Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

NZWarriors.com

Because thats the frame of reference most understandable here. We can use indigenous Australians, west Africans where part of my heritage is from, native Americans. Same story
Don't know what point you're trying to make.
That it was a good thing that neolithic cultures were colonized, wherever that may have been.
Total horseshit. You do not need to be colonised to benefit from the ideas and technologies of other cultures. The MRI was not invented by a New Zealander or Briton, nor was the plane, the car, countless other inventions and ideas. Most of these things arrived here through trade and cultural exchange. It is totally unnecessary to colonise a country for it to benefit from these things. Framing colonisation as something that was necessary to improve a country or people is pure rationalisation/justification of a crime.
 
Don't know what point you're trying to make.

Total horseshit. You do not need to be colonised to benefit from the ideas and technologies of other cultures. The MRI was not invented by a New Zealander or Briton, nor was the plane, the car, countless other inventions and ideas. Most of these things arrived here through trade and cultural exchange. It is totally unnecessary to colonise a country for it to benefit from these things. Framing colonisation as something that was necessary to improve a country or people is pure rationalisation/justification of a crime.
Really? The Sentinelese people are getting MRI's? Thats prime example of non colonized neolithic tribes. Have they achieved trade and cultural exchange?

1741402570514.webp
 
I'm sure if say, China, came here and colonised/took over this country and banned gambling and alcohol and sugary drinks (all of which cause enormous harm) you'd give the whole colonisation thing a pass?
I watched a Xi speech where he proposed doing just that, but he called it de-colonialising. Wish we had some fluent Chinese speakers on here to tell us if the subtitles are accurate translations, and what he meant by that.
 
I watched a Xi speech where he proposed doing just that, but he called it de-colonialising. Wish we had some fluent Chinese speakers on here to tell us if the subtitles are accurate translations, and what he meant by that.
A few years ago while driving home from work on the radio they had a piece on the news about an issue with China. I can't which minister it was trying to flex. It was our Ministers statement followed by the Chinese response.

The translation from the Chinese was blunt.

When you are used to politicians trying to be diplomatic or talking in circles it really stood out.
 
Stripping democracy in front of our very eyes
So Savant is now supporting one of the cornerstones of neo lib philosophy .... the property rights of private property owners.... the world is getting stranger and stranger by the day.

1741574111766.webp

 
Stripping democracy in front of our very eyes
Have you driven any of the Aussie motorways down the eastern seaboard?

Fantastic roads. A triumph of public infrastructure that couldn’t have happened if every single private landowner objected to public works

So yeah, an abuse of power is bad. But we need to move out of our third world mentality and get behind making our country more liveable and productive otherwise none of us will want to live here anymore
 
Have you driven any of the Aussie motorways down the eastern seaboard?

Fantastic roads. A triumph of public infrastructure that couldn’t have happened if every single private landowner objected to public works

So yeah, an abuse of power is bad. But we need to move out of our third world mentality and get behind making our country more liveable and productive otherwise none of us will want to live here anymore
Yep agree on some of that. I suspect though, that "liveable" will be contentious. Liveable to me would be fantastic public transport options, huge investment in e transport and infrastructure, huge investment in rail and coastal shipping.

Moving away from the huge influence of the roading lobby. Note I don't say get rid of cars.

And will say again, we've had 50 years of this at least. The underlying system of that 50 years? Neoliberalism.
 
What's your thoughts on the proposed legislation then Mike? Given that my focus is on the removal of checks and balances.
We’re actually personally involved with the current PWA because part of the shared access way we own is going to be taken for the new Redoubt Road/Mill Road project. At the stage where we’re still to be told how much of it will be required and then we’ll get told the value.

Whether it’s decided by a department or just minister, once it’s been decided that whatever you own is required, the landowner has little too no chance of fighting it. Pretty much, the only thing you can dispute is the value you’re being offered in compensation.

Large projects will either be being pushed by government policy (and led by the Minister in charge) or by the department. Either way, it would require ministerial sign off anyway. I really can’t see the need for the change in the Act.
 
Stripping democracy in front of our very eyes
From your own article:

‘through the Minister for Land Information (Penk) or the local authority for faster resolution.’


The articles makes a case that the Minister will make judgement on their own cases when clearly 99% will be via the local authority… but let’s ignore that and lose all credibility and call it an attack on democracy 🙄.

Let’s get the country moving, out of third world Nimby thinking and not stuck in red tape. Pay fairly but the big picture must come first. The worlds moving faster while our beurocrats somehow manages to move ever slower!
 
Yep agree on some of that. I suspect though, that "liveable" will be contentious. Liveable to me would be fantastic public transport options, huge investment in e transport and infrastructure, huge investment in rail and coastal shipping.

Moving away from the huge influence of the roading lobby. Note I don't say get rid of cars.

And will say again, we've had 50 years of this at least. The underlying system of that 50 years? Neoliberalism.
Seems that both National and Labour are getting ready to play the “Blame Game” as to who was responsible for authorizing the killing of protected wildlife, if rumours circulating through the construction industry in Wellington are to be believed.

Labour are going to say the planning for the project began under Key’s government while the Nats are saying that the Ministers who signed off on the killing of kiwi and long tail bats were under Ardern’s government. Either way, the High Court has ruled that government departments and various Minister’s have been wrong how they’ve interpreted the Wildlife Act…..

 
Last edited:

Thought it was all a bit quiet regarding Andrew Bayly. Seems he’s gone off to climb Everest rather than answer questions back here surrounding his stepping down
 
    Nobody is reading this thread right now.
Back
Top Bottom