Posts by Don Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Has anyone check to see where this number come from?
Yes, some friends of Families First who popped over from Scandinavia recently making all sorts of claims. Most of which have been discredited by people back in Scandinavia.
That Rankin is willing to tout this rubbish is interesting, to say the least.
Garth George does a good job of putting together various FF press releases and passing it off as his own work. You can Google the various folk he quotes. This includes the Nordic Committee for Human Rights. Just see how much credibility Rankin has wrapped herself.
-
Actually, it's rather funny how many prominent abolitionists, suffragettes and folks in the US civil rights movement would probably be derided nowadays as Bible-thumping Jesus freaks who should STFU with all the God crap.
Craig, I doubt it. They were from a long and honourable line of Christian social democrats. Nothing particularly bible thumping, just a belief in world that they believed (and still believe) reflected the teachings of Jesus and the will of God.
-
No doubt Mr. Cook will find an opening waiting for him at "Investigate".
I wonder if Helen Clark harbours similar feelings of mixed emotion towards Sue Bradford and her little gift of socially progressive legislation.
It is ironic given Clark has made GW the main policy plank of this Government that it is the Greens of all people who have managed to side track the vision.
There is a certain self-indulgence and lack of strategic discipline about the Green Party that must really get under the skin of those that are, at least on paper, their natural allies.
Which is not to say the Section 59 amendment is not a good thing, its just not all that important.
-
I forgot "Lord Jim" by Conrad which was mentioned in disdain here a while back. A must read for every namby pamby do-gooder liberal whith delusions of glory.
I love that book.
-
I find it equally nauseating when people who are fundamentally illiberal pretend a liberal face
Bingo.
as a gay man with a sense of history, I know the fight for homosexual law reform began long before Fran Wilde put the Homosexual Law Reform Bill into the member's ballot. It was the work of people who made an argument one bloody, painful step at a time over years. Ditto for women's suffrage, the battle to abolish the slave trade in Britian (a bicentennial worth celebrating BTW), the struggle for civil rights in the United States. Heck, any social reform worth the having.
Well, gee whiz thanks Craig. I think you meant to thank all those woolly headed liberal thinkers responsible for the above :-) It's ok if you don't though, because guess what, they also fought for your right to disagree.
-
Do you think the Freddy's relative immunity to file sharing might have less to do with a connection through their live shows, and more to do with the fact that even with broadband and a 128kbps sample rate, it's a lot slower/harder to share a 20-minute dubbed-out jam than 3 minute pop song? :)
Nope. I think it has to do with the fact that it is a fine album that appeals to an affluent audience.
Kids in my day recorded everything, damn the quality. As soon as they had the bucks to buy their favourite album they did. Not because they didn't already have it taped but because of the kudos that came with owning the "original".
Then, when we get haircuts and jobs we pour money into the "Best Of" collections of artists we couldn't afford in our youth.
-
Different books infuencial for different times of life:
Lucky Luke
Safari Adventure(Adrian Mole phase)
Anything by Dostoevsky
ditto Graham Green (who bores me now)
The Female Eunuch (for similar reasons to Mr. Mole. )
TintinThings Fall Apart
Cry the Beloved Country
A Suitable BoyThe Three Musketeers (any Dumas will do really)
Most stuff by R.L. Stephenson is timeless.
Action packed pulp fiction - fills in for not watching TV.
-
Don C.: If you say
"there are relig. nuts, and of course there are some parents who...."_
then I claim you're saying there are just those two cases.Then I repeat, for someone who claims to read so much subtlety into debate, you argue in a remarkably obtuse manner.
You also remind me of a certain ross/ron chap who pops up from time to time shifting the context of debate and confusing long windedness for sound reason.
-
For someone professing concern with language you seem to be remarkably loose about conflating the relgious right with the neoconservative movement.
How ironic considering the success the neocons have had in doing exactly that.
-
Here Russell almost gets the modality right for the religious but then presumes to characterize all non-religious opponents of the bill as people who think smacking is "bad practice",
Except in no way does Russell characterise all secular opponents to the bill as thinking smacking is bad practice. His point is well made and stands, event in the unlikely even that the only "people" he refers to are himself and his wife. To requote your quote of RBs
There are parents who regard smacking as bad practice who still don't wish to see the risk of it being classed as assault.
For someone who is so concerned about subtly of argument to misunderstand that particular brick is surprising.
Verbosity is not always the sign of a good argument, BTW.