Comments on: Dextro-generosity

By: stuey

stuey — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:43:16 +0000

re allowing comments for press releases, I don’t think there should be threads on frogblog for them, but the press releases themselves should allow comments.

BTW, This was one of the 4 things I suggested for my “personal manifesto”
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/09/09/top-ten-priorities/#com ment-4917
which lucyna said were 4 good reasons to keep the greens out of government One of the other four was public websites should be accessible to the disabled - I presume that loopy lucyna is also against wheelchair ramps on public buildings.

By: phil u.

phil u. — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:41:34 +0000

pip….you are a virgo…..qed….:)

phil(whoar.co.nz0

By: stuey

stuey — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:23:24 +0000

Alistair, wikipedia still allows anonymous contributions. The recent change was that anonymous contributors are no longer able to start articles. This is good idea for stopping (or at least slowing) the increase in ridiculous stupid little articles that have no place in an encyclopedia.

By: Pip

Pip — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:01:13 +0000

Ah, right I get it Phil, you’re not actually referring to ACT policy or the statements of their spokespeople at all, just reflecting your understanding of some of their member’s views. Sorry, that’s not how I read your post.

Yeah sure, but, um, so what?

I realise google is my friend, which is why I used it, and when I didn’t get very far, I figured that asking someone who already knows for their sources is also your friend. Unless, of course, they don’t have any sources.

Oh, and the drug policies? I’d love to check out the ACT drug policy, maybe you could, um, point me at it, cos as far as I can tell, it doesn’t exist.

By: eredwen

eredwen — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:35:27 +0000

even said: “Why, for example, the most “enlighened�? free “ownership�? society in the world, the “U.S�? want to regulate the ownership of weapons of mass destruction? Surely the free market will self regulate this for the benefit of all?”

Very well said! (and thanks for making me laugh.)

eredwen

By: even

even — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:03:33 +0000

free market, free trade etc etc Just cause right wings control media etc doesn’t mean everyone has to “buy” their semantics. Why, for example, the most “enlighened” free “ownership” society in the world, the “U.S” want to regulate the ownership of weapons of mass destruction? Surely the free market will self regulate this for the benefit of all?
It’s inevitable off course that those of a weaker mind will side with whateva the controling authority of the time is saying cause it gives them a chance to hit out at a designated target and feel superior. Which of course leads us to the ultimate free marketers, facists. Cause the word “free” has logically in their conditioned mind become a synonym for subjugation, and this is liberalism appearently, be that of the environment or fellow man.
I just wish these higher beings would sod off!! And i know that the price of having an opinion is that you have to put up with other opinions. But why can’t these Act “liberals” go to their own message boards cause their comments to me, seem to be in the wrong thread and the right thread is their own board.

By: alistair

alistair — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:48:16 +0000

Sidebar to that Canadian Green thing : I heard the other day (but I’m too lazy to check it out) that Wikipedia itself no longer allows anonymous contributions. Following a defamation thing in the US.

Loss of innocence. Boo hoo.

By: phil u.

phil u. — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:16:04 +0000

pip…google is your friend…

i’m just the guy up on the hill…pointing in the general direction…:)

(can i suggest their respective websites…and look for threads…(btw you aren’t a virgo ..are you..?..because if so..you know you’ll have difficulties with the thread thing..eh..?..you might need to get someone to help..eh..?………try a sagittarius..:)

also pip..if you are on the case…check out the respective drug policies…i think you’ll find a lot of actites far more liberal on that than a lot of greens..eh..?..actually you’ll find any group will have people more liberal on recreational drugs than many in the greens….(though it is often an age thing….the younger are ‘huh!..so what!..”..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

By: phil u.

phil u. — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:00:58 +0000

btw..a good point to make with the righties is to point out the fact that “..we are actually sudsidising these corporates…and these subsidies must end.”

(said in a suitably stentorian tone…)

then see them flock to your pennant…like lemmings…(they actually wet-dream at night of being in a position to ‘end subsidies’….those righties…:)

phil(whoar.co.nz

By: Pip

Pip — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:00:10 +0000

Hmm, would like links on that, phil, for both ACT and the Greens.

I guess the Green policy would have some effect in that direction, if personal tax rates were dropped and the difference made up with carbon charges and so on which would impact corporates as well as individuals, there would be some shift. Unless the tax system was further altered to make sure the policy also had a zero impact on corporates (as a group). Don’t think I’ve seen anything proposing that change, but I’m no expert.

ACT on the other hand? I don’t know if they’ve ever said anything remotely like that. Arguing for user pays on pollution is not at all necessarily the same as arguing for a shift from individual to corporate tax.

Just because two parties both promise a better world, doesn’t mean it is the same better world.