This was already a place for some clicky in-group of ppl who already knew each other. Then myspace and facebook came along and there's no need for the forums anymore.
foal I don't mean to be rude but since when did this become a forum solely for your political views. Sure there's nothing else going on here, but why the seriouse boring posts. Let's bring the stupdidity back.
but they aren't paying people for their votes, they are donating to a party and that money will be be used for election spending, which is just advertising. There are no bribes. Freedom is the right ot promote/advertise your beliefs as much as you can, and if that is determined by how much money you have then so what.
In the end nothing's fair. Certain groups in society are bound to labour/the left (civil servants, welfare recipients) and 'electioneering' isn't necessary for those votes(they are going to vote left no matter what, thus labour can direct all it's resources targetting other groups such as middle class swing voters). Big donations from the odd rich cunt to national might just even the playing field a bit. Not that it matters.
//are you implying this is undemocratic?//
the union heirachy openly flout their political bias and lobby their members to support labour/left policy (on things unrelated to employment law). Most people at these meetings - those that bother to attend - just go along with it. Whether they end up voting labour just because their union tells them to is another question. I'd suggest that people aren't as easily influenced as you think. And by the way if it's mob/majority rule then how are the wealthy, the self employed etc supposed to have their interests represented in parliament at all? Don't they have the right to try, to at least financially prop up a party that best represents them? I mean you'd be the last to support majority rule when it comes to race relations, but on this apparently the minority don't count and shouldn't even have the right to give away their cash to whoever they will.
//ECA anyone.No member of society who is an employee could in their right mind actually vote or support in any way this legislation.//
well that depends on whether you want to work hard or hide behind a union. :)
//of course money wins elections//
But money can come from the left just as much as the right. A large number of donors giving a small amount can even the odds. In the ned it's just advertising, it's influence directly correlates to how stupid people are. Just look at where the unions get their money from, and please don't suggest that unions are democratic just becuase they 'represent' more people, I've been to union meetings.
if unions can do de-facto electioneering for labour then why can't the wealthy get involved? We still have one vote per person last time I looked, how does election spending change that? Give people some credit, we aren't all vacuous spunges absorbing whatever advertising is thrown our way.
since 12% of the population pay almost half the tax the government takes, then I think it's fair they have some influence over who gets to spend their money. After all the current government has been using their money to 'buy' elections with unlimited welfare and an increasing number of civil servants reliant on the state for an income.
oh god, 28 and back to this again. Maori are spiritual, we aren't, fine.
I fail to see how a group can claim ownership of land they never utilized, possibly never even set eyes on.
but isn't that the classic response rope, you are called ignorant if you reject the assertions of maori sovereignty
it is in fact my money, our money, they want unfettered access to, so I have the right to be bigoted, thank you very much
//they are taxpayers and have every right to agitate on its distribution. much the same as the Chamber of Commerce or the Employers Federation, but with far less danger to the working man and the poor in general.//
problem is many of them aren't taxpayers, and certainly wouldn't be if the soveriegnty ideal ever happens, which of course it won't. They might be paying tax to help fund 'their' separate schools, hospitals, welfare. but the government (ie. the rest of us) would pick up the short fall, and they would contribute nothing to ours. Clear case of money being redistrubuted from one group to another based on race.
//Someone should make an attempt at Historical Education and who better than the aggrieved party//
they are not the aggrieved, that would be 5-6 generations ago. Even then how do determine what was under ownership - land they never used or even set foot on is theirs apparently because it fell within the vague territorial boundary of tribe 200 years ago. Wasn't their some claim a couple a years ago for the entire Haurakei Gulf? Are we suposed to take the aggrieved parties assertions as fact, is debate not allowed.
//I'd be surprised if you earn half of what Tama Iti does for example//
except that he doesn't do anything of value, I couldn't care less what he 'earns'.
//also If you mean that those on "welfare" are less worthy of protest then I think your very wrong. Shut up and be grateful the master pays a benefit... sounds like folly.If we live in a Democracy then any and all should be allowed a vehicle to protest, agitate, sound off, whatever. If the value of their words/actions is in direct proportion to their earning or socio-economic class then there is another word for that sort of political system//
so you don't care that they are happy to take taxpayers money while demanding independance from any laws and responsibilities that go with receiving it. We all know what this type of 'independance' means. Everyone funds their schools, their separate hospital wards, infrastructure, and welfare (although it won't be called that), while they get to make up the laws they live by, all the time lazily refering back to the past to justify all this. Is this not fingers in both pies bullshit?
So you don't find it funny that a group of people who demand independance are anything but.
Perhaps the best way to deal with the 'terrorists' would be to close down the nearest winz office.
So are you for or against banning fireworks foal? because I can't tell.
If you actually knew them, you wouldn't miss them, you wouldn't care.
By pigs in the trough are you referring to welfare recipients?