P.S. Its weird that Greens would protest any efforts to lower CO2. It can’t be about money, fairness or justice; global warming is about survival of all living forms.
Money-wise I doubt NZ farmers are a poor and downtrodden otherwise voiceless minority.
So you are saying that only those with money or power should bother to protest or voice their unhappiness at something?
That others shouldn’t bother because they are not powerful enough?
But, okay, you got together once and the govt promptly folded. When? 2003?
Sorry, I wasn’t even the country. Even if I had been, we’re not all farmers.
Funny that you provide one quote from the Green Party, but stop short of providing their explanation.
“I want to make it crystal clear that the Green Party will not support either a budget or legislation that brought in a methane tax on animals as a way to meet our Kyoto obligations.”
Ms Fitzsimons said the only point in taxing greenhouse gas emissions is as an incentive to reduce them.
“There is no way of reducing methane from cows and sheep except by reducing their numbers. There is promising research in some areas but it will not give us viable alternatives for some time.
“The last thing we want to do as an economy dependent on agriculture is to put financial pressure on farmers to cut back the numbers of sheep and cow when they have no alternatives.
“We should focus policy on the emissions which are easy and cost effective to reduce like energy use and on those growing fastest like transport and electricity generation. A carbon tax on fossil fuels could help but other measures could also contribute.”
So the Greens are wary of a measure that could so easily jeopardise the economy because cow farts are inelastic, and yet that’s a bad thing? I thought people hated Greenies because they wanted to ruin economies by adopting harsh and immediate measures?
As for your bizarre other cherry-picked random statement.......that is an Opposition MP’s opinion on the Crown Mineral’s Amendment Bill. WTF?
None is relevant to the pros and cons of the ‘surge’ in Iraq and what it might or might not be masking.
So you are saying that only those with money or power should bother to protest or voice their unhappiness at something?That others shouldn’t bother because they are not powerful enough?
I’m saying that very much I doubt yer story about a simple grass-roots demo made up of poor downtrodden farmers and concerned citizens waving bunting alone quashed the proposed fart tax.
So the Greens are wary of a measure that could so easily jeopardise the economy because cow farts are inelastic, and yet that’s a bad thing? I thought people hated Greenies because they wanted to ruin economies by adopting harsh and immediate measures?
The ends justify the means. And if throwing Molotovs at cops brings about change, well.... It not a surprise to me, I’ve long known Greens are mostly hypocrites of the worst kind. Post-Chernobyl German Greens unequivocally demanded the immediate closure of all nuclear power plants worldwide, still do:
(sites down till the 22nd, guess the hamsters running in the generator wheels are on vacation)
“Nuclear power sans perspective - 20 years after Chernoybl some have forgotten the risks of nuclear energy and once again attempt to embrace it as a viable energy source for the future…
but did the Kraut Greens govt unplug a single, solitary one of theirs when they ran the place for, what, 7 years? Hell no.
As for your bizarre other cherry-picked random statement.......that is an Opposition MP’s opinion on the Crown Mineral’s Amendment Bill. WTF?
Theres nothing “random” or “bizarre” about it. It was argued that farmers weren’t consulted on the flatulence tax, that the NZ govt didn’t typically consult, it just did what it pleased.
None is relevant to the pros and cons of the ‘surge’ in Iraq and what it might or might not be masking.
Au contraire. How relevant are ya’lls fart tax ideas for Iraq verifiably good for Iraq, pray tell? From the comfort of your hobbit hole you feel their pain and yearning for self-determination so you want to help, but without consulting a single Iraqi, instead trying to fit in with the popular crowd, the masses dwelling in the Internet, and tell th eUS what to do and where to go.
We didn’t shock and awe them. And you weren’t impressed with our gifting Achmed with a notebook (likley from non-recycled stock, sorry)
You, in turn, aren’t shocking or awing anyone into retreat or jubilation with: “Maybe if, perhaps, you let Iraqis of all shades possibly do this, or that, if it doesn’t kinda work more mildly, as benignly suggested by some who meant well.”
I’m saying that very much I doubt yer story about a simple grass-roots demo made up of poor downtrodden farmers and concerned citizens waving bunting alone quashed the proposed fart tax.
Following that logic anyone can say that any demo was useless, even if things were changed, because you can probably always find something else other than the demo.
Saying it doesn’t mean it’s true.
Tell us what changed the governments mind on that issue then.
As for the other example I gave, it sounds like widespread disapproval may indeed change the Electoral Finance Bill. But I’m sure you can come up with a way of explaining (vaguely of course) that no, it was something else what done it.
The ends justify the means. And if throwing Molotovs at cops brings about change, well.... It not a surprise to me, I’ve long known Greens are mostly hypocrites of the worst kind. Post-Chernobyl German Greens unequivocally demanded the immediate closure of all nuclear power plants worldwide, still do:
Which proves once and for all that no matter what some people/groups do or say, you’ll always find a way to justify your hate/disapproval of them.
Bushitler indeed.
Theres nothing “random” or “bizarre” about it. It was argued that farmers weren’t consulted on the flatulence tax, that the NZ govt didn’t typically consult, it just did what it pleased.
Again, you do realise that is an Opposition MP?
See a bit further on:
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) : I seek leave to table the consultation on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, showing no fewer than 12 occasions when such consultation occurred over the year 2002 and up to the present.
So it is also argued that significant consultation did occur. Who is correct? Evidence was tabled. Do you have evidence to show that the consultation wasn’t consultation at all? Or do you just rely on unsubstantiated slurs from the Opposition benches?
Anyway, ‘consultation’ is your proverbial rubber sheet - people can stretch it to whatever suits their ends. And there is nothing easier but to claim that ‘no consultation’ was carried out. I get it often in my job. It’s one of the most common last acts of desperation when none of the arguments stand up. Can’t attack the substance? Just claim ‘no consultation’.
As for the rest, I really have no idea what you are on about. I don’t want to consult with Iraq yet I want to introduce legislation to trapping them into something? Ah ok, whatever.
You, in turn, seem to be a firm believer in ‘imposing freedom’, or whatever term you can dream up this week to avoid oxymoronicism.
As for the rest, I really have no idea what you are on about. I don’t want to consult with Iraq yet I want to introduce legislation to trapping them into something? Ah ok, whatever.
You, in turn, seem to be a firm believer in ‘imposing freedom’, or whatever term you can dream up this week to avoid oxymoronicism.
You just keep posting links at Moorewatch on behalf of the Iraqis that educate us that the surge isn’t working, that it could be kinda working, that theres noone left to fight, that Iraqis are cautiously confident, that they are huddled and scared, drifting apart while pulling together, that windows of opportunity are few/open/will close/have closed, and the only way to avoid more bloodshed in the peaceful fix-all for the Middle Easts struggle for self-determination is for the US to leave Iraq. NOW.
Then we can get back to posting links demanding Jews give the Palis theirs back too.
I haven’t read the full thread (cos it’s six pages, and if they’re anything like this latest page then screw that), but does anyone else suspect that we’re gonna see a situation similar to that of Vietnam in ‘67/68. The risk that this could be the proverbial lull before the storm, a tactical regrouping that will see a reduction in US/coalition forces before we see a major offensive in an election year that could break the appetite for war in Iraq?
I haven’t read the full thread (cos it’s six pages, and if they’re anything like this latest page then screw that), but does anyone else suspect that we’re gonna see a situation similar to that of Vietnam in ‘67/68. The risk that this could be the proverbial lull before the storm, a tactical regrouping that will see a reduction in US/coalition forces before we see a major offensive in an election year that could break the appetite for war in Iraq?
Could happen… but I’m betting they had the chance to see what civil war would look like (and also what a bunch of a holes the al q people are).... and basically it sucks and has little to gain while their sons and cousins get killed off for nothing… with oil $90 a barrel, all they have to do is A: Sit on their ass and not start a civil war and B: Work out the $$$ distribution… and they’re set to really prosper.... vs. Start civil war, ruin infrastructure, create poverty, get [self] killed. again, they already tried fighting, and they had a chance to see what it brings (squat)…
As for the rest, I really have no idea what you are on about. I don’t want to consult with Iraq yet I want to introduce legislation to trapping them into something? Ah ok, whatever.
You, in turn, seem to be a firm believer in ‘imposing freedom’, or whatever term you can dream up this week to avoid oxymoronicism.
You just keep posting links at Moorewatch on behalf of the Iraqis that educate us that the surge isn’t working, that it could be kinda working, that theres noone left to fight, that Iraqis are cautiously confident, that they are huddled and scared, drifting apart while pulling together, that windows of opportunity are few/open/will close/have closed, and the only way to avoid more bloodshed in the peaceful fix-all for the Middle Easts struggle for self-determination is for the US to leave Iraq. NOW.
Then we can get back to posting links demanding Jews give the Palis theirs back too.
All you have to do is admit that you want the US to leave Iraq, but not for the sake of the Iraqi poet citizenry or ME peace. You can intellectualize your position with as many Internet links you can muster, but the fact is you want the US to lose. Regardless of the reason the US somedays gives for its withdrawal, the thinking crowd is gonna determine that:
“The US lost. Its another Vietnam for the US. A self-proclaimed, high-tech, all-mighty force, armed with nukes - the Dallas Cowboys, the NY Yankees, the Real Madrid of War - beaten down by proles armed with mere IEDs made from hemp and recycled batteries. Score a victroy for reedom and self-determination! Viva Che! You and Fidelio never imposed nothing on noone!”
I’m not speaking for CM here, I’m sure he’s all about just seeing US lose (as the hater he is). Personally I’m really more in to ME peace and saving the children and all that (Unlike CM, I’m a Euro poet). By large I’m pretty sceptical to the whole bomb for peace concept. I believe it would be hard for anyone to get that to work. It should not be tried without thinking things through…
I’m not speaking for CM here, I’m sure he’s all about just seeing US lose (as the hater he is). Personally I’m really more in to ME peace and saving the children and all that (Unlike CM, I’m a Euro poet). By large I’m pretty sceptical to the whole bomb for peace concept. I believe it would be hard for anyone to get that to work. It should not be tried without thinking things through…
Yup, we should have stuck flowers in the Nazi’s, and Communist’s, barrels.... and read them some poetry to shame them back into line. :)
I’m pretty sceptical to the whole pacifist for peace concept. I believe it would be hard for anyone to get that to work. It should not be tried without thinking things through…
I’m not speaking for CM here, I’m sure he’s all about just seeing US lose (as the hater he is). Personally I’m really more in to ME peace and saving the children and all that (Unlike CM, I’m a Euro poet). By large I’m pretty sceptical to the whole bomb for peace concept. I believe it would be hard for anyone to get that to work. It should not be tried without thinking things through…
I think that sounds great and even a little Buddhist.
Now, how do we convince everybody to stop?
Theres the rub, and with human nature what it is, will always be the rub.
*point 2 fingers at my eyes, then at CM*
I’m watching you. :P
All you have to do is admit that you want the US to leave Iraq, but not for the sake of the Iraqi poet citizenry or ME peace. You can intellectualize your position with as many Internet links you can muster, but the fact is you want the US to lose. Regardless of the reason the US somedays gives for its withdrawal, the thinking crowd is gonna determine that:
“The US lost. Its another Vietnam for the US. A self-proclaimed, high-tech, all-mighty force, armed with nukes - the Dallas Cowboys, the NY Yankees, the Real Madrid of War - beaten down by proles armed with mere IEDs made from hemp and recycled batteries. Score a victroy for reedom and self-determination! Viva Che! You and Fidelio never imposed nothing on noone!”
Yes biafra, we are well aware of your continual need to make shit up to justify your schtick. Run along now.
And you’re occasionally downright desperate to be proven right about what you’ve learned and have come to feel about the US. By incessantly spotlighting the US’ failures you quite often inadvertantly wind up telling me the US has 52 states.
Yep, thats you. I’ll just bet you’re all-naturally bilingual, speaking fluent Maori - sorry, Te Reo Māori - to further that global love and harmony, just like them singers in the video.
I’m not speaking for CM here, I’m sure he’s all about just seeing US lose (as the hater he is).
I certainly never said he was a hater.
Metaphorically speaking the US is kinda like a parent (=evil, step) that harshly and unjustly punished its teenager (=Iraq) for no reason by grounding it, revoking its TV and computer privileges, taking away its cell phone, and making it abstain from sex.
Al Qaeda are its buddies in (non-)crime, letting it use their phones, slipping it dope and alcohol, the occasional XXX movie trailer, while continuing to break and damage things doing “teen stuff”. (Its a rite of passage; everyone has done and is guilty of it, so there should be no finger-pointing.)
CM doesn’t like the noise. He can’t concentrate on growing that luscious Southfarthing hemp in his hobbit garden. So while CM doesn’t much offer to teach, supervise, or mediate, he does, mainly for the sake of his hemp, insist that everyone (except the parent) has the basic inalienable to whatever they want - to own to a cell phone, watch TV, ogle the Internet, and have sex without (a) reserve (tip).
“Point taken, ‘Mommy Dearest’, but giving Iraq whats rightfully theirs will make it all go away and we can get back to gardening and vacation. Child services (=UN) is on it.”
All the while other “teens” like Somalia have long since gotten bored with just spraying graffiti and smoking joints; they’ve come with more exciting ways to entertain themselves - with guns and brashly intrusive penii.
“JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE, DAMMIT!!! THEY’RE PEOPLE TOO!!!!!”
Okay, then, lets wait until they start acting as such. Maybe we should gift them all with cell phones. Mmmm, thats some goooood hemp.........
Well, don’t exclude violence. Just use it wisely, I guess. Lately my opinion is that you haven’t. But I guess some disagree… :)
We’re on the same page. Violence has it’s place, but pretty much restricted to defense. Just like in our personal lives.
When you go to a club, do you see big muscle bound ass kickers, or Hari Crishna (sp?) holding flowers, waiting for trouble. AND, do these guys wait until someone shoots a gun, or as soon as they hear raised voices/possible loud argument? It would be neato if we could believe a military that is “restricted to defense”, but unfortunately you have thousand year old cultures out there (older than our poetry enlightened blip of time) that just see life/death differently.
Do you think that Israel is still around because they give out Olive Branches, or that they have some mighty big bouncers?
