Day of Action that will affirm our democratic rights
and support initiatives to build a fairer and more sustainable
society. There will be rallies, marches, music and speeches, in family-friendly events that bring together a powerful movement for
change in towns and cities across Aotearoa New Zealand.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:21:17 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>these
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 09:54:19 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 23:29:58 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of
separatists and the generally useless.
So you think the police are corrupt do you "Liberty"?Thanks, I hadn't seen that article, which is why I asked the question.I don't know who you think my comrades areOnce again Rich is a lying shitdoes harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election.The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>>>attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>>>property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>>>>object to.
Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray? >>>>>>>>Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites. >>>>>>>Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>>>>believe that National have done that
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes >>>>http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
I confirm my opinion that vandalising property as you described is >>>appalling, although the use of glue rather than destructive sparys
like acid may not meet many people's concept of vandalism - but I
agree that they should not have glued paper to bank windows. The
article didn;t seem to make much of the "vandalism"", ending the
article with
Of course TV3 news didn't condemn the vandalism.
They are comrades in arms. Why else would a Marxist Minto
be given air time.
"But despite the disruption to some people's Saturday events, police
said the group was peaceful and no arrests were made."
May be the police didn't want the great unwashed in their clean cells.
So you don;t think the bank has a valid case? Or is it just that you
From the video the culprits are probably identifiable, and the police
may well have been present when the gluing occured - doubtless the
bank can consider suing to recover any loss from the "vandalism", and >>>that is as it should be.
So the bank is forced has to spend more than what the damage cost.
don;t trust the justice system?
Racism OK with you too is it, "Liberty"?
and your comrades were marching for democracy. That has about as much >>credibility as Minto and his comrades rioting in 1981 to help the black south Africans.
which was all a load of crap.
It has all to do with Minto's deluded socialist dream.
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:22:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net"Born to rule" is not a trait of any NZ party and no such thing is "well known" you are talkinga bout an entirely different country!
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the >>incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid sarcasm >>can you?
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these >>>>does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>Tony
"fortunately each one of these"- presumably yu are referring to
political rallies.
"does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to
election"- clearly political rallies do no harm to opposition parties,
and in any event National are well known as the "born to rule" party -
and the issues being raised have already harmed National Party
support.
No sarcasm, just truth.
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion ofThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every last >>one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. Normal >>process just like the last Labour government.
property rights
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about the >>right to own property?
object to.
Tony
The second part of the bill passed under urgency contained a reductionA properly debated and gazetted decision by a majority in parliaament - do you have a problem with democracy?
in provision for the removal of the right of prior landowners of land
taken under the Public Works Act to be offered their land back. This
is a valuable right preserved under sections 40 to 42 of the Public
Works Act 1981. If land is taken compulsorily but then no longer
needed then as long as certain conditions are met it is meant to be
offered back to the original owner of the land or their successor.
The bill changes this right - and passing it under urgency is anI am surprosed that you do not understand the difference between retrospective and retroactive.
appalling abuse of parliament. The bill amended section 15 of the
Housing Act 1955 and states that “to avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of
the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) to the >disposal of State housing land …”. It then lists various
circumstances where the amendment applies.
There was of course never any doubt about when the Public Works Act
applies - they were weakening those provisions, which is effectively >changing contracts with private owners whose land has been taken in
the past under the Public Works Act. The Regulatory Impact Statement
should have referred to this change, but as is becoming typical of
this dishonest government, it did not.
There is no protest about teh right to own property - one of the
matters being objected to is the restrospective impact of legislation
change that reduces the right to buy back land taken by the government
under the Public Works Act. I am suprised that you support such
retrospective diminishment of individual propoerty rights, Tony.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:22:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net"Born to rule" is not a trait of any NZ party and no such thing is "well known"
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:I was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the >>>incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid sarcasm >>>can you?
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>Tony
"fortunately each one of these"- presumably yu are referring to
political rallies.
"does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to
election"- clearly political rallies do no harm to opposition parties,
and in any event National are well known as the "born to rule" party -
and the issues being raised have already harmed National Party
support.
you are talkinga bout an entirely different country!
No sarcasm, just truth.A properly debated and gazetted decision by a majority in parliaament - do you >have a problem with democracy?
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion ofThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every last >>>one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. Normal
property rights
process just like the last Labour government.
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about the >>>right to own property?
object to.
Tony
The second part of the bill passed under urgency contained a reduction
in provision for the removal of the right of prior landowners of land
taken under the Public Works Act to be offered their land back. This
is a valuable right preserved under sections 40 to 42 of the Public
Works Act 1981. If land is taken compulsorily but then no longer
needed then as long as certain conditions are met it is meant to be
offered back to the original owner of the land or their successor.
I am surprosed that you do not understand the difference between retrospective >and retroactive.
The bill changes this right - and passing it under urgency is an
appalling abuse of parliament. The bill amended section 15 of the
Housing Act 1955 and states that “to avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of
the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) to the >>disposal of State housing land …”. It then lists various
circumstances where the amendment applies.
There was of course never any doubt about when the Public Works Act
applies - they were weakening those provisions, which is effectively >>changing contracts with private owners whose land has been taken in
the past under the Public Works Act. The Regulatory Impact Statement >>should have referred to this change, but as is becoming typical of
this dishonest government, it did not.
There is no protest about teh right to own property - one of the
matters being objected to is the restrospective impact of legislation >>change that reduces the right to buy back land taken by the government >>under the Public Works Act. I am suprised that you support such >>retrospective diminishment of individual propoerty rights, Tony.
In any event retroactive legislation is not new; many governments have done >that including Labour.
Tony
Rich80105 wrote:
1- 7pm, Victoria Park, Auckland, today
Details
New Zealanders from all walks of life are coming together on 10th
September in a Day of Action that will affirm our democratic rights
and support initiatives to build a fairer and more sustainable
society. There will be rallies, marches, music and speeches, in
family-friendly events that bring together a powerful movement for
change in towns and cities across Aotearoa New Zealand.
To the leftist "democracy" means having the power to forcibly take private >property from one person to redistribute to others. For that's the only >solution they ever have for solving societal ills. We should have none of
it. Such corrupt morality has no place in a decent society.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:16:28 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
1- 7pm, Victoria Park, Auckland, today
Details
New Zealanders from all walks of life are coming together on 10th
September in a Day of Action that will affirm our democratic rights
and support initiatives to build a fairer and more sustainable
society. There will be rallies, marches, music and speeches, in
family-friendly events that bring together a powerful movement for
change in towns and cities across Aotearoa New Zealand.
To the leftist "democracy" means having the power to forcibly take private >>property from one person to redistribute to others. For that's the only >>solution they ever have for solving societal ills. We should have none of >>it. Such corrupt morality has no place in a decent society.
Here is the Right's answer for you: http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/is-the-government-doing-enough-on-homelessness-2016091010
It does seem that solving societal ills is not happening at present .
Rich80105 wrote:They are likely to remove the inconsistency regarding capital gains on investment properties, and to fix the large number of companies who
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule"
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>these does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to >>>election. Tony
attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of
property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
object to.
Labour and the Greens have promised to erode our property rights overtly via >increased taxation.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 00:38:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI can't help it if p;eople use the English language badly, other than bringing it to their attention. >http://equaljusticeproject.co.nz/2015/09/amicus-curiae-retrospective-legislation-a-no-winz-proposition/
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:22:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net"Born to rule" is not a trait of any NZ party and no such thing is "well >>known"
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:I was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the >>>>incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid >>>>sarcasm
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>Tony
can you?
"fortunately each one of these"- presumably yu are referring to
political rallies.
"does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to
election"- clearly political rallies do no harm to opposition parties, >>>and in any event National are well known as the "born to rule" party - >>>and the issues being raised have already harmed National Party
support.
you are talkinga bout an entirely different country!
No sarcasm, just truth.A properly debated and gazetted decision by a majority in parliaament - do >>you
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion ofThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every >>>>last
property rights
one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. >>>>Normal
process just like the last Labour government.
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about the >>>>right to own property?
object to.
Tony
The second part of the bill passed under urgency contained a reduction
in provision for the removal of the right of prior landowners of land >>>taken under the Public Works Act to be offered their land back. This
is a valuable right preserved under sections 40 to 42 of the Public
Works Act 1981. If land is taken compulsorily but then no longer
needed then as long as certain conditions are met it is meant to be >>>offered back to the original owner of the land or their successor.
have a problem with democracy?
I am surprosed that you do not understand the difference between >>retrospective
The bill changes this right - and passing it under urgency is an >>>appalling abuse of parliament. The bill amended section 15 of the
Housing Act 1955 and states that “to avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of >>>the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) to the >>>disposal of State housing land …”. It then lists various
circumstances where the amendment applies.
There was of course never any doubt about when the Public Works Act >>>applies - they were weakening those provisions, which is effectively >>>changing contracts with private owners whose land has been taken in
the past under the Public Works Act. The Regulatory Impact Statement >>>should have referred to this change, but as is becoming typical of
this dishonest government, it did not.
There is no protest about teh right to own property - one of the
matters being objected to is the restrospective impact of legislation >>>change that reduces the right to buy back land taken by the government >>>under the Public Works Act. I am suprised that you support such >>>retrospective diminishment of individual propoerty rights, Tony.
and retroactive.
In any event retroactive legislation is not new; many governments have done >>that including Labour.
Tony
Thanks you for drawing the difference to my attention. The "Duynhoven"
law was retroactive. The term retrospective is however commonly used
in similar situations, e.g. see
The change put through under urgency recently leaves any pastIt is not a matter of preference it is a matter of correctness!
settlements under the Public Works act unchanged, but does potentially
affect future disposal by the government of property taken under the
Public Works Act - whether you prefer retrospective or retroactive, it
is effectively legislation to change a property contract by one partyThat is what legislation often does.
against the interests of the other party, affecting the future of both >parties.
Are you in favour of the changes put through by the government to such >property disposal requirements, Tony?I have no opinion.
On 10/09/2016 10:29 a.m., JohnO wrote:
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, MaoriYup. Just another Labour Party front organisation. Bit of a joke really
separatists and the generally useless.
when you consider Labour hasn't a clue about the real meaning of
democracy as evidenced by their giving unions a twenty percent vote in
the leadership vote and others multiple votes in the same farce.
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of
these does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to >>election. Tony
object to.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:39:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:They are likely to remove the inconsistency regarding capital gains on investment properties, and to fix the large number of companies who
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule"
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>these does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to >>>>election. Tony
attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of
property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
object to.
Labour and the Greens have promised to erode our property rights overtly >>via increased taxation.
pay little tax through various structural devices.
Tax revenue does need to increase because National's reductions that
favoured the wealthy
were not supportable with their increased
spending and the level of borrowing is such that it is effectively a
tax on future revenues.
Getting overseas shareholders and company
owners to pay their fair level of tax may well be enough to cover much
of the shortfall.
In addition many New Zealand companies are earning
less profit than desirable due to so many New Zealanders in such hard economic circumstances. National has had to increase accomodation
supplements and social welfare payments generall. Labour / Green are
likely to make changes to employment law to reduce destructive
employment practices,
and make a modest increase in the minimum wage
which may enable a reductoin in Working for family payments, which are effectively a subsidy to companies on wages. Those wanting a National government are those who are frightened of fair competition and a fiar market. In any case, Labour have a history of saving; National spend
and borrow.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 19:05:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou may think it is semantics and that means you clearly don't give a damn about the English language - we have one of our other official languages being nurtured by those that care about it and people like you simply don't care about English - you are a pathetic illiterate.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 00:38:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI can't help it if p;eople use the English language badly, other than >>bringing
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:22:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:"Born to rule" is not a trait of any NZ party and no such thing is "well >>>>known"
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:I was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the >>>>>>incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid >>>>>>sarcasm
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, >>>>>>>>>MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>>>these
separatists and the generally useless.
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>>Tony
can you?
"fortunately each one of these"- presumably yu are referring to >>>>>political rallies.
"does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to >>>>>election"- clearly political rallies do no harm to opposition parties, >>>>>and in any event National are well known as the "born to rule" party - >>>>>and the issues being raised have already harmed National Party >>>>>support.
you are talkinga bout an entirely different country!
No sarcasm, just truth.A properly debated and gazetted decision by a majority in parliaament - do >>>>you
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>property rightsThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every >>>>>>last
one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. >>>>>>Normal
process just like the last Labour government.
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about >>>>>>the
object to.
right to own property?
Tony
The second part of the bill passed under urgency contained a reduction >>>>>in provision for the removal of the right of prior landowners of land >>>>>taken under the Public Works Act to be offered their land back. This >>>>>is a valuable right preserved under sections 40 to 42 of the Public >>>>>Works Act 1981. If land is taken compulsorily but then no longer >>>>>needed then as long as certain conditions are met it is meant to be >>>>>offered back to the original owner of the land or their successor.
have a problem with democracy?
I am surprosed that you do not understand the difference between >>>>retrospective
The bill changes this right - and passing it under urgency is an >>>>>appalling abuse of parliament. The bill amended section 15 of the >>>>>Housing Act 1955 and states that “to avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of >>>>>the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) to the >>>>>disposal of State housing land …”. It then lists various >>>>>circumstances where the amendment applies.
There was of course never any doubt about when the Public Works Act >>>>>applies - they were weakening those provisions, which is effectively >>>>>changing contracts with private owners whose land has been taken in >>>>>the past under the Public Works Act. The Regulatory Impact Statement >>>>>should have referred to this change, but as is becoming typical of >>>>>this dishonest government, it did not.
There is no protest about teh right to own property - one of the >>>>>matters being objected to is the restrospective impact of legislation >>>>>change that reduces the right to buy back land taken by the government >>>>>under the Public Works Act. I am suprised that you support such >>>>>retrospective diminishment of individual propoerty rights, Tony.
and retroactive.
In any event retroactive legislation is not new; many governments have done >>>>that including Labour.
Tony
Thanks you for drawing the difference to my attention. The "Duynhoven" >>>law was retroactive. The term retrospective is however commonly used
in similar situations, e.g. see
it to their attention. >>>http://equaljusticeproject.co.nz/2015/09/amicus-curiae-retrospective-legislation-a-no-winz-proposition/
It is not a matter of preference it is a matter of correctness!
The change put through under urgency recently leaves any past
settlements under the Public Works act unchanged, but does potentially >>>affect future disposal by the government of property taken under the >>>Public Works Act - whether you prefer retrospective or retroactive, it
Ues semantics can be important
Is that a question? Of course legislation changes things for eveybody involved. That is the intention you clod.What nonsense.is effectively legislation to change a property contract by one party >>>against the interests of the other party, affecting the future of both >>>parties.That is what legislation often does.
Not careful simply not interested in something so trivial and once more you denigrate me by fooling yourself that you actually know what I believe - you are truly desperate.How very careful of you. Sanctity of contract and property rightsI have no opinion.
Are you in favour of the changes put through by the government to such >>>property disposal requirements, Tony?
clearly mean little to you. Much easier to argue word usage - that is
after all the stock in trade of spin merchants keen to distract from
real life events . . .
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 00:38:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI can't help it if p;eople use the English language badly, other than bringing >it to their attention. >>http://equaljusticeproject.co.nz/2015/09/amicus-curiae-retrospective-legislation-a-no-winz-proposition/
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:22:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:"Born to rule" is not a trait of any NZ party and no such thing is "well >>>known"
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:I was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the >>>>>incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid >>>>>sarcasm
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>>>>>separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>>these
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>Tony
can you?
"fortunately each one of these"- presumably yu are referring to >>>>political rallies.
"does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to >>>>election"- clearly political rallies do no harm to opposition parties, >>>>and in any event National are well known as the "born to rule" party - >>>>and the issues being raised have already harmed National Party
support.
you are talkinga bout an entirely different country!
No sarcasm, just truth.A properly debated and gazetted decision by a majority in parliaament - do >>>you
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>property rightsThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every >>>>>last
one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. >>>>>Normal
process just like the last Labour government.
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about the >>>>>right to own property?
object to.
Tony
The second part of the bill passed under urgency contained a reduction >>>>in provision for the removal of the right of prior landowners of land >>>>taken under the Public Works Act to be offered their land back. This >>>>is a valuable right preserved under sections 40 to 42 of the Public >>>>Works Act 1981. If land is taken compulsorily but then no longer >>>>needed then as long as certain conditions are met it is meant to be >>>>offered back to the original owner of the land or their successor.
have a problem with democracy?
I am surprosed that you do not understand the difference between >>>retrospective
The bill changes this right - and passing it under urgency is an >>>>appalling abuse of parliament. The bill amended section 15 of the >>>>Housing Act 1955 and states that “to avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of >>>>the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) to the >>>>disposal of State housing land …”. It then lists various
circumstances where the amendment applies.
There was of course never any doubt about when the Public Works Act >>>>applies - they were weakening those provisions, which is effectively >>>>changing contracts with private owners whose land has been taken in
the past under the Public Works Act. The Regulatory Impact Statement >>>>should have referred to this change, but as is becoming typical of
this dishonest government, it did not.
There is no protest about teh right to own property - one of the >>>>matters being objected to is the restrospective impact of legislation >>>>change that reduces the right to buy back land taken by the government >>>>under the Public Works Act. I am suprised that you support such >>>>retrospective diminishment of individual propoerty rights, Tony.
and retroactive.
In any event retroactive legislation is not new; many governments have done >>>that including Labour.
Tony
Thanks you for drawing the difference to my attention. The "Duynhoven"
law was retroactive. The term retrospective is however commonly used
in similar situations, e.g. see
It is not a matter of preference it is a matter of correctness!
The change put through under urgency recently leaves any past
settlements under the Public Works act unchanged, but does potentially >>affect future disposal by the government of property taken under the >>Public Works Act - whether you prefer retrospective or retroactive, it
What nonsense.is effectively legislation to change a property contract by one party >>against the interests of the other party, affecting the future of both >>parties.That is what legislation often does.
How very careful of you. Sanctity of contract and property rightsI have no opinion.
Are you in favour of the changes put through by the government to such >>property disposal requirements, Tony?
Tony
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:23:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:22 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>It is disgraceful to deliberately disrupt the lives of other people like that.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:45:51 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:11:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I don't know who you think my comrades are
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:44:21 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>Once again Rich is a lying shit
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:45:14 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Vandalising property in that way would be appalling, Liberty. I do not >>>>>> believe that National have done that
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>> dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>> attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>> property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors >>>>>>>> object to.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>>>> these
separatists and the generally useless.
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election.
Tony
So what is the justification to vandalize windows with spray?
Then property rights are not the strong point of luddites.
National didn't as you well know.
But your comrades did.
"It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>> separatists and the generally useless."
but do you have a cite for
your assertion that someone vadalised windows with spray?Yes
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/tpp-protest-stops-christchurch-traffic-2016091018
Tony
I agree Tony. It was at least probably safer than driving a tractor
up the steps of parliament among endangering other people - or
arranging trucks to clog roads for a much longer period protesting
against road user charges (which have I believe been further increased
under the current government, without any "industry" protest . .)
Can you suggest a better way for people to have their concerns heard?
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:39:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:They are likely to remove the inconsistency regarding capital gains on investment properties, and to fix the large number of companies who
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule"
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, Maori >>>>> separatists and the generally useless.And it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of
these does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to
election. Tony
attitudes. You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of
property rights is likely to be one of the things the protestors
object to.
Labour and the Greens have promised to erode our property rights overtly via >> increased taxation.
pay little tax through various structural devices.
Tax revenue does need to increase because National's reductions that
favoured the wealthy were not supportable with their increased
spending and the level of borrowing is such that it is effectively a
tax on future revenues. Getting overseas shareholders and company
owners to pay their fair level of tax may well be enough to cover much
of the shortfall. In addition many New Zealand companies are earning
less profit than desirable due to so many New Zealanders in such hard economic circumstances. National has had to increase accomodation
supplements and social welfare payments generall. Labour / Green are
likely to make changes to employment law to reduce destructive
employment practices, and make a modest increase in the minimum wage
which may enable a reductoin in Working for family payments, which are effectively a subsidy to companies on wages. Those wanting a National government are those who are frightened of fair competition and a fiar market. In any case, Labour have a history of saving; National spend
and borrow.
Just one example Rich - just one!On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 19:05:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou may think it is semantics and that means you clearly don't give a damn >about the English language - we have one of our other official languages being >nurtured by those that care about it and people like you simply don't care >about English - you are a pathetic illiterate.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 00:38:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:I can't help it if p;eople use the English language badly, other than >>>bringing
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:22:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:"Born to rule" is not a trait of any NZ party and no such thing is "well >>>>>known"
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:I was, as you very well know, not talking about the government but the >>>>>>>incompetent wannabe's who go to these rallies. You still can't avoid >>>>>>>sarcasm
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The Nats have pissed off quite a few people with their "born to rule" >>>>>>>>attitudes.
It will be a rent a mob of smelly hippies, unionists, anarchists, >>>>>>>>>>MaoriAnd it is a thinly disguised political rally, fortunately each one of >>>>>>>>>these
separatists and the generally useless.
does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to election. >>>>>>>>>Tony
can you?
"fortunately each one of these"- presumably yu are referring to >>>>>>political rallies.
"does harm to those who think they have an ineffable right to >>>>>>election"- clearly political rallies do no harm to opposition parties, >>>>>>and in any event National are well known as the "born to rule" party - >>>>>>and the issues being raised have already harmed National Party >>>>>>support.
you are talkinga bout an entirely different country!
No sarcasm, just truth.A properly debated and gazetted decision by a majority in parliaament - do >>>>>you
You may be pleased to know that the Nats stealth erosion of >>>>>>>>property rightsThere is nothing stealthy about the changes they have introduced. every >>>>>>>last
one (good or bad) went through parliament and was eventually gazetted. >>>>>>>Normal
process just like the last Labour government.
is likely to be one of the things the protestorsJust to mirror your inadequate sarcasm why would anybody protest about >>>>>>>the
object to.
right to own property?
Tony
The second part of the bill passed under urgency contained a reduction >>>>>>in provision for the removal of the right of prior landowners of land >>>>>>taken under the Public Works Act to be offered their land back. This >>>>>>is a valuable right preserved under sections 40 to 42 of the Public >>>>>>Works Act 1981. If land is taken compulsorily but then no longer >>>>>>needed then as long as certain conditions are met it is meant to be >>>>>>offered back to the original owner of the land or their successor.
have a problem with democracy?
I am surprosed that you do not understand the difference between >>>>>retrospective
The bill changes this right - and passing it under urgency is an >>>>>>appalling abuse of parliament. The bill amended section 15 of the >>>>>>Housing Act 1955 and states that “to avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of >>>>>>the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) to the >>>>>>disposal of State housing land …”. It then lists various >>>>>>circumstances where the amendment applies.
There was of course never any doubt about when the Public Works Act >>>>>>applies - they were weakening those provisions, which is effectively >>>>>>changing contracts with private owners whose land has been taken in >>>>>>the past under the Public Works Act. The Regulatory Impact Statement >>>>>>should have referred to this change, but as is becoming typical of >>>>>>this dishonest government, it did not.
There is no protest about teh right to own property - one of the >>>>>>matters being objected to is the restrospective impact of legislation >>>>>>change that reduces the right to buy back land taken by the government >>>>>>under the Public Works Act. I am suprised that you support such >>>>>>retrospective diminishment of individual propoerty rights, Tony.
and retroactive.
In any event retroactive legislation is not new; many governments have >>>>>done
that including Labour.
Tony
Thanks you for drawing the difference to my attention. The "Duynhoven" >>>>law was retroactive. The term retrospective is however commonly used
in similar situations, e.g. see
it to their attention. >>>>http://equaljusticeproject.co.nz/2015/09/amicus-curiae-retrospective-legislation-a-no-winz-proposition/
The change put through under urgency recently leaves any past >>>>settlements under the Public Works act unchanged, but does potentially >>>>affect future disposal by the government of property taken under the >>>>Public Works Act - whether you prefer retrospective or retroactive, it >>>It is not a matter of preference it is a matter of correctness!
Ues semantics can be important
Is that a question? Of course legislation changes things for eveybody >involved.
What nonsense.is effectively legislation to change a property contract by one party >>>>against the interests of the other party, affecting the future of both >>>>parties.That is what legislation often does.
That is the intention you clod.
Not careful simply not interested in something so trivial and once more you >denigrate me by fooling yourself that you actually know what I believe - you >are truly desperate.How very careful of you. Sanctity of contract and property rightsI have no opinion.
Are you in favour of the changes put through by the government to such >>>>property disposal requirements, Tony?
clearly mean little to you. Much easier to argue word usage - that is >>after all the stock in trade of spin merchants keen to distract from
real life events . . .
You imply I am using spin - and you you do it all of the time - albeit >incompetently.
You have failed to provide an example of a lie that I have told
and your
infantile attempts at deception using words you barely understand is obvious >to
all.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:28:57 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,684 |