Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I find the idea that he moved to Queensland and has been carrying on from there quite believable
He'd fit in there too.
-
I'm with Craig on Redbaiter. He's an offensive oaf that shouldn't be tolerated... and wouldn't in many spaces other than Kiwiblog.
I'm sure there's many reasons why PAS is successful but I suspect that one factor is that most post under their names (though I respect that some don't and have their reasons for doing so).
-
Yep nice restraint Craig. Was joking. Not aiming for 6000 posts man, beleive me. Just happened to post on it while browsing around last night. My apologies.
Nick, I hope you'd not be put off by Craig's comment; I read it as a criticism of Whale, not of you. I've been on the wrong end of Craig's wit, but mostly it's well intentioned and hilarious.
-
They'll be threatening to hold their breath next.
Are they seeking pledges per minute?
-
As some would with the Civil Union Act?
Well, no, not in the context of our little side-bar conversation.
Unless I've misunderstood, marriage is only available for a bloke and a sheila, so the inequality remains. Compare this with the solution I proposed whereby SA's automatically exempt a student who applies on concientious grounds... there's no breach of human rights, no need for parliament, nor student referenda for that matter... Roger can go and attend to those really important matters that dragged him out of retirement...
-
I didn't see Paul using it to shut down debate. I saw him using it to take a poke at Roger Douglas, who apparently can't find anything more worthy of his attention in parliament.
Indeed. Should have more clearly indicated tongue-in-cheek.
If you prefer to avoid issues and conduct politics based on personalities you say whatever you like about him.
So I'll assume that too is tongue-in-cheek...
I appreciate the points you've made, I've addressed several of them directly (and I generally play a pretty straight bat on most issues here).
But it's not like we've not be round this issue before. In my memory, it's been around since about 1990. I don't begrudge you or anyone who feels that it's not resolved satisfactorily. However, I don't see the injustice as being nearly so great to warrant a fourth (or is it fifth) spot on the legislative program.
And I don't think it shutting down a debate to say that...
Still, I'm sure yappy dogs like Emma and I will hold our tongues about marriage equality until world peace, global hunger and global warming has been addressed. OK?
Craig, that wasn't my point but I'll grant that I wasn't careful in my comments. What I mean is that a solution that addresses the objections is readily available, some would argue that it's in place. Up-thread I proposed a simple solution. Later, there was a clear statement suggesting the "limitation" could well be justified.
This isn't a matter parliament necessarily needs to address, if anything, it's odd that they have/are. Parliament's attention is, however, required to address other issues you've noted.
And there does seem to be something different about the quality of Roger's attention this time around.
Ahem, well it certainly seems that way to me.
-
Thankfully the persons concerned are convinced that their blogwar on the left really is Serious Business, and will thus keep on providing amusement for many Friday afternoons into the future.
Sam, I fear you'll be disappointed; I'm guessing this trio has one riff and they've played it.
-
I've been making an argument about how I consider the present law represents an unjustifiable position, having regard to respect for human rights, and asking that the position be changed to something justifiable.
That you have, and you've made it. I "unjustifiable" is a little incongruous with the preceding discussion, but that's ok. Rights-based discussions are fine, so far as they go, but ultimately unsatisfying since anyone of us could list a catalogue of rights sadly lacking.
I can't quite fathom how this debate continues, it seems so trivial on many levels. Still, I get that the student plurality is far more diverse today than it was when I was active. I get that the liberal progressives are but a minority where once they were well, everywhere... but, it's just not so offensive, universal or compulsory membership, it's just not... and it pales in significance compared with all manner or issues... issues Roger's apparently incapable of addressing... he's a bit senile yeah, can we say that?
-
Bonus: the "Tag" ad is also really cool.
Heather, that is fantastic, thanks. I shall now enjoy hearing it repeatedly played around my office. Perfect Friday-fun!
-
These Friday threads used to frustrate me somewhat since I could seldom see the bands/gigs you were all spruiking but this time is different... i haz tickets to Shihad who're touring this month! Now if I could just find a way to convince Mr Carter to tour Dimmer I'd be a happy man!