Comments by "John Donwood" (@johndonwood4305) on "1News" channel.

  1. 72
  2. 44
  3. 33
  4. 32
  5. 24
  6. 20
  7. 16
  8. 14
  9. 14
  10. 14
  11. 12
  12. 12
  13. 11
  14. 10
  15. 10
  16. 9
  17. It was never about free speech or hate speech but ALL speech. Soon there will be NO speech which is what they want. The fact that the media is exact about the number of protesters on either side exposes the possibility that the protesters were paid actors also known as 'crisis' actors. If the protest is legitimate, why aren't police officers pulling the two gentlemen apart at the start? Why aren't they being tackled and cuffed? Why are cameramen circling the two men? The cameramen shouldn't be too close or they'd be in danger. If the 'free speech' protesters are legitimate, then why are their protest signs written in tune with typical free speech arguments such as "Wake up", "multiculturalism is evil", or the use of quotes and photos of Orwell? Why aren't the signs naming those really in power? Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros? It's almost like the 'free speech' protestors are controlled opposition, they're protesting to stand up for free speech, but not too far that it exposes how fake the protest is. Where are the rows of arrested individuals sitting on the ground with their wrists tied with those plastic ties behind their backs like at the TPP signing protest? Regardless, racial abuse is unacceptable, but for the sake of a healthy, working "democracy", some degree of discussion about race is inevitable and indeed necessary given New Zealand's past. Those who wish to impose their ideological straitjacket on others should make sure that they themselves do not harbour any prejudice against others in whatever way or that would be hypocrisy. Now New Zealand played right into the hands of the globalists who want censorship everywhere. As O'Brien says to Winston Smith: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— for ever". Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.
    9
  18. 8
  19. 7
  20. 7
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. Martin Smith Those are some valid points. On the one hand you deny that Winston is a "nationalist". Yet on the other hand, you accuse Labour and the Greens of being "Marxists". Let me ask you this, if Winston went with National, would you have accused Winston of being a fascist, corporate pig? No government is ever going to satisfy a nation. The benefit of MMP is that no one party is able to govern alone, so that a wide range of parties with differing views and perspectives have to cooperate in order to govern to some degree of efficiency. By the same token, it also means that ideologies such as the ones you mentioned, are not taken too far that it harms the country. National does not want to share power. The fact is, New Zealand has never truly practiced socialism nor purely conservatism, but we have state socialism and state conservatism and both of these ideologies are the remains of the strong liberal heritage that goes back to the 1890-1910s. That's also why people can't tell the difference between Labour and National, because they exert their authority on society through their state owned enterprises. That's why Labour and National have both pursued liberal policies and even neoliberal policies, because both parties trace their history back to the Liberal government. The two party system is failing. Now Winston is a utilitarian as he believes in the greatest good for the greatest number and I agree with this. I believe in Winston through his deeds, not words or ideologies for that matter.
    5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4