Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Both for Auckland, and for Wellington.
Wellington - a Paul free zone.
(It needs a picture of Paul Henry or Paul Holmes to work, I think)
-
Tight new security to stop leaks
Unprecedented security surrounds the release of Thursday's Budget amid fears that the details of a massive market-sensitive borrowing programme will be leaked.
As the Government racks up a mountain of debt, with big implications for interest rates and the dollar, the Treasury has introduced tough restrictions on who can get early access to Budget details.
Meanwhile, the government's chosen insiders - Standard and Poors - will be able to make those insider trades on foreign markets beyond our legal reach and rake in the cash.
-
Those photos warm the cockles of my little anarchistic heart. It's so good to see people not doing what they're told for once, and having fun while doing so.
People should do that more often.
-
You can have any number of sincere beliefs you like. That doesn't make the content of the belief true.
Or any less monstrous.
-
And how do you explain Catholicism/Christianity prior to feudalism?
I'm not trying to explain - I'm offering an example of actual medieval Catholic belief, as espoused by the all-pervasive church.
The fact that they were themselves a feudal landholder I'm sure had absolutely nothing to do with it (and ditto their beliefs on the manumission of serfdom).
-
Actually, let me be more precise, if a couple marry and choose not to have children, I don't agree with that.
It's a sin for a peasant not to make more peasants for their lord (or Lord, as the case may be).
-
As to the labels "bigotry" and "hatred", I think you are using this to redact my point.
I call it what it is. If you don't want the label, don't do the behaviour. Easy.
-
For when the time comes:
Marriage (Equality) Amendment Bill
The primary reason why //Quilter v Attorney-General// found same-sex marriage illegal was that the Act didn't explicitly say it was (and in that absence, the fact that it was written in 1955 was taken as implying that it meant only different-sex couples). So, we fix the problem by saying very explicitly "this applies to both different and same-sex couples". EOFS.
BTW, anyone know how foreign marriages (that is, marriages between non-NZ citizens conducted overseas) are recognised in NZ (if at all)? I'd like to add consequential amendments - or another bill - to recognise foreign same-sex marriages conducted in civilised countries.
(If you want to join the Progressive Bills Project - and its necessary to edit or comment there - you will need to create a WikiDot account and apply to join. No trolls accepted; we're a focused group).
-
I don't see how anyone could be bigoted and NOT genuinely believe it.
Don Brash?
(Voted for Civil Unions at the first reading, but voted against them once he'd become leader of the National party in order to snuggle up to the Brethren)
-
the issue isn't whether public officials should always obey the law -- obviously we can imagine circumstances where ones moral duty is to disobey.
Sure - but those sorts of limits are things along the lines of participation in genocide, gross human rights abuses or murder. But what Tess is advocating isn't that sort of "conscientious objection" - it's simple bigotry and hatred.