• Treaty Bill hearings of 80 hours underway

    From Gordon@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 27 04:12:48 2025
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540018/watch-live-select-committee-treaty-principles-bill-submissions-hearings-begin

    Just had a drop in for a a short while.

    The views go all over the spectrum. From logical to the illogical, of
    showing a mis-understanding of the aims of the Bill. (I guess this was
    common knowledge to the average Kiwi with an interest in this)

    From the points that I think most Kiwis would agree with to a very narrow
    view point which is a a wide ranging subject.

    New Zealand does need a civilised discussion and a referendum. Maybe ACT's Bill has
    gone some way to achieve this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to Gordon on Mon Jan 27 22:10:17 2025
    On 27 Jan 2025 04:12:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540018/watch-live-select-committee-treaty-principles-bill-submissions-hearings-begin

    Just had a drop in for a a short while.

    The views go all over the spectrum. From logical to the illogical, of
    showing a mis-understanding of the aims of the Bill. (I guess this was
    common knowledge to the average Kiwi with an interest in this)

    From the points that I think most Kiwis would agree with to a very narrow >view point which is a a wide ranging subject.

    What points do you think most Kiwis would agree with, Gordon?

    Many would have watched or listened to David Seymour - I agree he had
    a very narrow viewpoint, and the aim he expressed for the bill was not
    very clear at all, but I thought he did better than Farrar, who
    appeared to be trying to agree with both the National Party and ACT
    Party views, and succeeded only in coming across as very confused.

    Chris Finlayson spoke very well as he always has, but both he and the
    Labour ex-Treaty Minister had a common view that the proposed
    legislation is deeply wrong - a view shared in different ways by most
    speakers. Both Seymour and Farrar will have been two of the three that
    ACT was able to invite - or perhaps with Seymour being the Minister
    they were able to get two others to speak, but I was not able to
    identify anyone else that supported the legislation - but then I
    missed a couple of hours of the live broadcast - can anyone identify
    any other speakers that supported the bill?


    New Zealand does need a civilised discussion and a referendum. Maybe ACT's Bill has
    gone some way to achieve this.

    Oh I think it did better than that - there really is no need for
    further discussion surely?
    Still Seymour seem to think the money worth spending - the cost of
    just one day of the Select Committee must have been enormous - keeping
    it going for months longer will be hard, although embarrassing Luxon
    for being so weak as to allow it to fester may have been one of the
    aims all along - ACT does want to take over from National as the main
    advocate for the wealthy donors on the far right . . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jan 27 19:21:38 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 27 Jan 2025 04:12:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540018/watch-live-select-committee-treaty-principles-bill-submissions-hearings-begin

    Just had a drop in for a a short while.

    The views go all over the spectrum. From logical to the illogical, of >>showing a mis-understanding of the aims of the Bill. (I guess this was >>common knowledge to the average Kiwi with an interest in this)

    From the points that I think most Kiwis would agree with to a very narrow >>view point which is a a wide ranging subject.

    What points do you think most Kiwis would agree with, Gordon?

    Many would have watched or listened to David Seymour - I agree he had
    a very narrow viewpoint, and the aim he expressed for the bill was not
    very clear at all, but I thought he did better than Farrar, who
    appeared to be trying to agree with both the National Party and ACT
    Party views, and succeeded only in coming across as very confused.

    Chris Finlayson spoke very well as he always has, but both he and the
    Labour ex-Treaty Minister had a common view that the proposed
    legislation is deeply wrong - a view shared in different ways by most >speakers. Both Seymour and Farrar will have been two of the three that
    ACT was able to invite - or perhaps with Seymour being the Minister
    they were able to get two others to speak, but I was not able to
    identify anyone else that supported the legislation - but then I
    missed a couple of hours of the live broadcast - can anyone identify
    any other speakers that supported the bill?


    New Zealand does need a civilised discussion and a referendum. Maybe ACT's >>Bill has
    gone some way to achieve this.

    Oh I think it did better than that - there really is no need for
    further discussion surely?
    Still Seymour seem to think the money worth spending - the cost of
    just one day of the Select Committee must have been enormous - keeping
    it going for months longer will be hard, although embarrassing Luxon
    for being so weak as to allow it to fester may have been one of the
    aims all along - ACT does want to take over from National as the main >advocate for the wealthy donors on the far right . . . .
    Noted, that you don't believe we should spend money on democratic process, no surprise of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mutley@21:1/5 to Tony on Tue Jan 28 09:58:16 2025
    Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 27 Jan 2025 04:12:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540018/watch-live-select-committee-treaty-principles-bill-submissions-hearings-begin

    Just had a drop in for a a short while.

    The views go all over the spectrum. From logical to the illogical, of >>>showing a mis-understanding of the aims of the Bill. (I guess this was >>>common knowledge to the average Kiwi with an interest in this)

    From the points that I think most Kiwis would agree with to a very narrow >>>view point which is a a wide ranging subject.

    What points do you think most Kiwis would agree with, Gordon?

    Many would have watched or listened to David Seymour - I agree he had
    a very narrow viewpoint, and the aim he expressed for the bill was not
    very clear at all, but I thought he did better than Farrar, who
    appeared to be trying to agree with both the National Party and ACT
    Party views, and succeeded only in coming across as very confused.

    Chris Finlayson spoke very well as he always has, but both he and the >>Labour ex-Treaty Minister had a common view that the proposed
    legislation is deeply wrong - a view shared in different ways by most >>speakers. Both Seymour and Farrar will have been two of the three that
    ACT was able to invite - or perhaps with Seymour being the Minister
    they were able to get two others to speak, but I was not able to
    identify anyone else that supported the legislation - but then I
    missed a couple of hours of the live broadcast - can anyone identify
    any other speakers that supported the bill?


    New Zealand does need a civilised discussion and a referendum. Maybe ACT's >>>Bill has
    gone some way to achieve this.

    Oh I think it did better than that - there really is no need for
    further discussion surely?
    Still Seymour seem to think the money worth spending - the cost of
    just one day of the Select Committee must have been enormous - keeping
    it going for months longer will be hard, although embarrassing Luxon
    for being so weak as to allow it to fester may have been one of the
    aims all along - ACT does want to take over from National as the main >>advocate for the wealthy donors on the far right . . . .
    Noted, that you don't believe we should spend money on democratic process, no >surprise of course.

    Of course Rich does not support the democratic process. He's a
    marxist supporter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 28 15:08:27 2025
    On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 09:58:16 +1300, Mutley <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 27 Jan 2025 04:12:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540018/watch-live-select-committee-treaty-principles-bill-submissions-hearings-begin

    Just had a drop in for a a short while.

    The views go all over the spectrum. From logical to the illogical, of >>>>showing a mis-understanding of the aims of the Bill. (I guess this was >>>>common knowledge to the average Kiwi with an interest in this)

    From the points that I think most Kiwis would agree with to a very narrow >>>>view point which is a a wide ranging subject.

    What points do you think most Kiwis would agree with, Gordon?

    Many would have watched or listened to David Seymour - I agree he had
    a very narrow viewpoint, and the aim he expressed for the bill was not >>>very clear at all, but I thought he did better than Farrar, who
    appeared to be trying to agree with both the National Party and ACT
    Party views, and succeeded only in coming across as very confused.

    Chris Finlayson spoke very well as he always has, but both he and the >>>Labour ex-Treaty Minister had a common view that the proposed
    legislation is deeply wrong - a view shared in different ways by most >>>speakers. Both Seymour and Farrar will have been two of the three that >>>ACT was able to invite - or perhaps with Seymour being the Minister
    they were able to get two others to speak, but I was not able to
    identify anyone else that supported the legislation - but then I
    missed a couple of hours of the live broadcast - can anyone identify
    any other speakers that supported the bill?


    New Zealand does need a civilised discussion and a referendum. Maybe ACT's >>>>Bill has
    gone some way to achieve this.

    Oh I think it did better than that - there really is no need for
    further discussion surely?
    Still Seymour seem to think the money worth spending - the cost of
    just one day of the Select Committee must have been enormous - keeping
    it going for months longer will be hard, although embarrassing Luxon
    for being so weak as to allow it to fester may have been one of the
    aims all along - ACT does want to take over from National as the main >>>advocate for the wealthy donors on the far right . . . .
    Noted, that you don't believe we should spend money on democratic process, no >>surprise of course.

    Of course Rich does not support the democratic process. He's a
    marxist supporter.

    That is stupid - there are no political parties that support Marxism,
    although ACT is the most extreme authoritarian party.

    The democratic process is being followed - but poor Luxon made a
    mistake in the coalition agreement, and then a further mistake in
    agreeing to waste so much money on six months for select committee
    hearings - which hopefully can be shortened when the only people
    wanting to speak have nothing new to say.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Jan 28 02:57:13 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 09:58:16 +1300, Mutley <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 27 Jan 2025 04:12:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540018/watch-live-select-committee-treaty-principles-bill-submissions-hearings-begin

    Just had a drop in for a a short while.

    The views go all over the spectrum. From logical to the illogical, of >>>>>showing a mis-understanding of the aims of the Bill. (I guess this was >>>>>common knowledge to the average Kiwi with an interest in this)

    From the points that I think most Kiwis would agree with to a very narrow >>>>>view point which is a a wide ranging subject.

    What points do you think most Kiwis would agree with, Gordon?

    Many would have watched or listened to David Seymour - I agree he had
    a very narrow viewpoint, and the aim he expressed for the bill was not >>>>very clear at all, but I thought he did better than Farrar, who >>>>appeared to be trying to agree with both the National Party and ACT >>>>Party views, and succeeded only in coming across as very confused.

    Chris Finlayson spoke very well as he always has, but both he and the >>>>Labour ex-Treaty Minister had a common view that the proposed >>>>legislation is deeply wrong - a view shared in different ways by most >>>>speakers. Both Seymour and Farrar will have been two of the three that >>>>ACT was able to invite - or perhaps with Seymour being the Minister >>>>they were able to get two others to speak, but I was not able to >>>>identify anyone else that supported the legislation - but then I
    missed a couple of hours of the live broadcast - can anyone identify >>>>any other speakers that supported the bill?


    New Zealand does need a civilised discussion and a referendum. Maybe ACT's >>>>>Bill has
    gone some way to achieve this.

    Oh I think it did better than that - there really is no need for >>>>further discussion surely?
    Still Seymour seem to think the money worth spending - the cost of
    just one day of the Select Committee must have been enormous - keeping >>>>it going for months longer will be hard, although embarrassing Luxon >>>>for being so weak as to allow it to fester may have been one of the >>>>aims all along - ACT does want to take over from National as the main >>>>advocate for the wealthy donors on the far right . . . .
    Noted, that you don't believe we should spend money on democratic process, >>>no
    surprise of course.

    Of course Rich does not support the democratic process. He's a
    marxist supporter.

    That is stupid
    No you are stupid.
    - there are no political parties that support Marxism,
    Yes there are and in this country, both Labour's extreme left wing and the Green party are obviously maxist. After all, Ardern was and is a self proclaimed marxist - do grow some semblance of integrity.

    although ACT is the most extreme authoritarian party.
    Pathetically funny, not in a million years compared to the Greens.

    The democratic process is being followed - but poor Luxon made a
    mistake in the coalition agreement, and then a further mistake in
    agreeing to waste so much money on six months for select committee
    hearings - which hopefully can be shortened when the only people
    wanting to speak have nothing new to say.
    Which is exactly what he must do because unlike you he supports democratic process - you want to shut down discussion just because you dosagree with the other side's opinions.
    So no waste of money - democracy writ large as it must be.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)