My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Is this the collapse of the US Democratic Party? | Main | Will the UN get Molly's mother back to her? »

Comments

fugley

andrei, it is rare I agree with you, so to stick with form, I won't agree on this.

MMP is not fundamentally flawed, it is anti-democratic. I wasn't living here at the time, but am astounded that the sheeple could have been presuaded it had any merit at all.

MMP is the least democratic form of parliamentary represenation I can think of.

John Boy

I smell a rat to some degree in that these people may be simply trying have a bob each way. Them voting against it may make no difference to the actual outcome but makes them look good.

They get what they want ( a stupid law change) while the sheeple think they are nice and will vote for them or their party again so they keep their job.

If it was really a knife edge balance I wonder if we would see this.

I agree with F re MMP. Regrettably I'm not sure anything works anymore - we have effectively lost control by allowing the servant to be in charge. Divide and conquer still works.

Psycho Milt

"Lost control" implies that we had control at some previous point. I can recall no point in my lifetime where the "servant" was not very much in charge. This supposed servant is in fact far less in charge under MMP than under FPP, which I find to be a good thing. Perhaps the rest of you are too young to recall Piggy Muldoon turning up on TV one night and announcing he'd decided there was going to be a wage/price freeze - presumably he'd gotten pissed with his cabinet mates the night before and they'd dared him to do it or something. That sort of thing doesn't happen now, and can't. Thank you MMP.

Peter

Sounds more likely that the National Party Whips have been getting them into line.

Had thought Paul Huchison was stronger than that.

Good on Katherine Rich, in spite of threats to her from opponents of Sue Bradford.

All MPs are there to make best legislation. The masses don't understand this useful legislation

ZenTiger

This legislation is not "best" by any stretch of the imagination.

Some MP's are there only to push an ideological agenda. The bulk of the population realise this.

peter

Zen Tiger

So you are not ideological.

On the contrary, those that are promoting change are the pragmatic people, Looking at an issue strictly on its merits.

It is right wing Christian fundamentalists that have the unbending ideology. Basically no social progress wanted. Cave men and cave women.

Psycho Milt

Are the rest of you sure he's not a Labour foot soldier?

The fact that Christians have an unbending ideology is a bit of a "Well, duh-uh" Peter. This concept of social progress needs a bit of explaining though - I was under the impression that social progress involved net increases in human freedom, but the current govt seems to place a higher value on crap like banning smoking, stopping parents smacking their kids or quacking on about "hate speech". None of these constitute social progress by any reasonable definition of the term. Come back with your "social progress" bollocks when the govt actually comes up with something that increases people's freedom.

carol

Guys here is a neat Website about these kind of things.

http://liberallatte.blogspot.com/index.html

Quite good thinking here

Paula

Yes Peter, thoe old fundamentalists with the unbending theology, with no social progress.

OK Peter...go for it. spread your ideology.
Bring in on Peter....
Ban marriage between men and women, let it only be between men with men and woman with women, oh, and lets not leave the animals out, they need love too, right Peter.
They have a right to be loved...Rebecca Loos knew that, when she 'loved' the pig on TV.
Yes, Peter, bring it on.
Do not let us slide back
into decancy, it is so old
fashioned and restricting.

peter

I like freedom too. It is great to have shared airspaces at work FREE of tobacco smoke - not to mention buses, restaurants, and schools. An excellent example of increasing rights of smokers.

Extreme right Christian fundamentalists promote one kind of freedom - freedom for all New Zealanders to be Christians!!!!

Sorry that is far too limiting for everyone else.
It would be a recipe for disaster in any case. There are lots of people who want to be free from religious ideology.

The point I made earlier is my main one though. Social progress does not necessarily bring more freedom for everyone. It may increase social justice for one group. while limiting freedom for another./

Should an employer be FREE to engage slave labour?


peter

I like freedom too. It is great to have shared airspaces at work FREE of tobacco smoke - not to mention buses, restaurants, and schools. An excellent example of increasing rights of smokers.

Extreme right Christian fundamentalists promote one kind of freedom - freedom for all New Zealanders to be Christians!!!!

Sorry that is far too limiting for everyone else.
It would be a recipe for disaster in any case. There are lots of people who want to be free from religious ideology.

The point I made earlier is my main one though. Social progress does not necessarily bring more freedom for everyone. It may increase social justice for one group. while limiting freedom for another./

Should an employer be FREE to engage slave labour?


dad4justice

From one peter to another can I ask you a question please ? Are you by any chance coming down from olanzapine theraphy following a trial of risperdone ? I think you suffer from first episode schizophrenia or related psychoses , however you are called peter , nice touch snake .

fugley

jesusonaskateboard dad, can I have a puff of what you're smoking?

Sure beats relaITY

dad4justice

Your abhorrent statement is not from a sane person .I smoke Port Royal with filters why ?

ZenTiger

Wow Peter. How do you go from banning a smack in discipline to the imaginary political aims of "extreme right Christian Fundamentalists"?

We were talking about a badly worded bill that has gone through several convoluted and poorly phrased attempts at trying to hoodwink a significant proportion of the NZ population, that trys to make out a smack given as a disciplinary measure to ones child, who parents typically love more than anything else in the world, and making out a smack is legally equivalent to violent assault with a baseball bat to some imaginary political manifesto of 1% of the population.

If you want to make stupid statements like "should an employer be FREE to engage in slave labour" why not other statements like "should the state be FREE to remove children from parents on the suspicion of the child receiving a smack" or should the government be FREE to ban meat pies (their latest brilliant idea). Or should the government be FREE to kill people randomly if they dont pay 80% of their income in taxes?

Banning a smack is not social justice. It's ideological stupidity and intolerance showing an inability to comprehend that there are many valid ways of applying discipline and teaching children. Any methods, used to an extreme can be abusive and destructive. This bill is all about intolerance to a valid belief set. Quoting the end of slavery as somehow related to banning smacking is ridiculous. But of course, as a true believer of the evils of a smack, I obviously have sinned for even suggesting otherwise.

Couple of questions while you happen to be reading this Peter:

1. Do you believe I'm an extreme right wing Christian Fundamentalist, by any chance?

2. Do you have kids?

peter

No Zen Tiger, I think you are in the middle of the political spectrum, along with me.

It is quite coincidental that you constantly agree with extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists!

dad4justice

Peter , what are " Christian fundamentalists!"

???

peter

A Christian fundamentalist believes in the literal truth of the Bible - Genesis, Noah, prophecies, virgin birth, resurrection, Revelation. The whole lot.

I have just googled for further enlightenment the string "Christian fundamentalist" - here is what I found. It seems pertinent to this forum:

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~nogods/wishart.html

carol

Thats what I thought it meant too.

More recognition for Ian on the link here too.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~nogods/wishart.html

peasant

Users of the pejorative term "fundamentalist" reveal their inability & unwillingness to comprehend any belief system that challenges their comfortable, self-satisfied collection of prejudices and groupthink propaganda. I would hate to be trapped in your circular little mind

The comments to this entry are closed.