Post by James Christophers Post by Tony Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 23 May 2021 19:26:34 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105 Post by George Black Post by Tony
You really are an abusive little prick.
You were, as usual, the first to be abusive and I have responded in kind
despite my having much greater tolerance than you.
You changed the subject, deliberately. You know it, I know it and no
cosmos is listening in (because you are so important to humankind).
Now piss off you snivelling little jerk.
Evidently Rawiri Whaititi was to toxic for liebor and was removed from
You may however invoke the ire of Tony as the self-appointed usenet
equivalent of Rawiri Waititi
You jest surely, that is yourself Rich old sport. Self appointed liar, defamer,
sarcasm expert and downright smelly piece of excrement.
Post by Rich80105
- he may well object to your reminding us
that Waititi's vehement pursuit of the interests of those who voted
for him rather than the general good of society, Waititi is similar in
many respects to the pursuit by
by Labour in their pursuit of the unions whether fair or foul, simply by rote.
Are you talking here about the Taxpayers Union? They are (slowly)
paying back the subsidies that turned out not to have been justified .
No and you know it. I am talking about the trade unions that Labour sucks up to.
The New Zealand Labour Party formed in 1916 out of various socialist parties
and worker unions, these worker unions having developed during the later 1800s
in response to worker exploitation by the boss sector of the newly established
colony. Ironically, this proletarian "ruling class" system originated from
none other than the tens of thousands of class-oppressed, lower-order
immigrants recently made surplus to requirements through Britain's rapidly
modernising industrial development during the 1800s.
In New Zealand, across-the-board British cultural and societal laws and mores
quickly took root - IOW, from the get-go, a primus-inter-pares pecking order
quickly established itself as soon as the first opportunist found and persuaded
others to help develop and apply the means to do so, this behaviour being but
one of Nature's immutable laws.
So, John Bowes may vomit all the bile he cares to during his routine spasms of
union-bashing; but by doing so he disowns and disavows his very own immigrant
forebears - of whom he has spoken with such fulsome reverence more than once -
who, as a result of their struggles to gain their hard-won improved working
conditions bequeathed to John Bowes, both a nation and a society that has -
without fail - clothed, fed, sheltered and protected him since that very first
day when he had a go at biting the midwife's fingers.
I am not qualified or prepared to discuss what others believe about unions. I
am not and never have been a union basher. As I wrote elsewhere I have often
encouraged people, usually my staff, to join one if they wish to.
than the relationship that National have with their supporting organisations.
But it is a fact that Labour and unions rely heavily on each other.
never did. I was also well aware that I would be extremely reluctant to strike
if called upon to do so. I am however absolutely opposed to compulsory union