‘John Key: Hillary Clinton would be good partner for NZ’
Not that this is so much of s surprise – he and his gang are, after all, socialists in everything but name.
CrusaderRabbit
FOR LIBERTY
‘John Key: Hillary Clinton would be good partner for NZ’
Not that this is so much of s surprise – he and his gang are, after all, socialists in everything but name.
The last true conservative Prime Minister we has was Sid Holland. From Holyoake on, we have had a succession of socialists at the helm of our so called conservative party. In effect there has been 58 years, from Walter Nash on, of liberal leaders/parties. We are a true little socialist utopia.
Absolutely.
John Key, has clearly lost it. He prefers a feminazi Clinton. Or maybe he’s just under pressure from these feminazis, like Tracey Martin. He is no better than Helen Clark as far as family values are concerned. Yeah Tracey Martin is pushing the empowering women nonsense, she’s part of a women’s movement. So you have David Cunliffe, labour anti man, and now you’ve got these other clowns giving the same message.
How about we have the no vote option. Where people say no vote, and then state why. That might send a message to government.
It sure would, Warren. But they would then ignore it.
Ah, but Kg, if 20% say no vote because of this reason, then the politicians would say, hey you know, that idea we had, is making us lose 20% of our votes. If all the no votes were for similiar reasons they would pay attention. But if their are so many reasons, yes they would just ignore it.
I guess you’re right, Warren. I was just talking on the ‘phone to a friend, who said a local council in NZ was forced to hold a referendum on the question of reserved maori seats on the council.
80% were against the idea, so the mayor said “oh well, we’ll just have to find another way of doing it”.
So much for the voice of the people, eh?
Well KG, they do things in a calculated, progressive way, with all stakeholders taken into account. Take feminism. Every year these organisations demand more and more. At one time they were saying they don’t want to be dominated by men, and that men need to be more considerate. Now, that they have that, they’re demanding to be granted management roles just like that. In one article of the paper, it said that if a man disagrees with a woman, he is a bad man. And they were even saying to observe a man’s hands for this purpose, which is witchcraft.
They don’t push this feminism all in one go, they do it gradually. And by doing it gradually, they calculate what steps to take.
But most importantly its the stakeholders. The earth charter gives the indigenious people rights, the feminists rights, animals rights, and even the earth rights. Most government organisations have endorsed this. And that means they need to gradually implement these things. So that means no matter what you or I think, they will implement it, but they can do it slowly, out of fear of people like me.
So, if people can just say, no vote, I have no confidence in you, that will make a difference. Because when you vote, that means you choose to participate in your democratically chosen representative. That means you have given him power. If enough people say, we don’t trust you, we have no confidence in you, only then do politicans worry. Because if their are enough people who don’t like what’s going on, they just might unite together.
Going back to stakeholders, the world bank and IMF were started at a UN monetary conference. So as long as your country owes, these organisations make sure you agree to certain things. So politicians do have their hands tied, and are limited.
So what I’m saying is I do know it sometimes is hopeless, but ultimately you are either giving them your consent to rule you, happily, or you are saying I am not giving you my consent, and I’m only cooperating to the extent I must, and if things get worse I just might go somewhere else, and I’ll be paying my taxes to someone else.
+1
Refer to the government as a gang that changes its leader every three (or four) years, and think of it as such.
Nobody ought be expected to tackle a gang that has functionally unlimited resources to ruin your life, but neither do we have to pretend that we give the gang consent to terrorize us.