Discussion:
Agenda 2030
Add Reply
Tony
2020-11-17 19:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
James Christophers
2020-11-17 23:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna demagogues of his mouthy ilk.

Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
Tony
2020-11-18 00:47:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the
closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna
demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Criticising an article because you don't like the author is easy and absurd. As
someone I respected once said "Criticise the behaviour not the man", he did not
claim authorship of tghat truism.
Post by James Christophers
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following
fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable
fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
No thanks.
Rich80105
2020-11-18 02:24:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:47:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the
closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna
demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Criticising an article because you don't like the author is easy and absurd.
I doubt many would disagree with you on that, Tony, but the relevance
is a little obscure - you and James Christophers are the only previous
posters tot he thread, but there is no indication of whether either of
you like or dislike Muriel Newman; and certainly James Christophers
has not criticised her article on that basis, but on the merits or
otherwise of the article itself. You appear to be mis-representing
another poster; whether deliberately or for some other reason. Such
mis-representation is not equivalent to a valid argument, Tony.
Post by Tony
As
someone I respected once said "Criticise the behaviour not the man", he did not
claim authorship of tghat truism.
I note that you respect is given as being in the past tense; it is
unclear what you intended by that, but the truism is worth thinking
about; if irrelevant in the conext of the thread so far.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following
fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable
fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
No thanks.
Why not, Tony? The article you posted appears to be a gripe about
the government measuring a few more things than just GDP, with
reference to vague terms like socialist (for example do you agree that
Agenda 2030 is the UN's blueprint for modern socialism? - no
explanation for that statment is given . . .). In saying "She said her
Government would no longer rely on traditional measures of progress
such as ‘economic growth’" I suspect Newman was misrepresenting what
the Prime Mnister did say - my understanding is that GDP continues to
mbe measured and used, but not as teh only indicator. The comment
about not being able to speak one's mind does not appear to be
supported; I am not aware of anyone trying to prevent the publicaton
of the article by Newman, for example. The example of housing is
quite bizarre - as most New Zealanders know the issue became urgent
during the term of the last National-led governments, but was
consistently denied by those geovernments as being a problem, but the
origin of the problem is widely seen as going back to the neo-liberal
'reforms" of the 1984 Labour and subsequent Governments. ACT (to which
I believe Newman has a connection), can justifiably feel proud of
having acknowledged the problem before the National Party, but to now
link that issue to the current government's use of more than one
economic indictor does appear a bit shallow and facile. The thinnest
of neo-liberal gruel dioes seem to be fairly accurate, but if you
disagree I suggest you find something of substance in the article.

Overall I find it hard to see any coherent argument in the Newman
article for our government to change direction, or any indication of
just what alternative policies Newman would see as preferable.

The article posted by James Christophers does at least attempt to
identify cause and effect of the type of policies which it appears the
"NZ Centre for Political Research"

By dismissing the relevance and content of that article as you appear
to have done by your blunt "No thanks" may indicate that you were not
even willing to read the article - if you want nz.general to be an
exchange of ideas and relevant articles, in a polite atmosphere of
appropriate respect for the views of others, then some level of
engagement from you would be desirable, Tony.
John Bowes
2020-11-18 04:43:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:47:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the
closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna
demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Criticising an article because you don't like the author is easy and absurd.
I doubt many would disagree with you on that, Tony, but the relevance
is a little obscure - you and James Christophers are the only previous
posters tot he thread, but there is no indication of whether either of
you like or dislike Muriel Newman; and certainly James Christophers
has not criticised her article on that basis, but on the merits or
otherwise of the article itself. You appear to be mis-representing
another poster; whether deliberately or for some other reason. Such
mis-representation is not equivalent to a valid argument, Tony.
Post by Tony
As
someone I respected once said "Criticise the behaviour not the man", he did not
claim authorship of tghat truism.
I note that you respect is given as being in the past tense; it is
unclear what you intended by that, but the truism is worth thinking
about; if irrelevant in the conext of the thread so far.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following
fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable
fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
No thanks.
Why not, Tony? The article you posted appears to be a gripe about
the government measuring a few more things than just GDP, with
reference to vague terms like socialist (for example do you agree that
Agenda 2030 is the UN's blueprint for modern socialism? - no
explanation for that statment is given . . .). In saying "She said her
Government would no longer rely on traditional measures of progress
such as ‘economic growth’" I suspect Newman was misrepresenting what
the Prime Mnister did say - my understanding is that GDP continues to
mbe measured and used, but not as teh only indicator. The comment
about not being able to speak one's mind does not appear to be
supported; I am not aware of anyone trying to prevent the publicaton
of the article by Newman, for example. The example of housing is
quite bizarre - as most New Zealanders know the issue became urgent
during the term of the last National-led governments, but was
consistently denied by those geovernments as being a problem, but the
origin of the problem is widely seen as going back to the neo-liberal
'reforms" of the 1984 Labour and subsequent Governments. ACT (to which
I believe Newman has a connection), can justifiably feel proud of
having acknowledged the problem before the National Party, but to now
link that issue to the current government's use of more than one
economic indictor does appear a bit shallow and facile. The thinnest
of neo-liberal gruel dioes seem to be fairly accurate, but if you
disagree I suggest you find something of substance in the article.
Overall I find it hard to see any coherent argument in the Newman
article for our government to change direction, or any indication of
just what alternative policies Newman would see as preferable.
The article posted by James Christophers does at least attempt to
identify cause and effect of the type of policies which it appears the
"NZ Centre for Political Research"
By dismissing the relevance and content of that article as you appear
to have done by your blunt "No thanks" may indicate that you were not
even willing to read the article - if you want nz.general to be an
exchange of ideas and relevant articles, in a polite atmosphere of
appropriate respect for the views of others, then some level of
engagement from you would be desirable, Tony.
The UN is a useless Marxist organisation hell bent on using it's power to tell other country's they're failing their people. Funnily enough the people doing this tend to come from country's with a record of abuse of it's people going back to the dawn of recorded history. It's all about virtue signalling while doing the opposite of what it tells others to do. Much like you and Keith Rich.
James Christophers
2020-11-18 04:55:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:47:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the
closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna
demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Criticising an article because you don't like the author is easy and absurd.
I doubt many would disagree with you on that, Tony, but the relevance
is a little obscure - you and James Christophers are the only previous
posters tot he thread, but there is no indication of whether either of
you like or dislike Muriel Newman; and certainly James Christophers
has not criticised her article on that basis, but on the merits or
otherwise of the article itself.
Correct. It's called 'playing the ball, not the man'. To suggest otherwise in this instance is to be so blinded and deafened by one's own self-obsessed prejudices and preconceptions as to be bereft of rational judgement or critique.
Post by Rich80105
You appear to be mis-representing
another poster; whether deliberately or for some other reason. Such
mis-representation is not equivalent to a valid argument, Tony.
Which remark goes without saying.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
As
someone I respected once said "Criticise the behaviour not the man", he did not
claim authorship of tghat truism.
Why might he have?
Post by Rich80105
I note that your respect is given as being in the past tense; it is
unclear what you intended by that, but the truism is worth thinking
about; if irrelevant in the conext of the thread so far.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following
fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable
fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
No thanks.
Why not, Tony? The article you posted appears to be a gripe about
the government measuring a few more things than just GDP, with
reference to vague terms like socialist (for example do you agree that
Agenda 2030 is the UN's blueprint for modern socialism? - no
explanation for that statment is given . . .). In saying "She said her
Government would no longer rely on traditional measures of progress
such as ‘economic growth’" I suspect Newman was misrepresenting what
the Prime Mnister did say - my understanding is that GDP continues to
mbe measured and used, but not as the only indicator.
Correct. The Arden administration believes that an economy per se cannot be the only measure of a nation's overall wellbeing. I think her point is valid.
Post by Rich80105
The comment
about not being able to speak one's mind does not appear to be
supported;
I am not aware of anyone trying to prevent the publicaton
of the article by Newman, for example. The example of housing is
quite bizarre - as most New Zealanders know the issue became urgent
during the term of the last National-led governments,
Key exacerbated the problem by cynically refusing to address it, kneeling as he did to the greed-driven property/rentier base whose numbers represented the critical margin between electoral victory or defeat. The term for this is 'unenlightened self-interest'. Key's fatal moment resulted in this country being driven past the point of no return and on into an inexorably widening wealth gap, much of it now being prosecuted with relish by local and international property grabbers and wealth-extractors with as yet no sign of any legislation to control, let alone prevent or correct it.
Post by Rich80105
but was
consistently denied by those geovernments as being a problem, but the
origin of the problem is widely seen as going back to the neo-liberal
'reforms" of the 1984 Labour and subsequent Governments. ACT (to which
I believe Newman has a connection), can justifiably feel proud of
having acknowledged the problem before the National Party, but to now
link that issue to the current government's use of more than one
economic indictor does appear a bit shallow and facile.
Never forget that the core philosophy that drives neoliberalism is its claim uniquely to own "perfect knowledge" (Hayek et al). Once such a claim is made fact through its implementation, then everything is possible and nothing can be illegal under any administration that follows it. A thieves charter, no less. Douglas, Prebble, Richardson, Newman et al still kneel to this universally destructive aberration the wanton destroyer of lives. We have yet to see whether Seymour is truly of the same noxioous stripe.
Post by Rich80105
The thinnest
of neo-liberal gruel dioes seem to be fairly accurate, but if you
disagree I suggest you find something of substance in the article.
Overall I find it hard to see any coherent argument in the Newman
article for our government to change direction, or any indication of
just what alternative policies Newman would see as preferable.
The article posted by James Christophers does at least attempt to
identify cause and effect of the type of policies which it appears the
"NZ Centre for Political Research"
Monbiot gives the obverse view and from an infinitely wider and better informed perspective than Newman can never hope to share or emulate. Simply, she has neither the ingredients, nor the intellectual depth and honesty to do so.
Post by Rich80105
By dismissing the relevance and content of that article as you appear
to have done by your blunt "No thanks" may indicate that you were not
even willing to read the article - if you want nz.general to be an
exchange of ideas and relevant articles, in a polite atmosphere of
appropriate respect for the views of others, then some level of
engagement from you would be desirable, Tony.
greybeard
2020-11-19 00:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:47:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
The article posted by James Christophers does at least attempt to
identify cause and effect of the type of policies which it appears the
"NZ Centre for Political Research"
By dismissing the relevance and content of that article as you appear
to have done by your blunt "No thanks" may indicate that you were not
even willing to read the article - if you want nz.general to be an
exchange of ideas and relevant articles, in a polite atmosphere of
appropriate respect for the views of others, then some level of
engagement from you would be desirable, Tony.
We all know what neo-liberalism is. In NZ it's known as Rogernomics.
What the Lange government did.
Necessary reform done very badly and carelessly. Screwed the country.
And the Clark/Cullen maladministration did nothing to fix it. Preferring
Austerity to solving problems. Screwed the country for a pointless
lower fiscal deficit. The present administration is trending in the
same direction; authoritarian and miserable.
John Bowes
2020-11-19 03:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by greybeard
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:47:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
The article posted by James Christophers does at least attempt to
identify cause and effect of the type of policies which it appears the
"NZ Centre for Political Research"
By dismissing the relevance and content of that article as you appear
to have done by your blunt "No thanks" may indicate that you were not
even willing to read the article - if you want nz.general to be an
exchange of ideas and relevant articles, in a polite atmosphere of
appropriate respect for the views of others, then some level of
engagement from you would be desirable, Tony.
We all know what neo-liberalism is. In NZ it's known as Rogernomics.
What the Lange government did.
Necessary reform done very badly and carelessly. Screwed the country.
And the Clark/Cullen maladministration did nothing to fix it. Preferring
Austerity to solving problems. Screwed the country for a pointless
lower fiscal deficit. The present administration is trending in the
same direction; authoritarian and miserable.
Don't you mean totalitarian and stupid?
BR
2020-11-18 04:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
Every avoidable societal problem has the fingerprints of socialism all
over it.

Socialism is the politics of theft, gangsterism and and envy.

The Guardian is a shameless promoter of this evil ideology.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2020-11-18 07:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
Every avoidable societal problem has the fingerprints of socialism all
over it.
Socialism is the politics of theft, gangsterism and and envy.
What evidence do you base that view on, BR?
Post by BR
The Guardian is a shameless promoter of this evil ideology.
Do you have an example of the Guardian promoting any of these things,
BR?
Post by BR
Bill.
BR
2020-11-19 16:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/united-nations-agenda-2030/?fbclid=IwAR2y77MY13R3uRqGUQ7Qe9sA3YJFwUZqhXyDZ8k6dsi9CEujhBCxrJ9qkMY#more-33543
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passé prima donna demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
Every avoidable societal problem has the fingerprints of socialism all
over it.
Socialism is the politics of theft, gangsterism and and envy.
What evidence do you base that view on, BR?
Socialism involves the government's use of force to take the money
that peope have earned and hand it over to their own supporters, of
which many have no inclination to work and earn their own money, and
who, in spite of receiving money they have not earned, have no
gratitude towards those from whom the money was taken.
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
The Guardian is a shameless promoter of this evil ideology.
Do you have an example of the Guardian promoting any of these things,
BR?
The Guardian mostly promotes socialism. The link above is a typical
example.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
George
2020-11-18 18:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:19:38 +1300
Post by BR
Every avoidable societal problem has the fingerprints of socialism all
over it.
Socialism is the politics of theft, gangsterism and and envy.
The Guardian is a shameless promoter of this evil ideology.
all media currently has an agenda and that does not include right or
white
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-11-18 19:17:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:19:38 +1300
Post by BR
Every avoidable societal problem has the fingerprints of socialism all
over it.
Socialism is the politics of theft, gangsterism and and envy.
The Guardian is a shameless promoter of this evil ideology.
all media currently has an agenda and that does not include right or
white
The urls posted by Tony and James, together with the discussions
covered a range of views, George - its not clear what you are looking
for, but I see little media agenda in either the initial or subsequent
posts. Perhaps you should just give your views . . .
John Bowes
2020-11-18 20:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:19:38 +1300
Post by BR
Every avoidable societal problem has the fingerprints of socialism all
over it.
Socialism is the politics of theft, gangsterism and and envy.
The Guardian is a shameless promoter of this evil ideology.
all media currently has an agenda and that does not include right or
white
The urls posted by Tony and James, together with the discussions
covered a range of views, George - its not clear what you are looking
for, but I see little media agenda in either the initial or subsequent
posts. Perhaps you should just give your views . . .
What is needed Rich, is you acquiring some comprehension. Your red tinted view on the world will only end in misery for those who need help not platitudes or virtue signalling lies!
Loading...