Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > New UBS plan - 512kbps Upload

Reply
Thread Tools

New UBS plan - 512kbps Upload

 
 
John B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2006

"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers>
wrote in message

> We elect a government at election time on whatever basis each
> voter
> chooses to make his/her vote.


We don't. You speak for yourself you presumptuous ****.

> That varies a LOT. But then they have
> a mandate to go and govern the country. They are expected to
> keep
> true to their philosophies, and as much as possible keep to
> promises
> made at election time. But even hard promises can be overtaken
> by
> circumstances - if the price of oil went up to 10x its current
> price,
> I would expect that any government would have to put off or
> cancel
> expensive promises as the economy nosedived, for example.
>
> And our government is as answerable to the courts as any other.
> What
> we do not have is a constitution in the form the US does, which
> overrides all other law and provides the US courts the ability
> to
> declare normal laws unconstitutional. In many ways, that can
> be a
> good thing, as it allows us to change our laws with the times.
> The US
> rate of gun deaths is largely attributable to the clause in
> their
> constitution that does not easily allow their proper control.
> Compare
> that to how easily our government changes gun laws, as and when
> necessary.
>
> The bottom line is that parliament is sovereign. They make the
> laws.
> If they step out of line too far, then they will be punished
> come next
> election. And maybe an election will come early if some MPs
> desert
> the government. But until the election, they can make whatever
> laws
> that can get a parliamentary majority. If they want to pass a
> law to
> unbundle Telecom, their is no legal impediment. It would need
> to be
> considered how overseas investors would view this, and how much
> compensation might need to be paid, but if parliament chose, no
> compensation need be paid. Even if there was a law now that
> said that
> compensation needed to be paid in such circumstances,
> parliament would
> be perfectly able to pass a law that overrode that. That is
> the
> definition of sovereignty - there is no higher authority.


Yes there is. I am a higher authority than anything or anyone as
far as my life goes. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it
dumbo.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers says...
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:09:40 +1300, Rob J
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:31:30 +1300, Rob J wrote:
> >>
> >> > Socialists like you
> >> > (a) loathe capitalist businesses
> >> > (b) believe in the absolute right of government especially when it comes
> >> > to attacking businesses.
> >>
> >> In NZ the NZ government is sovereign. That means the NZ government DOES
> >> have the absolute right to do what it pleases, of course with the people's
> >> consent.

> >
> >That consent is never sought except at election time. That makes the
> >actions of the government undemocratic the rest of the time.
> >
> >We should have the government answerable to the courts like they do in
> >the US.

>
> Good grief! You expect the parties to lay out all the policies and
> legislation proposed in their next term of office, in full detail,
> before each election? Are you insane? Even if they could do this,
> and we voters could read the entire mountain of it, how would the
> government cope when something unexpected happens?
>
> We elect a government at election time on whatever basis each voter
> chooses to make his/her vote. That varies a LOT. But then they have
> a mandate to go and govern the country. They are expected to keep
> true to their philosophies, and as much as possible keep to promises
> made at election time. But even hard promises can be overtaken by
> circumstances - if the price of oil went up to 10x its current price,
> I would expect that any government would have to put off or cancel
> expensive promises as the economy nosedived, for example.
>
> And our government is as answerable to the courts as any other. What
> we do not have is a constitution in the form the US does, which
> overrides all other law and provides the US courts the ability to
> declare normal laws unconstitutional. In many ways, that can be a
> good thing, as it allows us to change our laws with the times. The US
> rate of gun deaths is largely attributable to the clause in their
> constitution that does not easily allow their proper control.


Utter crap.

Most gun deaths in the US are from criminal activities. Criminals have
never had any trouble getting guns in any country regardless of what gun
laws they have in place.

> Compare
> that to how easily our government changes gun laws, as and when
> necessary.
>
> The bottom line is that parliament is sovereign. They make the laws.
> If they step out of line too far, then they will be punished come next
> election. And maybe an election will come early if some MPs desert
> the government. But until the election, they can make whatever laws
> that can get a parliamentary majority. If they want to pass a law to
> unbundle Telecom, their is no legal impediment. It would need to be
> considered how overseas investors would view this, and how much
> compensation might need to be paid, but if parliament chose, no
> compensation need be paid. Even if there was a law now that said that
> compensation needed to be paid in such circumstances, parliament would
> be perfectly able to pass a law that overrode that. That is the
> definition of sovereignty - there is no higher authority.


And that shows that Parliament has far too much power.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger Johnstone
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
In <(E-Mail Removed)> Rob J wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers says...
>>
>> And our government is as answerable to the courts as any other. What
>> we do not have is a constitution in the form the US does, which
>> overrides all other law and provides the US courts the ability to
>> declare normal laws unconstitutional. In many ways, that can be a
>> good thing, as it allows us to change our laws with the times. The
>> US rate of gun deaths is largely attributable to the clause in their
>> constitution that does not easily allow their proper control.

>
> Utter crap.
>
> Most gun deaths in the US are from criminal activities.


Actually a bit more than 50% of gun deaths in the USA are from suicide.
Although if suicide is illegal in the USA I suppose you could include
that under criminal activities.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://roger.geek.nz/
__________________________________________________ ______________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
On 27 Feb 2006 09:16:21 GMT, Roger Johnstone <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In <(E-Mail Removed)> Rob J wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> (E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers says...
>>>
>>> And our government is as answerable to the courts as any other. What
>>> we do not have is a constitution in the form the US does, which
>>> overrides all other law and provides the US courts the ability to
>>> declare normal laws unconstitutional. In many ways, that can be a
>>> good thing, as it allows us to change our laws with the times. The
>>> US rate of gun deaths is largely attributable to the clause in their
>>> constitution that does not easily allow their proper control.

>>
>> Utter crap.
>>
>> Most gun deaths in the US are from criminal activities.

>
>Actually a bit more than 50% of gun deaths in the USA are from suicide.
>Although if suicide is illegal in the USA I suppose you could include
>that under criminal activities.


And then add on the deaths due to accidental shootings of family
members by each other, and shootings of family members by their own
guns used by criminals, both of which are caused simply by the guns
being in the house and not under proper lock and key. As a result of
weak gun laws.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:09:40 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J didst
> scrawl:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...

> *SNIP*
> > We should have the government answerable to the courts like they do in
> > the US.

>
> Say what? The US Government is answerable to the courts? On which planet?


On the planet of Earth.

> The courts can tell the Government that a law is not constitutional, and
> the Government can then go away and re-draft the law to either be
> "constitutional" or to simply remove the power of objection from the
> courts.


Yes. It is a much bigger issue than you pretend with your sneering
contempt for freedom and democratic accountability.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jerry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Matthew Poole wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:09:40 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J didst
> scrawl:
>
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...

>
> *SNIP*
>
>>We should have the government answerable to the courts like they do in
>>the US.

>
>
> Say what? The US Government is answerable to the courts? On which planet?
> The courts can tell the Government that a law is not constitutional, and
> the Government can then go away and re-draft the law to either be
> "constitutional" or to simply remove the power of objection from the
> courts.
>

In the US system, the Supreme Court is part of the government. The
government consists of a legislative, judicial and judicial branch. The
Supreme Court is the Judicial branch of government.

Neither the legislative or executive branch can remove any power from
the Supreme Court.

The constitution can be amended but it is not an easy process.

A law "re-drafted" is a different law then, isn't it?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:12:39 +1300, Rob J wrote:

>> The courts can tell the Government that a law is not constitutional, and
>> the Government can then go away and re-draft the law to either be
>> "constitutional" or to simply remove the power of objection from the
>> courts.

>
> Yes. It is a much bigger issue than you pretend with your sneering
> contempt for freedom and democratic accountability.


The USA is not a democracy - and it never has been! It is a republic.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Buffer-overflow vulnerabilities are simply programming errors; they occur when
coders fail to deploy proper memory-management techniques.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:40:13 +1300, Jerry wrote:

> A law "re-drafted" is a different law then, isn't it?


Surely it's just a different draft of the same law. ;o)


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
In article <44040c5e$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> Matthew Poole wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:09:40 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J didst
> > scrawl:
> >
> >
> >>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...

> >
> > *SNIP*
> >
> >>We should have the government answerable to the courts like they do in
> >>the US.

> >
> >
> > Say what? The US Government is answerable to the courts? On which planet?
> > The courts can tell the Government that a law is not constitutional, and
> > the Government can then go away and re-draft the law to either be
> > "constitutional" or to simply remove the power of objection from the
> > courts.
> >

> In the US system, the Supreme Court is part of the government. The
> government consists of a legislative, judicial and judicial branch. The
> Supreme Court is the Judicial branch of government.
>
> Neither the legislative or executive branch can remove any power from
> the Supreme Court.
>
> The constitution can be amended but it is not an easy process.
>
> A law "re-drafted" is a different law then, isn't it?


You can't expect any socialist to tell the truth about the US. They all
hate the fact that the government hasn't got unbridled power, yet they
all rant on and on about how much they hate Bush etc etc.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New releases: Game Plan, Daddy Day Camp & Curb Your Enthusiasm: Updated complete R1 DVD DB & info lists Doug MacLean DVD Video 0 11-13-2007 09:52 PM
Is it possible to get a ubs residental plan on a telecom businessline > Jeremy NZ Computing 10 08-22-2005 09:27 AM
anyone can explain to me about UBS and non-UBS? AT NZ Computing 9 12-15-2004 01:46 AM
UBS & new Telecom plans Paul NZ Computing 14 10-29-2004 11:26 PM
New retirement plan cimetière Computer Support 5 06-04-2004 12:28 AM



Advertisments