"Allistar" wrote in message >news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates standing >>>>>>>>>>>and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as an >>>>>>>>>>>undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>> bias
I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular
party regardless. There seems to be little point in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It gives >>>>>>>>>>>>them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by those >>>>>>>>>>that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>blindly
follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world leaders >>>>>>>>>>recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to think >>>>>>>>>>through issues that affect people - regardless of whether they are >>>>>>>>>>considered political, religious or just issues to be addressed. In >>>>>>>>>>keeping with the time of the year here is one leader giving his >>>>>>>>>>view, but also highlighting that even within his "group", there >>>>>>>>>>are
some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only model >>>>>>>>>that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and employers, >>>>>>>>sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising.

I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost the >>>>>>>opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>It
provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - they >>>>>>>>are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher rate >>>>>>>>than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some of >>>>>>>>it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . . >>>>>>>>.

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines resulting >>>>>>>>in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the overseas >>>>>>>>company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>for
our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a a >>>>>>>>Saudi
businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits.

There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant one >>>>>>>>is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling of >>>>>>>>the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted in >>>>>>>>many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>while
we import labour for necessary and predictable building needs. >>>>>>>Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>government
handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not necessarily the >>>>>>>>best
way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange affairs >>>>>>>>so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they operate, >>>>>>>>that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>at
the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of conflicts - >>>>>>>>his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as currently >>>>>>practised throughout most of the world in which his church works. >>>>>That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to be >thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not
all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick
and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central theme
of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely >immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight on >humanity.
--
.............

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After all,
it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but ourselves. >Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as an >>>>>>>>>>>>undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by those >>>>>>>>>>>that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>>blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>>leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only model >>>>>>>>>>that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>>work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost the >>>>>>>>opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>>It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.
It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - >>>>>>>>>they are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher rate >>>>>>>>>than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some of >>>>>>>>>it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>>marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . >>>>>>>>>. .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines resulting >>>>>>>>>in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the overseas >>>>>>>>>company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>>for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a a >>>>>>>>>Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all. >>>>>>>>>
It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits.

There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant one >>>>>>>>>is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>>not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>>those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling >>>>>>>>>of the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted >>>>>>>>>in many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>>while we import labour for necessary and predictable building >>>>>>>>>needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they >>>>>>>>>operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>>at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his church >>>>>>>works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your >>>>needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to
be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not
all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick >>and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central theme >>of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely >>immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight on >>humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called "libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

"Allistar" wrote in message news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates standing >>>>>>>>>>>and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as an >>>>>>>>>>>undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It gives >>>>>>>>>>>>them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by those >>>>>>>>>>that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to think >>>>>>>>>>through issues that affect people - regardless of whether they are >>>>>>>>>>considered political, religious or just issues to be addressed. In >>>>>>>>>>keeping with the time of the year here is one leader giving his >>>>>>>>>>view, but also highlighting that even within his "group", there >>>>>>>>>>are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only model >>>>>>>>>that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and employers, >>>>>>>>sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising.

I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost the >>>>>>>opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - they >>>>>>>>are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher rate >>>>>>>>than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some of >>>>>>>>it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . . >>>>>>>>.

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines resulting >>>>>>>>in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the overseas >>>>>>>>company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a a >>>>>>>>Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all. >>>>>>>>
It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits.

There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant one >>>>>>>>is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling of >>>>>>>>the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted in >>>>>>>>many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>while we import labour for necessary and predictable building needs. >>>>>>>Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange affairs >>>>>>>>so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they operate, >>>>>>>>that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as currently >>>>>>practised throughout most of the world in which his church works. >>>>>That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to
be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not
all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick
and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central theme
of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After all,

two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".

These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of a
God.

Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but

Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash
<nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates standing >>>>>>>>>>>> and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as an >>>>>>>>>>>> undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It gives >>>>>>>>>>>>> them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>> in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by those >>>>>>>>>>> that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>> blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>> leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to think >>>>>>>>>>> through issues that affect people - regardless of whether they are >>>>>>>>>>> considered political, religious or just issues to be addressed. In >>>>>>>>>>> keeping with the time of the year here is one leader giving his >>>>>>>>>>> view, but also highlighting that even within his "group", there >>>>>>>>>>> are some with radically different views.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only model >>>>>>>>>> that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>> work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>> crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>> laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and employers, >>>>>>>>> sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising.

I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost the >>>>>>>> opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>> It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>> can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>> with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - they >>>>>>>>> are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher rate >>>>>>>>> than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some of >>>>>>>>> it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>> marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . . >>>>>>>>> .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>> Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>> overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines resulting >>>>>>>>> in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the overseas >>>>>>>>> company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>> for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a a >>>>>>>>> Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all. >>>>>>>>>
It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>> property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>> reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>> overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant one >>>>>>>>> is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>> not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>> those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling of >>>>>>>>> the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted in >>>>>>>>> many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>> while we import labour for necessary and predictable building needs. >>>>>>>> Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>> significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective
government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not
necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>> that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange affairs >>>>>>>>> so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they operate, >>>>>>>>> that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>> at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of
conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>> advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>> not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>> criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as currently >>>>>>> practised throughout most of the world in which his church works. >>>>>> That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>> opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman
listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>> generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>> creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs. >>

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to
be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not
all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick
and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central theme >> of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely
immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An
imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight on >> humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After all,

it's

two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".

Loving thy neighbour is all well and good. But loving an imaginary being? Where's the sense in that?

These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of a
God.

A god is not needed.

Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but

ourselves.

Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

Sure, as long as they don't try and spread their immoral delusions.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as an >>>>>>>>>>>>undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by those >>>>>>>>>>>that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>>blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>>leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only model >>>>>>>>>>that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>>work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost the >>>>>>>>opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>>It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.
It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - >>>>>>>>>they are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher rate >>>>>>>>>than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some of >>>>>>>>>it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>>marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . >>>>>>>>>. .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines resulting >>>>>>>>>in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the overseas >>>>>>>>>company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>>for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a a >>>>>>>>>Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all. >>>>>>>>>
It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits.

There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant one >>>>>>>>>is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>>not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>>those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling >>>>>>>>>of the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted >>>>>>>>>in many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>>while we import labour for necessary and predictable building >>>>>>>>>needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they >>>>>>>>>operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>>at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his church >>>>>>>works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your >>>>needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to
be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not
all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick >>and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central theme >>of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely >>immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight on >>humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called "libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by those >>>>>>>>>>>>that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>>>blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>>>leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only model >>>>>>>>>>>that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>>>work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost the >>>>>>>>>opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>>>It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.
It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - >>>>>>>>>>they are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher rate >>>>>>>>>>than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some of >>>>>>>>>>it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>>>marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . >>>>>>>>>>. .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines resulting >>>>>>>>>>in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the overseas >>>>>>>>>>company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>>>for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a a >>>>>>>>>>Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all. >>>>>>>>>>
It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant one >>>>>>>>>>is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>>>not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>>>those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling >>>>>>>>>>of the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted >>>>>>>>>>in many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>>>while we import labour for necessary and predictable building >>>>>>>>>>needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they >>>>>>>>>>operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>>>at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his church >>>>>>>>works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot. >>>>>--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your >>>>>needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>>be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not >>>> all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick >>>and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central theme >>>of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely >>>immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight on >>>humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preached but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the
misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a misinterpretation. >It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various holy books. Throwing >homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes straight from these >deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou shalt not suffer a witch to >live"?

It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the religious >to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most >vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of >fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam
<open-minded@fairness.here>
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash
<nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>> standing
and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>> an
undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> gives
them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>> those
that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>> blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>> leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>> think
through issues that affect people - regardless of whether they >>>>>>>>>>> are
considered political, religious or just issues to be addressed. >>>>>>>>>>> In
keeping with the time of the year here is one leader giving his >>>>>>>>>>> view, but also highlighting that even within his "group", there >>>>>>>>>>> are some with radically different views.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>> model
that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>> work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>> crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>> laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and
employers,
sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising.

I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>> the
opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>> It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>> can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>> with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - >>>>>>>>> they
are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>> rate
than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some >>>>>>>>> of
it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>> marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . >>>>>>>>> .
.

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>> Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>> overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines
resulting
in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the
overseas
company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>> for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a >>>>>>>>> a
Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all. >>>>>>>>>
It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>> property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>> reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>> overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>> one
is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>> not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>> those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling >>>>>>>>> of
the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted in >>>>>>>>> many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>> while we import labour for necessary and predictable building >>>>>>>>> needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>> significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective
government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not
necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>> that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>> affairs
so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they
operate,
that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>> at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of
conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>> advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>> not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>> criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as
currently
practised throughout most of the world in which his church works. >>>>>> That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>> opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman
listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>> generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>> creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your
needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to
be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not
all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick
and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central
theme
of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely
immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An
imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight
on
humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After all,

it's

two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".

Loving thy neighbour is all well and good. But loving an imaginary being? Where's the sense in that?

These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of a
God.

A god is not needed.

Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but

ourselves.

Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

Sure, as long as they don't try and spread their immoral delusions.

On 30/12/2016 10:33 AM, Allistar wrote:

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam
<open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash
<nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>> standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>> an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>> those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>> to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some >>>>>>>>>>>> world leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>> think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>> they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>> addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>> leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>> his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>> model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>> seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>> crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best >>>>>>>>>> when laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>> employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>> I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>> the

opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair >>>>>>>>> type. It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and
"international" can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year >>>>>>>>>> after year. Contrast with that reality with a beneficiary who >>>>>>>>>> gets a part time job - they are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>> rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>> some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>> even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>> paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>> Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with >>>>>>>>>> an overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>> resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>> the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. >>>>>>>>>> It is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>> "contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>> New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>> property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>> reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>> overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>> one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, >>>>>>>>>> we are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for
individuals from those families to be successful - and for >>>>>>>>>> example the dismantling of the system of encouraging building >>>>>>>>>> apprenticeships has resulted in many of our young people
mistakenly seeking a university degree while we import labour for >>>>>>>>>> necessary and predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>> significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>> government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>> that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>> affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which >>>>>>>>>> they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select >>>>>>>>>> few at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>> conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>> advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article >>>>>>>>> did not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>> criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as
currently practised throughout most of the world in which his
church works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a
general opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>> listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>> generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>> your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>> be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not >>>> all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born
sick and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The
central theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and
it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An
imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight
on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After all,

it's

two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".

Loving thy neighbour is all well and good. But loving an imaginary being?
Where's the sense in that?

These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of a >>> God.

A god is not needed.

Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but

ourselves.

Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

Sure, as long as they don't try and spread their immoral delusions.

Ridiculous for sure, but immoral?

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:38:28 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>>>those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some >>>>>>>>>>>>>world leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>>>seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best >>>>>>>>>>>when laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>>>the

opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair >>>>>>>>>>type. It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons. >>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for example that wealthy people and >>>>>>>>>>>"international" can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year >>>>>>>>>>>after year. Contrast with that reality with a beneficiary who >>>>>>>>>>>gets a part time job - they are

immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>>>rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>>>some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>>>even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>>>paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with >>>>>>>>>>>an overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>>>resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>>>the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. >>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>>>"contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>>>New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>>>one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, >>>>>>>>>>>we are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for >>>>>>>>>>>individuals from those families to be successful - and for >>>>>>>>>>>example the dismantling of the system of encouraging building >>>>>>>>>>>apprenticeships has resulted in many of our young people >>>>>>>>>>>mistakenly seeking a university degree while we import labour for >>>>>>>>>>>necessary and predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which >>>>>>>>>>>they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select >>>>>>>>>>>few at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article >>>>>>>>>>did not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his >>>>>>>>>church works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a >>>>>>>>general opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot. >>>>>>--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>>>be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and
not all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born >>>>sick and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The >>>>central theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and >>>>it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find >>>>> idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight >>>>on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preached but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the
misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a misinterpretation. >>It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various holy books. Throwing >>homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes straight from these >>deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou shalt not suffer a witch >>to live"?

It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the >>religious to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to >>this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most >>vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of >>fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

Quite a few beliefs can be misinterpreted and misrepresented. It is
possible that you feel that some of your beliefs about the role of
government are not well understood - certainly not everyone shares
your views. That does not make your beliefs nonsense to you; in
exactly the same way the faith others have in their relious beliefs is
not nonsense to those others.

Sometimes tolerance requires a certain
amount of faith to see value in such an attitude - I would expect a libertarian to understand the value of permitting people to hold views
that differ from your own where that does not conflict with normal requirements of acivilised society.

"Allistar" wrote in message news:xeqdncL_HcrJH_jFnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, >>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>>an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>>those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>>to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>>>leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>>model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>>seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>>the

opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>>>It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - >>>>>>>>>>they are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>>rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>>some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>>even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>>paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>>resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>>the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It >>>>>>>>>>is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>>"contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>>New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>>one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we >>>>>>>>>>are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals >>>>>>>>>>from those families to be successful - and for example the >>>>>>>>>>dismantling of the system of encouraging building apprenticeships >>>>>>>>>>has resulted in many of our young people mistakenly seeking a >>>>>>>>>>university degree while we import labour for necessary and >>>>>>>>>>predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which >>>>>>>>>>they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>>>at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his church >>>>>>>>works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot. >>>>>--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your >>>>>needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>>be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not >>>> all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick >>>and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central >>>theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's >>>entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight >>>on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the
misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a misinterpretation. It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various holy books. Throwing homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes straight from these deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live"?
................

What King James' translators called "witch" was probably some sort of
medium.
Didn't Saul ask the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel?
We are not supposed to raise the dead and ask questions of them, but even today many people still do.
Yes, religious people say it is an evil spirit that answers, not the dead friend. Who knows?

There is nothing wrong with Wicca as a religion.
I had a Wicca friend who always asked the Goddess to bless me.
They never use evil spells, more like a simple nature religion,
perhaps as old as the prehistoric cave artists.

.............
It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the
religious to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to
this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

.......
Do you mean the Old Testament God?

Job is a disturbing book, thought to be the oldest one.
God and Satan using an innocent man to prove a point.

Stick to the New Testament, the life and words of Jesus in the Gospels.

And the Epistles, how his followers like St Paul interpreted them.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, or just a very decent human,
his teachings are still relevant after around two thousand years.

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or
not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

"Allistar" wrote in message news:xeqdncL_HcrJH_jFnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, >>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>>an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>>those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>>to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>>>leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>>model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>>seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>>the

opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>>>It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - >>>>>>>>>>they are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>>rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>>some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>>even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>>paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>>resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>>the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It >>>>>>>>>>is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>>"contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>>New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>>one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we >>>>>>>>>>are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals >>>>>>>>>>from those families to be successful - and for example the >>>>>>>>>>dismantling of the system of encouraging building apprenticeships >>>>>>>>>>has resulted in many of our young people mistakenly seeking a >>>>>>>>>>university degree while we import labour for necessary and >>>>>>>>>>predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which >>>>>>>>>>they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>>>at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his church >>>>>>>>works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot. >>>>>--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your >>>>>needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>>be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not >>>> all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick >>>and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central >>>theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's >>>entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight >>>on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the
misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a misinterpretation. It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various holy books. Throwing homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes straight from these deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live"?
................

What King James' translators called "witch" was probably some sort of
medium.
Didn't Saul ask the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel?
We are not supposed to raise the dead and ask questions of them, but even today many people still do.
Yes, religious people say it is an evil spirit that answers, not the dead friend. Who knows?

There is nothing wrong with Wicca as a religion.
I had a Wicca friend who always asked the Goddess to bless me.
They never use evil spells, more like a simple nature religion,
perhaps as old as the prehistoric cave artists.

.............
It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the
religious to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to
this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

.......
Do you mean the Old Testament God?

Job is a disturbing book, thought to be the oldest one.
God and Satan using an innocent man to prove a point.

Stick to the New Testament, the life and words of Jesus in the Gospels.

And the Epistles, how his followers like St Paul interpreted them.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, or just a very decent human,
his teachings are still relevant after around two thousand years.

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or
not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

On 30/12/2016 10:33 AM, Allistar wrote:

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam
<open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300,
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash
<nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>> standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>> an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>> those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>> to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some >>>>>>>>>>>> world leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>> think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>> they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>> addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>> leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>> his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>> model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>> seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>> crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best >>>>>>>>>> when laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>> employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>> I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>> the

opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair >>>>>>>>> type. It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and
"international" can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year >>>>>>>>>> after year. Contrast with that reality with a beneficiary who >>>>>>>>>> gets a part time job - they are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>> rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>> some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>> even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>> paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>> Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with >>>>>>>>>> an overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>> resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>> the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. >>>>>>>>>> It is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>> "contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>> New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>> property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>> reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>> overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>> one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, >>>>>>>>>> we are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for
individuals from those families to be successful - and for >>>>>>>>>> example the dismantling of the system of encouraging building >>>>>>>>>> apprenticeships has resulted in many of our young people
mistakenly seeking a university degree while we import labour for >>>>>>>>>> necessary and predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>> significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>> government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>> that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>> affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which >>>>>>>>>> they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select >>>>>>>>>> few at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>> conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>> advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article >>>>>>>>> did not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>> criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as
currently practised throughout most of the world in which his
church works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a
general opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>> listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>> generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>> your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>> be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not >>>> all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born
sick and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The
central theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and
it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An
imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight
on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After all,

it's

two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".

Loving thy neighbour is all well and good. But loving an imaginary being?
Where's the sense in that?

These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of a >>> God.

A god is not needed.

Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but

ourselves.

Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

Sure, as long as they don't try and spread their immoral delusions.

Ridiculous for sure, but immoral?

"Allistar" wrote in message news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates standing >>>>>>>>>>>and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as an >>>>>>>>>>>undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It gives >>>>>>>>>>>>them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by those >>>>>>>>>>that do not want our people to think for themselves, but to >>>>>>>>>>blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some world >>>>>>>>>>leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to think >>>>>>>>>>through issues that affect people - regardless of whether they are >>>>>>>>>>considered political, religious or just issues to be addressed. In >>>>>>>>>>keeping with the time of the year here is one leader giving his >>>>>>>>>>view, but also highlighting that even within his "group", there >>>>>>>>>>are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only model >>>>>>>>>that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not seem to >>>>>>>>>work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best when >>>>>>>>laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and employers, >>>>>>>>sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising.

I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost the >>>>>>>opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair type. >>>>>>>It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons.

It is not fair for example that wealthy people and "international" >>>>>>>>can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year after year. Contrast >>>>>>>>with that reality with a beneficiary who gets a part time job - they >>>>>>>>are
immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher rate >>>>>>>>than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get some of >>>>>>>>it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it even more >>>>>>>>marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low paying job . . >>>>>>>>.

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with an >>>>>>>>overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines resulting >>>>>>>>in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and the overseas >>>>>>>>company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. It is not fair >>>>>>>>for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful "contract" with a a >>>>>>>>Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to New Zealand at all. >>>>>>>>
It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits.

There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant one >>>>>>>>is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, we are >>>>>>>>not providing reasonably equal oportunities for individuals from >>>>>>>>those families to be successful - and for example the dismantling of >>>>>>>>the system of encouraging building apprenticeships has resulted in >>>>>>>>many of our young people mistakenly seeking a university degree >>>>>>>>while we import labour for necessary and predictable building needs. >>>>>>>Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange affairs >>>>>>>>so that they pay little tax in most countries in which they operate, >>>>>>>>that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select few >>>>>>>>at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article did >>>>>>>not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as currently >>>>>>practised throughout most of the world in which his church works. >>>>>That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a general >>>>>opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his advisors >>>> have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >>>creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to
be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and not
all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born sick
and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The central theme
of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find
idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After all,

two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".

These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of a
God.

Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but

Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

"Allistar" wrote in message news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:xeqdncL_HcrJH_jFnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>>>those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some >>>>>>>>>>>>>world leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>>>seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best >>>>>>>>>>>when laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>>>the

opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair >>>>>>>>>>type. It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons. >>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for example that wealthy people and >>>>>>>>>>>"international" can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year >>>>>>>>>>>after year. Contrast with that reality with a beneficiary who >>>>>>>>>>>gets a part time job - they are

immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>>>rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>>>some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>>>even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>>>paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with >>>>>>>>>>>an overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>>>resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>>>the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. >>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>>>"contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>>>New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>>>one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, >>>>>>>>>>>we are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for >>>>>>>>>>>individuals from those families to be successful - and for >>>>>>>>>>>example the dismantling of the system of encouraging building >>>>>>>>>>>apprenticeships has resulted in many of our young people >>>>>>>>>>>mistakenly seeking a university degree while we import labour for >>>>>>>>>>>necessary and predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which >>>>>>>>>>>they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select >>>>>>>>>>>few at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article >>>>>>>>>>did not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his >>>>>>>>>church works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a >>>>>>>>general opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot. >>>>>>--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>>>be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and
not all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born >>>>sick and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The >>>>central theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and >>>>it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find >>>>> idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight >>>>on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the
misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a misinterpretation.
It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various holy books.
Throwing homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes straight from
these deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou shalt not suffer a
witch to live"?
................

What King James' translators called "witch" was probably some sort of
medium.
Didn't Saul ask the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel?
We are not supposed to raise the dead and ask questions of them, but even
today many people still do.
Yes, religious people say it is an evil spirit that answers, not the dead
friend. Who knows?

There is nothing wrong with Wicca as a religion.
I had a Wicca friend who always asked the Goddess to bless me.
They never use evil spells, more like a simple nature religion,
perhaps as old as the prehistoric cave artists.

.............
It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the
religious to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to
this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most
vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of
fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

.......
Do you mean the Old Testament God?

Is the god in the New Testament a different god? Was there a change in HR?

...........
The same god. but a different interpretation of his nature.

............

Job is a disturbing book, thought to be the oldest one.
God and Satan using an innocent man to prove a point.

It's sickingly evil.
..........
I wonder if it was intended as some sort of allegory.

................

Stick to the New Testament, the life and words of Jesus in the Gospels.

Are you saying the god of the New Testament is a different god than in the old? I'm pretty sure most believers would disagree with you.
.............

No, it's the same god, but a different view of his nature.
Jesus lived a very long time after Moses. Ideas had changed.

.............

And the Epistles, how his followers like St Paul interpreted them.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, or just a very
decent human,
his teachings are still relevant after around two thousand years.

Not the ones instructing us how to keep slaves.

.....................
Isn't Philemon the Epistle about a slave?

In those days, the world ran on slave power. The treatment and behaviour
of slaves varied, but slavery itself seems to have been widely accepted.

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a great
book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or
not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long may that continue.

................

"Allistar" wrote in message news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:xeqdncL_HcrJH_jFnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>>>those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some >>>>>>>>>>>>>world leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>they are considered political, religious or just issues to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>addressed. In keeping with the time of the year here is one >>>>>>>>>>>>>leader giving his view, but also highlighting that even within >>>>>>>>>>>>>his "group", there are some with radically different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>>>seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference between >>>>>>>>>>>crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works best >>>>>>>>>>>when laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers and >>>>>>>>>>>employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and advertising. >>>>>>>>>>I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>>>the

opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair >>>>>>>>>>type. It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons. >>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for example that wealthy people and >>>>>>>>>>>"international" can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year >>>>>>>>>>>after year. Contrast with that reality with a beneficiary who >>>>>>>>>>>gets a part time job - they are

immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>>>rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>>>some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>>>even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>>>paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with >>>>>>>>>>>an overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>>>resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>>>the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. >>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>>>"contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>>>New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, or >>>>>>>>>>>reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in an >>>>>>>>>>>overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>>>one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, >>>>>>>>>>>we are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for >>>>>>>>>>>individuals from those families to be successful - and for >>>>>>>>>>>example the dismantling of the system of encouraging building >>>>>>>>>>>apprenticeships has resulted in many of our young people >>>>>>>>>>>mistakenly seeking a university degree while we import labour for >>>>>>>>>>>necessary and predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates companies >>>>>>>>>>>that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and arrange >>>>>>>>>>>affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in which >>>>>>>>>>>they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select >>>>>>>>>>>few at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article >>>>>>>>>>did not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his >>>>>>>>>church works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a >>>>>>>>general opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause successive >>>>>>generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the head idiot. >>>>>>--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics,
especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend to >>>>be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and
not all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born >>>>sick and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The >>>>central theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and >>>>it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find >>>>> idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight >>>>on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of
a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the
misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a misinterpretation.
It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various holy books.
Throwing homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes straight from
these deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou shalt not suffer a
witch to live"?
................

What King James' translators called "witch" was probably some sort of
medium.
Didn't Saul ask the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel?
We are not supposed to raise the dead and ask questions of them, but even
today many people still do.
Yes, religious people say it is an evil spirit that answers, not the dead
friend. Who knows?

There is nothing wrong with Wicca as a religion.
I had a Wicca friend who always asked the Goddess to bless me.
They never use evil spells, more like a simple nature religion,
perhaps as old as the prehistoric cave artists.

.............
It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the
religious to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to
this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most
vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of
fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

.......
Do you mean the Old Testament God?

Is the god in the New Testament a different god? Was there a change in HR?

...........
The same god. but a different interpretation of his nature.

............

Job is a disturbing book, thought to be the oldest one.
God and Satan using an innocent man to prove a point.

It's sickingly evil.
..........
I wonder if it was intended as some sort of allegory.

................

Stick to the New Testament, the life and words of Jesus in the Gospels.

Are you saying the god of the New Testament is a different god than in the old? I'm pretty sure most believers would disagree with you.
.............

No, it's the same god, but a different view of his nature.
Jesus lived a very long time after Moses. Ideas had changed.

.............

And the Epistles, how his followers like St Paul interpreted them.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, or just a very
decent human,
his teachings are still relevant after around two thousand years.

Not the ones instructing us how to keep slaves.

.....................
Isn't Philemon the Epistle about a slave?

In those days, the world ran on slave power. The treatment and behaviour
of slaves varied, but slavery itself seems to have been widely accepted.

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a great
book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or
not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long may that continue.

................

"Allistar" wrote in message news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:xeqdncL_HcrJH_jFnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, >>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>world leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>whether they are considered political, religious or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues to be addressed. In keeping with the time of the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>here is one leader giving his view, but also highlighting that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>even within his "group", there are some with radically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference >>>>>>>>>>>>between crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works >>>>>>>>>>>>best when laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers >>>>>>>>>>>>and employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and >>>>>>>>>>>>advertising.

I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>>>>the
opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair >>>>>>>>>>>type. It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons. >>>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for example that wealthy people and >>>>>>>>>>>>"international" can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year >>>>>>>>>>>>after year. Contrast with that reality with a beneficiary who >>>>>>>>>>>>gets a part time job - they are

immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>>>>rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>>>>some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>>>>even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>>>>paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with >>>>>>>>>>>>an overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>>>>resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>>>>the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. >>>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>>>>"contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>>>>New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, >>>>>>>>>>>>or reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in >>>>>>>>>>>>an
overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, >>>>>>>>>>>>we are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for >>>>>>>>>>>>individuals from those families to be successful - and for >>>>>>>>>>>>example the dismantling of the system of encouraging building >>>>>>>>>>>>apprenticeships has resulted in many of our young people >>>>>>>>>>>>mistakenly seeking a university degree while we import labour >>>>>>>>>>>>for necessary and predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates >>>>>>>>>>>>companies that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and >>>>>>>>>>>>arrange affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in >>>>>>>>>>>>which they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select >>>>>>>>>>>>few at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article >>>>>>>>>>>did not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his >>>>>>>>>>church works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a >>>>>>>>>general opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause >>>>>>>successive generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the >>>>>>>head idiot. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>>your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics, >>>>>> especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend >>>>>to be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and >>>>>> not all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born >>>>>sick and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The >>>>>central theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and >>>>>it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find >>>>>> idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight >>>>>on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of >>>> a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the >>>> misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a
misinterpretation. It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various >>> holy books. Throwing homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes
straight from these deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
................

What King James' translators called "witch" was probably some sort of
medium.
Didn't Saul ask the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel?
We are not supposed to raise the dead and ask questions of them, but
even today many people still do.
Yes, religious people say it is an evil spirit that answers, not the
dead friend. Who knows?

There is nothing wrong with Wicca as a religion.
I had a Wicca friend who always asked the Goddess to bless me.
They never use evil spells, more like a simple nature religion,
perhaps as old as the prehistoric cave artists.

.............
It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the
religious to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to >>> this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most
vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of >>> fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

.......
Do you mean the Old Testament God?

Is the god in the New Testament a different god? Was there a change in
HR?

...........
The same god. but a different interpretation of his nature.

Then the book is not the word of this deity. The god of the Bible is
supposed to be the same throughout time without change. What you're saying
is that the god of the Bible has attributes that reflect the human culture
at the time.

I agree with that as I think that god is entirely man made. This idea of a changing god supports this.

........
Yes, the Bible was written by humans. Whether we believe a God inspired
it is up to us.
But the King James Version is well worth reading for the magnificent
language as well as the ideas.

The Bible was written before people realised that humans are just an
advanced form of ape.
Many people believed literally in Adam and Eve. How many still do today?
It seems we are all genetic descendants of one female Eve, around 200,000 years ago. Suppose a predator had got her!

Early humans would have tried to make sense of the world around them.
The sun and moon are beings. Thunder is someone's voice. (I talk to Thor
in a thunderstorm).
An eclipse must have been terrifying. It's still scary today, even though
we know what it is.

It's interesting to see what different cultures have come up with.
Compare the Bible and the Koran.

Believe what you like or believe nothing, and let others do the same.

............

Job is a disturbing book, thought to be the oldest one.
God and Satan using an innocent man to prove a point.

It's sickingly evil.
..........
I wonder if it was intended as some sort of allegory.

It's fiction either way.

................

Stick to the New Testament, the life and words of Jesus in the Gospels.

Are you saying the god of the New Testament is a different god than in
the old? I'm pretty sure most believers would disagree with you.
.............

No, it's the same god, but a different view of his nature.
Jesus lived a very long time after Moses. Ideas had changed.

Jesus had some very immoral ideas. "Take no thought for the morrow". How anyone can think any of this is moral or good is baffling.
.............
God would provide for his followers. Trust in him. What is immoral about that?
Those were very uncertain times, in a Roman province.

.............

And the Epistles, how his followers like St Paul interpreted them.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, or just a very
decent human,
his teachings are still relevant after around two thousand years.

Not the ones instructing us how to keep slaves.

.....................
Isn't Philemon the Epistle about a slave?

In those days, the world ran on slave power. The treatment and behaviour
of slaves varied, but slavery itself seems to have been widely accepted.

If you think slavery is immoral then congratulations. You are more moral
than the god of the Bible.
.......
It depends how the slaves are treated.

Valued servants, or domestic
animals? Small children in Victorian factories weren't slaves, but their conditions may have been far worse.

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a
great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or
not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long
may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs. Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

We need to
believe in something.

Mein Kampf, anyone?

................

"Allistar" wrote in message news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:xeqdncL_HcrJH_jFnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:21:22 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message >>>>>news:H_mdnbid4N8sbv_FnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com...

wrote:

Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

wrote:

Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:43 +1300, >>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:03:32 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:31:10 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:24:07 +1300, Sam >>>>>>>>>>>><open-minded@fairness.here> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:04:01 +1300, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:04:26 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2016 04:22:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On 2016-12-23, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

Crash makes a very good point. I for one do not support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any party and
have
never done so.

Not even on election day, via your vote?

Yes - but for me that support is based on the candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>standing and
the party policies at the time. I approach every election as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>an undecided voter.

If I criticise a post it is never because of any political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bias I
have. I
believe that Crash is the same.
I have never understood why anybody would stick to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular party regardless. There seems to be little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point in that.

For the some people belong to a church/reigious group. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives them a sense
of strength and comfort, as well as something "right" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in. It also
enables one not to have to think or question about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternatives.

That is not how I operate at all.

I doubt very many people do, but it is a myth encouraged by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>those that do not want our people to think for themselves, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to blindly follow the mantra from the top. Thankfully some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>world leaders recognise that
blind followers ultimately make poor decisions - we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>think through issues that affect people - regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>whether they are considered political, religious or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues to be addressed. In keeping with the time of the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>here is one leader giving his view, but also highlighting that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>even within his "group", there are some with radically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>different views. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/23/pope-francis-capitalism-is-terrorism-against-all-of-humanity/

I do not agree with the Pope. I think capitalism is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>model that works. The opposite, Communism, certainly does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>seem to work.

No-one is advocating communism, but there is a difference >>>>>>>>>>>>between crony capitalism and "fair" capitalism. Capitalism works >>>>>>>>>>>>best when laws and rules require fair treatment of both workers >>>>>>>>>>>>and employers, sellers and buyers, honest contracts and >>>>>>>>>>>>advertising.

I do not think anybody was suggesting Communism but it is almost >>>>>>>>>>>the
opposite to capitalism. I think NZ capitalism is of the fair >>>>>>>>>>>type. It provides reasonably paid jobs for most persons. >>>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for example that wealthy people and >>>>>>>>>>>>"international" can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, year >>>>>>>>>>>>after year. Contrast with that reality with a beneficiary who >>>>>>>>>>>>gets a part time job - they are

immediately taxed on that additional income at 30% - a higher >>>>>>>>>>>>rate than the average paid by most wealthy people. Sure they get >>>>>>>>>>>>some of it back at the end of the tax year, but it can make it >>>>>>>>>>>>even more marginal to make it worthwhile to pay to get to a low >>>>>>>>>>>>paying job . . .

It is not fair that there is a minimum wage that applies to New >>>>>>>>>>>>Zealand businesses, but a New Zealand company can contract with >>>>>>>>>>>>an overseas company to bring in welders from the Phillipines >>>>>>>>>>>>resulting in New Zealanders seeking work not being employed, and >>>>>>>>>>>>the overseas company paying only the equivalent of $3 per hour. >>>>>>>>>>>>It is not fair for our taxes to be used to pay for a doubtlful >>>>>>>>>>>>"contract" with a a Saudi businessman for no apparent benefit to >>>>>>>>>>>>New Zealand at all.

It is not fair for investment money to be so distorted towards >>>>>>>>>>>>property that it makes it difficult to fund other enterprises, >>>>>>>>>>>>or reslts in too many of our domestic initiatives resulting in >>>>>>>>>>>>an
overseas owner (and overseas workers) reaping the benefits. >>>>>>>>>>>>
There are of course plenty of other examples, but a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>one is that by allowing poverty (however measured) to increase, >>>>>>>>>>>>we are not providing reasonably equal oportunities for >>>>>>>>>>>>individuals from those families to be successful - and for >>>>>>>>>>>>example the dismantling of the system of encouraging building >>>>>>>>>>>>apprenticeships has resulted in many of our young people >>>>>>>>>>>>mistakenly seeking a university degree while we import labour >>>>>>>>>>>>for necessary and predictable building needs.

Is poverty increasing in NZ

Yes.

Is there any support for that? Like, I mean, evidence.

Most unlikely!

A well managed economy should bring proposerity to all, and yes >>>>>>>>>>>>significant wealth to those that deseve it - but selective >>>>>>>>>>>>government handouts such as millions to Warner Bros are not >>>>>>>>>>>>necessarily the best way to encourage industry.

The Pope was referring to that capitalism which creates >>>>>>>>>>>>companies that seek the lowest tax rates around the world, and >>>>>>>>>>>>arrange affairs so that they pay little tax in most countries in >>>>>>>>>>>>which they operate, that
do not support communities and direct huge wealth to a select >>>>>>>>>>>>few at the expense of the many, that sell arms to both sides of >>>>>>>>>>>>conflicts -
his statement was broad and general - and I saw nothing that >>>>>>>>>>>>advocated communism in it.

I thought the Pope was referring to all capitalism, the article >>>>>>>>>>>did not say otherwise.

He may well have been, but that's no thte way I read it. I saw him >>>>>>>>>>criticising the form of capitalism prominent in the world as >>>>>>>>>>currently practised throughout most of the world in which his >>>>>>>>>>church works.

That is not what I saw when I read the link. It seemed like a >>>>>>>>>general opinion.

Nor me, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air; maybe his
advisors have not got the context right.

He's a loony tune of the highest order. He believes that a rib woman >>>>>>>listened to a talking snake and that eating fruit can cause >>>>>>>successive generations to be punished. It's idiocracy and he's the >>>>>>>head idiot. --
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >>>>>>>needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize >>>>>>>your needs.

I wasn't referring to his faith, just his obvious humanity.

His bigotry towards homosexuals is not humane.

And not all
"believers" take the bible as fact, including many Roman Catholics, >>>>>> especially not the old testament.

Many people don't think the Hobbit is fact either. Those that do tend >>>>>to be thought of as slightly batty.

I have no such faith but some in many churches do a lot of good and >>>>>> not all are evangelical so they don't do harm by recruiting.

The spread of mistruths is harm enough. Telling people they are born >>>>>sick and must believe in nonsense to be made well is immoral. The >>>>>central theme of the New Testament is that of vicarious redemption and >>>>>it's entirely immoral.

It is at the end of the day all to do with beliefs and what you find >>>>>> idiotic others find believable.

Talking snakes? Global floods? Life after death? Heaven and hell? An >>>>>imaginary friend in the sky? It's all utter jibberish and it's a blight >>>>>on humanity.

You don't have to believe it literally if you don't want to. After
all, it's
two thousand years old, more or less.
We have made so many discoveries since it was written.

Nothing wrong with "Love God and love your neighbour".
These days the environment and the planet itself may take the place of >>>> a
God.
Today we may be alone in the universe with nobody to help us but
ourselves.
Eventually we will be extinct. That's a frightening thought.

If people want something to believe in, let them.

__ _ _ _

Sadly tolerance is preched but not practiced by some of the so-called
"libertarians" - there is nothing wrong with most religions; it is the >>>> misinterpretations for evil purposes that have given religion a bad
name in the eyes of some.

The evil done in the name of religion is very rarely a
misinterpretation. It's a fair interpretation of the lies in the various >>> holy books. Throwing homosexuals from the top of tall buildings comes
straight from these deceitful books. How does one misinterpret "thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
................

What King James' translators called "witch" was probably some sort of
medium.
Didn't Saul ask the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel?
We are not supposed to raise the dead and ask questions of them, but
even today many people still do.
Yes, religious people say it is an evil spirit that answers, not the
dead friend. Who knows?

There is nothing wrong with Wicca as a religion.
I had a Wicca friend who always asked the Goddess to bless me.
They never use evil spells, more like a simple nature religion,
perhaps as old as the prehistoric cave artists.

.............
It's liberals that are all for women's rights but also support the
religious to forces women to live in cloth bags that are contributing to >>> this evil.

Religion is nonsense and the god of the Bible has to be one of the most
vicious, corrupt, mean spirited, evil and capricious character in all of >>> fiction. And some believe it's loving!!!

.......
Do you mean the Old Testament God?

Is the god in the New Testament a different god? Was there a change in
HR?

...........
The same god. but a different interpretation of his nature.

Then the book is not the word of this deity. The god of the Bible is
supposed to be the same throughout time without change. What you're saying
is that the god of the Bible has attributes that reflect the human culture
at the time.

I agree with that as I think that god is entirely man made. This idea of a changing god supports this.

........
Yes, the Bible was written by humans. Whether we believe a God inspired
it is up to us.
But the King James Version is well worth reading for the magnificent
language as well as the ideas.

The Bible was written before people realised that humans are just an
advanced form of ape.
Many people believed literally in Adam and Eve. How many still do today?
It seems we are all genetic descendants of one female Eve, around 200,000 years ago. Suppose a predator had got her!

Early humans would have tried to make sense of the world around them.
The sun and moon are beings. Thunder is someone's voice. (I talk to Thor
in a thunderstorm).
An eclipse must have been terrifying. It's still scary today, even though
we know what it is.

It's interesting to see what different cultures have come up with.
Compare the Bible and the Koran.

Believe what you like or believe nothing, and let others do the same.

............

Job is a disturbing book, thought to be the oldest one.
God and Satan using an innocent man to prove a point.

It's sickingly evil.
..........
I wonder if it was intended as some sort of allegory.

It's fiction either way.

................

Stick to the New Testament, the life and words of Jesus in the Gospels.

Are you saying the god of the New Testament is a different god than in
the old? I'm pretty sure most believers would disagree with you.
.............

No, it's the same god, but a different view of his nature.
Jesus lived a very long time after Moses. Ideas had changed.

Jesus had some very immoral ideas. "Take no thought for the morrow". How anyone can think any of this is moral or good is baffling.
.............
God would provide for his followers. Trust in him. What is immoral about that?
Those were very uncertain times, in a Roman province.

.............

And the Epistles, how his followers like St Paul interpreted them.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, or just a very
decent human,
his teachings are still relevant after around two thousand years.

Not the ones instructing us how to keep slaves.

.....................
Isn't Philemon the Epistle about a slave?

In those days, the world ran on slave power. The treatment and behaviour
of slaves varied, but slavery itself seems to have been widely accepted.

If you think slavery is immoral then congratulations. You are more moral
than the god of the Bible.
.......
It depends how the slaves are treated.

Valued servants, or domestic
animals? Small children in Victorian factories weren't slaves, but their conditions may have been far worse.

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a
great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or
not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long
may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs. Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

We need to
believe in something.

Mein Kampf, anyone?

"Allistar" wrote in message news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a
great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or >>>> not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long
may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs.
Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............

"Allistar" wrote in message news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a
great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or >>>> not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long
may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs.
Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

[snip for brevity]

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a
great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or >>>>> not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long >>>> may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs.
Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............

What vaccuum? I don't agree that a belief in "something else" is required. I >don't see the need for such folly.

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

[snip for brevity]

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a
great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally or >>>>> not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very
interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long >>>> may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs.
Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............

What vaccuum? I don't agree that a belief in "something else" is required.
I
don't see the need for such folly.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:45:36 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

[snip for brevity]

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a >>>>>> great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally >>>>>> or not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very >>>>>> interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long >>>>> may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs.
Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............

What vaccuum? I don't agree that a belief in "something else" is required. >>I don't see the need for such folly.

You are entitled to your belief Allistar, but you should not be
suprised if it not shared by many - perhaps tolerance is something we
can ll try to share?

"Rich80105" wrote in message news:7k817c17jbbmgl2dut9dg9b1ng1jujvt30@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:45:36 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

[snip for brevity]

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a >>>>>> great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally >>>>>> or not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very >>>>>> interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is
misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long >>>>> may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs.
Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............

What vaccuum? I don't agree that a belief in "something else" is required. >>I
don't see the need for such folly.

You are entitled to your belief Allistar, but you should not be
suprised if it not shared by many - perhaps tolerance is something we
can ll try to share?
............

We can believe or not, it's our choice. What we believe would make no difference to whatever happens to be true.

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" is a good way to go.

Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:45:36 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

[snip for brevity]

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a >>>>>>> great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend.

The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally >>>>>>> or not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very >>>>>>> interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is >>>>>> misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and long >>>>>> may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs.
Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>> fill. ............

What vaccuum? I don't agree that a belief in "something else" is required. >>>I don't see the need for such folly.

You are entitled to your belief Allistar, but you should not be
suprised if it not shared by many - perhaps tolerance is something we
can ll try to share?

I am tolerant of people but very intolerant of bad ideas. I am not very >tolerant of people telling children they're born sick and are commanded to
be well.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:14:11 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:45:36 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:GM6dnRol4JJl0fHFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:5dedndZyEL3xZvbFnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

"Allistar" wrote in message
news:QoudnccPbJF1w_bFnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

geopelia wrote:

[snip for brevity]

................

And Proverbs, said to be the wise words of King Solomon, is still a >>>>>>>> great book to read.

Genesis? Well, most of that is probably an interesting legend. >>>>>>>>
The Bible is part of our heritage, whether you believe it literally >>>>>>>> or not. And if you prefer the Koran, that is on the internet. Very >>>>>>>> interesting to compare it with our Bible.

As works of fiction they are interesting. To take them as truth is >>>>>>> misguided and dangerous.
.............
These days we are free to believe or not believe either book, and >>>>>>> long may that continue.

I agree. Just don't try and make other people follow these beliefs. >>>>>> Unfortunately the world is still infested with religion.
...........
if all religions were banned, people would invent new ones.

Nobody has suggested banning religion.

.........
Not here of course, but people have tried it throughout history.
Followers of the "wrong" religion could be burnt!

Wasn't Communism against religion in the early days?
................

We need to
believe in something.

No, we don't need to believe in something

Mein Kampf, anyone?

..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>>> fill. ............

What vaccuum? I don't agree that a belief in "something else" is >>>>required. I don't see the need for such folly.

You are entitled to your belief Allistar, but you should not be
suprised if it not shared by many - perhaps tolerance is something we
can ll try to share?

I am tolerant of people but very intolerant of bad ideas. I am not very >>tolerant of people telling children they're born sick and are commanded to >>be well.

I'm not aware of anyone advocating such a view; if I ever heard it I
hope I would try and understand just what they mean by it; I do not
for example recognise it as a belief from any of the major religions,
but I do not claim to be an expert in religious beliefs.

Applied more
widely, beliefs on a range of issues will be regarded as "bad ideas"
by some but not others. For example many believe good manners,
faithfull and honest dealings with others, and meeting promises to be important in personal, business and political interactions - others
believe that utside perhaps a family circle, such ideals are outdated;
that winning is everything and that trust is only expected through
written contracts. The best balance between responsibility to
community and an insistence on self-reliance may well be a matter on
which individuals hold strong beliefs which may be rejected by others
- I believe it is possible to disagree while also being tolerant of
the rights of others to hold other (and perhaps to the minds of most
extreme) views.

Your mileage may vary . . .