On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left wing adulation.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debate >>about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you
refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the
"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the
numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates
into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. "
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose,
19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears
to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and
dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that
in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being
passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the
discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out
by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual
questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party
support and then asked a different question depending on that answer
(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the
report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st
pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition
MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New
Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through
a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be
debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to
understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger
people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer
Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS
Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic
and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" -
it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and
where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead
New Zealanders.
https://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debate >about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
https://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debate >about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debate >>about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
Those who fear they will loose out will naturally oppose the debate
the bill will generate. Given that there is no commitment whatever
from the current Government to progress the Bill to a second reading,
those that oppose the bill simply wish to suppress the debate
entirely, and they do not want political parties to include policy on
the Bill at the next election.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:38:05 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debate >>>about Treaty principles.https://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
Those who fear they will loose out will naturally oppose the debate
the bill will generate. Given that there is no commitment whatever
from the current Government to progress the Bill to a second reading,
those that oppose the bill simply wish to suppress the debate
entirely, and they do not want political parties to include policy on
the Bill at the next election.
My response to the post from Tony above pointed out that the article
confused a desire for the issues to be debated, with a desire by some
to see the bill passed, and by others to see the bill defeated.
In fact a slightly higher proportion of Labour supporters wanted the
issues debated than the proportion of National supporters wanted them >debated. They were not asked whether they wanted the bill (when
written but based on statements already made by Seymour) to be passed.
You are correct that the National Party are very wary of the proposals
from ACT - they see them as an attack on the principle of the sanctity
of contract, as well as being unnecessarily divisive. Labour
supporters are more likely to see the debate pointing out the racism, >prejudice and unfairness of the proposals from ACT - and would be
happy to have a longer debate to get that through to the public.
We have seen the broad proposals, but I suspect ACT are finding it
hard to get through the difficulty of writing legislation that would
affect other legislation and also need re-consideration of a large
number of agreements and ongoing redress and management issues, and
where the principles they espouse may also be seen as offending
against other legislation.
ACT include "get government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub" >ideologues - National would prefer to have a government that can be
trusted. Neither party has much respect for the people that they see
as serving them, but this is an issue that one of them is going to
lose.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left wing >adulation.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if theGood to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debate >>>about Treaty principles.https://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you
refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the
"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the
numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates
into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. "
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose,
19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears
to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that
in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the
discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out
by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party
support and then asked a different question depending on that answer
(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st
pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition
MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through
a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be
debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to
understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger
people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS
Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic
and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" -
it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and
where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead
New Zealanders.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never a bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a single >intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it should >convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of our >democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions in >place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress talk -
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in - >there must be one somewhere on earth.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyCorrect, do you dispute that?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left wing >>adulation.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if theGood to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debate >>>>about Treaty principles.https://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you
refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the
"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates
into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. "
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears
to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that
in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out
by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer
(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition
MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through
a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be
debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to
understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger
people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS
Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic
and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" -
it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and
where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead
New Zealanders.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never a >>bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a single >>intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of our >>democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions in >>place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress talk >>-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in - >>there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying
there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place.
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on?Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty.
If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they askingThe need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
questions about?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyCorrect, do you dispute that?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left wing
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if theGood to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the
"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. "
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears
to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that
in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer
(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through >>>>a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS
Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and
where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead
New Zealanders.
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never a >>>bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a single >>>intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of our >>>democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions in >>>place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in - >>>there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying
there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place.
What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty.
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on?
So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe debate is about the principles of the treaty.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyCorrect, do you dispute that?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left >>>>wing
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. "
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through >>>>>a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>New Zealanders.
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never a >>>>bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a single >>>>intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>>>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of >>>>our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions >>>>in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress >>>>talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in - >>>>there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying
there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place.
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a
Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty.
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on?
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you are a sociopath.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe debate is about the principles of the treaty.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Correct, do you dispute that?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left >>>>>wing
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>>>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through >>>>>>a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>>>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>New Zealanders.
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a single >>>>>intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>>>>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of >>>>>our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions >>>>>in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress >>>>>talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in - >>>>>there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place.
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a
Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty.
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop your >garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your >twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you are a
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
sociopath.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyWe don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are arguing against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that argument you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate is therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe debate is about the principles of the treaty.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Correct, do you dispute that?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left >>>>>>wing
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>>>>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through >>>>>>>a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>>>>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>New Zealanders.
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never >>>>>>a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>>>>>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of >>>>>>our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions >>>>>>in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress >>>>>>talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in >>>>>>-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place.
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop your >>garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all
wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were
being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at
least according to The Centrist and Curia.
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your >>twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you are >>a
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
sociopath.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyWe don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are arguing
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The debate is about the principles of the treaty.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Correct, do you dispute that?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left >>>>>>>wing
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>>>>>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through >>>>>>>>a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>>>>>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>>New Zealanders.
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never
a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>>>>>>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of >>>>>>>our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions
in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress >>>>>>>talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in >>>>>>>-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place.
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop your >>>garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all
wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were >>being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >>supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at
least according to The Centrist and Curia.
against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that argument
you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate is >therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your >>>twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you are
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
a
sociopath.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyWe don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are >>arguing
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The debate is about the principles of the treaty.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme >>>>>>>>left
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>>>>>>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through >>>>>>>>>a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>>>>>>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>>>New Zealanders.
wing
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, >>>>>>>>never
a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>>>>>>>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake >>>>>>>>of
our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of >>>>>>>>intentions
in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to >>>>>>>>suppress
talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away >>>>>>>>in
-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place. >>>>>>Correct, do you dispute that?
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop your >>>>garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all >>>wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were >>>being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >>>supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at >>>least according to The Centrist and Curia.
against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that >>argument
you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate is >>therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your >>>>twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you >>>>are
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
a
sociopath.
Do you trust these lefty media polls?Does your brain ever engage with reality?
Unless, of course, you are a lefty yourself ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Do you trust these lefty media polls?
Unless, of course, you are a lefty yourself ...
[Ranty McRantFace]
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:40:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Abuse by Larry the Lamb removed.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Do you trust these lefty media polls?
Unless, of course, you are a lefty yourself ...
You were one of those continually going on about the “bias” in >“mainstreamNo.
media”, weren’t you?
Or is it just a special case because they happen to be saying something you >agree with?I don't do that, unlike you. You with your blinkered vision of what is happening just about everywhere.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyWe don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are arguing
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The debate is about the principles of the treaty.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left
Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose, >>>>>>>>>19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue).
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through >>>>>>>>>a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer >>>>>>>>>Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>>>New Zealanders.
wing
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never
a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it >>>>>>>>should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of
our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions
in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress
talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in
-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place. >>>>>>Correct, do you dispute that?
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop your >>>>garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh?
Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all >>>wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were >>>being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >>>supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at >>>least according to The Centrist and Curia.
against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that argument
you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate is >>therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
You have claimed there is nothing to talk about - that is consistent
with the survey that showed NACt supporters were less likely to want a
debate than Labour supporters - but then you claimed there are no
proposals, so nothing going to happen, etc etc. Your desperation and >disappointment with the government is showing, Tony - now you are
afraid to even discuss the deliberate casting aside of sanctity of
contract that ACT are proposing - it is like having the government you
wanted taking away property rights - isn't that "Right", Tony?
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your >>>>twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you are
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
a
sociopath.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:16:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Nonsensical. You and the article are deliberately refusing to address the real issue.
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:We don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are >>>arguing
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The debate is about the principles of the treaty.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme >>>>>>>>>left
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate. >>>>>>>>>>Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose,
19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>>>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>>>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>>>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue). >>>>>>>>>>
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through
a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>>>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer
Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>>>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>>>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>>>>New Zealanders.
wing
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, >>>>>>>>>never
a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact >>>>>>>>>it
should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake >>>>>>>>>of
our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of >>>>>>>>>intentions
in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to >>>>>>>>>suppress
talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away >>>>>>>>>in
-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place. >>>>>>>Correct, do you dispute that?
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>>>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>>>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop >>>>>your
garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh? >>>>>>So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?
Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all >>>>wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were >>>>being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >>>>supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at >>>>least according to The Centrist and Curia.
against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that >>>argument
you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate is >>>therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
You have claimed there is nothing to talk about - that is consistent
with the survey that showed NACt supporters were less likely to want a >>debate than Labour supporters - but then you claimed there are no >>proposals, so nothing going to happen, etc etc. Your desperation and >>disappointment with the government is showing, Tony - now you are
afraid to even discuss the deliberate casting aside of sanctity of
contract that ACT are proposing - it is like having the government you >>wanted taking away property rights - isn't that "Right", Tony?
I came across the article below today from another discussion - it
does demonstrate that there is something to talk about - there are
plans by the Government to change things, and those plans are able to
be discussed now.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/01/27/a-bloody-stupid-idea/?
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think >>>>>your
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you >>>>>are
a
sociopath.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:16:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:We don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are arguing
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The debate is about the principles of the treaty.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have the >>>>>>>>>>>debatehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate. >>>>>>>>>>Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose,
19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4.
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being >>>>>>>>>>passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out >>>>>>>>>>by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the >>>>>>>>>>report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue). >>>>>>>>>>
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through
a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the >>>>>>>>>>legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer
Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the >>>>>>>>>>"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" - >>>>>>>>>>it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>>>>New Zealanders.
wing
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never
a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it
should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of
our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions
in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress
talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in
-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place. >>>>>>>Correct, do you dispute that?
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>>>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>>>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop your
garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh? >>>>>>So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?
Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all >>>>wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were >>>>being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >>>>supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at >>>>least according to The Centrist and Curia.
against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that argument
you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate is >>>therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
You have claimed there is nothing to talk about - that is consistent
with the survey that showed NACt supporters were less likely to want a >>debate than Labour supporters - but then you claimed there are no >>proposals, so nothing going to happen, etc etc. Your desperation and >>disappointment with the government is showing, Tony - now you are
afraid to even discuss the deliberate casting aside of sanctity of
contract that ACT are proposing - it is like having the government you >>wanted taking away property rights - isn't that "Right", Tony?
I came across the article below today from another discussion - it
does demonstrate that there is something to talk about - there are
plans by the Government to change things, and those plans are able to
be discussed now.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/01/27/a-bloody-stupid-idea/?
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you are
a
sociopath.
On 2024-03-19, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:16:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The fact that we seem to need permission to discuss a matter in a democracy >is extremely concerning. It does add substance to the back lash oh the >Government's narrative on Covid.
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:We don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are arguing
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about. >>>>>Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all >>>>>wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were >>>>>being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >>>>>supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at >>>>>least according to The Centrist and Curia.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The debate is about the principles of the treaty.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme left
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have thehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
debate
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate. >>>>>>>>>>>Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates >>>>>>>>>>>into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. " >>>>>>>>>>>
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% oppose,
19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears >>>>>>>>>>>to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4. >>>>>>>>>>>
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that >>>>>>>>>>>in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill being
passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set out
by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer >>>>>>>>>>>(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in the
report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue). >>>>>>>>>>>
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their >>>>>>>>>>>confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st >>>>>>>>>>>pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition >>>>>>>>>>>MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money through
a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting the
legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ Taxpayer
Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic >>>>>>>>>>>and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - the
"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" -
it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>>>>>New Zealanders.
wing
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, never
a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing.,
All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact it
should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the sake of
our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of intentions
in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to suppress
talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither away in
-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place. >>>>>>>>Correct, do you dispute that?
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>>>>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>>>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>>>>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not?
There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop your
garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh? >>>>>>>So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?
against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that argument
you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate is
therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
You have claimed there is nothing to talk about - that is consistent
with the survey that showed NACt supporters were less likely to want a >>>debate than Labour supporters - but then you claimed there are no >>>proposals, so nothing going to happen, etc etc. Your desperation and >>>disappointment with the government is showing, Tony - now you are
afraid to even discuss the deliberate casting aside of sanctity of >>>contract that ACT are proposing - it is like having the government you >>>wanted taking away property rights - isn't that "Right", Tony?
I came across the article below today from another discussion - it
does demonstrate that there is something to talk about - there are
plans by the Government to change things, and those plans are able to
be discussed now.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/01/27/a-bloody-stupid-idea/?
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think your
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - you are
a
sociopath.
There are alot of things going on all of them with the aim of money and
power grabbing by the elites. Check out the rabbit holes and do some >thinking.
On 19 Mar 2024 23:07:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:No, that is a lie.
On 2024-03-19, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:16:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The fact that we seem to need permission to discuss a matter in a democracy >>is extremely concerning. It does add substance to the back lash oh the >>Government's narrative on Covid.
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:52:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:We don't know what if anything may happen. But you are a fool - you are >>>>>arguing
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So if nothing is going to happen, there is nothing to talk about. >>>>>>Curia and the NZ Taxpayer Union and the Centrist website got it all >>>>>>wrong. I still wonder what the people in the survey thought they were >>>>>>being asked about, but I do note that a bigger percentage of Labour >>>>>>supporters wanted to have a discussion than National supporters - at >>>>>>least according to The Centrist and Curia.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There that is all, I have discussed nothing else. Now go away and stop >>>>>>>your
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post above is trash, it is childish politics driven by extreme >>>>>>>>>>>left
Good to know that according to Curia 60% of us are happy to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>thehttps://centrist.co.nz/curia-research-new-zealanders-overwhelmingly-support-treaty-principles-bill/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-16-mar-24
debate
about Treaty principles.
I wonder why anybody would be opposed to the debate. >>>>>>>>>>>>Indeed debate is good; but in this case it would be helpful if the >>>>>>>>>>>>poll was not so badly misrepresented. Having the debate, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>refer to above, is not the same as supporting the Bill - the >>>>>>>>>>>>"Centrist" commentary conflates the two, and also misrepresents the >>>>>>>>>>>>numbers supporting having the discussion.
The "Centrist" directs us here for more information: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://thefacts.nz/equality/31-voters-support-the-treaty-principles-bill-41-national-61-labour/
"60% favour the bill against a mere 18% opposition, which translates
into a 3:1 ratio of support to opposition, according to The Facts. "
So look at the numbers from National voters: 66% support, 15% >>>>>>>>>>>>oppose,
19% unsure. The support/Oppose ratio is given as 4.4, which appears
to be derived from adding all the unsure to the support number, and >>>>>>>>>>>>dividing by the oppose. (66+19)/15 = 4.38 (rounded to 4.4. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So they have counted all the unsure as being in favour. But was that
in favour of the bill being discussed, or in favour of the Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>being
passed into law?
So what was the question asked? Was it whether they support the >>>>>>>>>>>>discussion, or support the proposed definitions as previously set >>>>>>>>>>>>out
by Seymour? The answer to that is that we do not know the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>questions asked; indeed it is possible that they asked about party >>>>>>>>>>>>support and then asked a different question depending on that answer
(I seriously doubt that Curia would do that, but the confusion in >>>>>>>>>>>>the
report on "theFacts" does raise that as a potential issue). >>>>>>>>>>>>
The "Key Questions" at the bottom would do John Key proud with their
confusion.
For comparison, think about the bill related to smoking that NACT1st
pushed through under urgency in their "100 days" frenzy. Opposition
MPs were horrified that any government would vote to kill more New >>>>>>>>>>>>Zealanders through a horrid disease purely to raise more money >>>>>>>>>>>>through
a tax on an addictive drug. They would have preferred that to be >>>>>>>>>>>>debated a lot longer to give New Zealanders the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>>>understand how dreadfully the government was treating our younger >>>>>>>>>>>>people. So supporting a discussion is not the same as supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>the
legislation.
What we can get from that and related articles is that the NZ >>>>>>>>>>>>Taxpayer
Union (a New Zealand organisation that is a member of the ATLAS >>>>>>>>>>>>Network - an international organisation promoting far right economic
and social ideals ), has spawned yet another misleading website - >>>>>>>>>>>>the
"Centrist" website is just as averse to simple facts as "The Facts" >>>>>>>>>>>>-
it is yet another attempt to disguise the source of the ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>where the money is coming from to support these attempts to mislead >>>>>>>>>>>>New Zealanders.
wing
adulation.
Try this for the first time in your life - debate is never, repeat, >>>>>>>>>>>never
a
bad
thing. Debate is always, repeat, always a good thing., >>>>>>>>>>>All of your rhetoric and all of your spinning will never convince a >>>>>>>>>>>single
intelligent person that this subject should not be debated - in fact >>>>>>>>>>>it
should
convince all of us that it must, repeat, must be debated for the >>>>>>>>>>>sake of
our
democracy.
Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of >>>>>>>>>>>intentions
in
place for the bill.
There is no plan to change any damn thing but you still want to >>>>>>>>>>>suppress
talk
-
I suggest you find a nice little communist hole to slowly wither >>>>>>>>>>>away in
-
there must be one somewhere on earth.
So the article on "Centrist" said "Curia Research - New Zealanders >>>>>>>>>>overwhelmingly support Treaty Principles Bill", but you are saying >>>>>>>>>>there is no Bill, no brief or list of intentions in place. >>>>>>>>>Correct, do you dispute that?
Which statement are you saying is correct? "New Zealanders support a >>>>>>>>Bill", or "There is no Bill"
What were those who answered the poll giving their opinions on? >>>>>>>>>Obviously on the need to have the debate, stop changing the subjecty. >>>>>>>>What debate? The debate about whether there is a Bill or not? >>>>>>>The debate is about the principles of the treaty.
garbage idiocy.
Everybody so far as I know you idiot.
If there is no plan to change any damn thing what were they asking >>>>>>>>>>questions about?The need for debate - oh you do try it on when you are wrong eh? >>>>>>>>So who has no plans to change anything, Tony?
against the right of people to debate something and when you lose that >>>>>argument
you argue that because the result of the debate may be nothing the debate >>>>>is
therefore nonsense - I have news for you - it is called democracy./
You have claimed there is nothing to talk about - that is consistent >>>>with the survey that showed NACt supporters were less likely to want a >>>>debate than Labour supporters - but then you claimed there are no >>>>proposals, so nothing going to happen, etc etc. Your desperation and >>>>disappointment with the government is showing, Tony - now you are >>>>afraid to even discuss the deliberate casting aside of sanctity of >>>>contract that ACT are proposing - it is like having the government you >>>>wanted taking away property rights - isn't that "Right", Tony?
I came across the article below today from another discussion - it
does demonstrate that there is something to talk about - there are
plans by the Government to change things, and those plans are able to
be discussed now.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/01/27/a-bloody-stupid-idea/?
No you are a defamer and a liar, you are so damn syupid that you think >>>>>>>your
I don't want to suppress talk, but you just seem confused .
twisting of what others post is in some way clever - it is pathetic - >>>>>>>you are
a
sociopath.
There are alot of things going on all of them with the aim of money and >>power grabbing by the elites. Check out the rabbit holes and do some >>thinking.
The not being able to discuss came from a stupid poster earlier in the
thread that said:
"Note - there is no bill in place, there is no brief or list of
intentions in place for the bill. There is no plan to change any damn
thing . . ."
I suspect that was from one of the National Party supporters whoI suspect you are paid to lie here.
recognise that while the issue is being pushed by the ACT party,
National see the concern over the proposals and would like to deny
there is an issue at all. As I have pointed out, the NZ Taxpayer Union >commissioned poll says that more Labour supporters want to have a
discussion on these issues than do National supporters.
We will not know how much priority the government is giving to the >preparation of a bill based on the "principals" set out by Seymour,
but if there is anything specific anyone would like to discuss then >nz.general is as good as anywhere! So to anyone calling for
discussion, bring it on! There are a few links above if anyone needs >something to start with . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:46:35 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,631 |