Cannabinoid receptor agonists
That would be the correct term.
But since defining three words each time you describe the drug seems a little much I suspect it wont catch on.
Bart, are you saying that you won’t buy access to a bundle of great journalists because you’d prefer separate contracts for each of them?
No I'm saying I don't want to pay the demonstrably evil pimp based of his promise that he'll keep paying those working journalists (yeah right).
You know if they had like a collective that I could pay without involving the pimp then I'd be keen.
ETA: I’m not talking about paying for journalism if you can, I’m specifically talking about paywalls.
Give me the option of paying those journalists directly. I know I'm incredibly privileged to be able to afford that and I know that isn't perfect either but it's a whole lot better than a wall to keep out poor people.
It’s more that if this doesn’t work they may not have jobs soon.
Yeah I've got that impression and it's causing serious cognitive dissonance.
I have to disagree about paying Teh Herald.
I'll pay individual journalists who don't spread shit.
I'll pay organisations who try to get it right, even if they sometimes fail.
But I'm sorry I cannot bring myself to give Teh Herald any money while they continue to spread shit.
And it's more than just the opinion writers - Teh Herald has a long history of driving conflict. Their performance as an organisation is consistently bad for Auckland and New Zealand be it weekly "buy/sell your house now" articles or outright racism.
If they could show the $5 a week was ring fenced for those journalists behind the paywall I'd be happy to pay.
Meanwhile BSA complaints and e-mails to advertisers will have to suffice.
You fail to understand what democracy means.
Your 250000, even IF they all opposed this law, which they clearly don't based on press releases by major hunting organisations, they would not outvote the rest of NZ.
That, for good or ill, is what democracy is about - but apparently you don't want to defend democracy.
cross out for and insert against – you want to build an argument to change the law of this country.
You are arguing to possess lethal weapons - the onus is on you to present data. In the absence of data you should not be allowed to possess lethal weapons.
Moreover, the data against is in all the scientific literature and no I won't be your librarian.
Honestly for all your denial that the NRA is not in NZ, ALL your talking points are standard NRA nonsense designed to distract.
A page of text to say
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
Show some originality. Seriously this NRA talking point has been debunked a thousand times. See also “mentally unwell” and “lone gunman”.
If you want to build an argument for guns then you need to start with data. Not cherry-picked data or massaged statistics, real data.
While you’re doing that we’ll ban your toys that kill people.
why has he even got a fire arms licence at all
Over 99% of licenses are approved.
One wonders if the police have the time to do the job properly.
Legally purchasing a weapon offers an opportunity to inspect who has a weapon
Oh that’s so funny.
When one of the biggest gun sellers in New Zealand is a convicted gun smuggler who committed federal crimes in the US and spent two years in jail for them?
Our current system failed.
Now we get a new system.
You want to play with lethal weapons then the choice is clear, leave New Zealand.
Oh BTW NRA playbook arguments have no sway here.