Although, pretty much by definition, the large majority of them are right, so that can't really be the problem.
hmm, Diane Taylor, what do you think would be a more open and honest byline? The fact that she's (possibly a former) social worker? Or the fact that she's the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Society of New Zealand Council.
Nothing wrong with that - although the minutes could probably be clearer - but open and honest disclosure isn't a bad thing - in newspapers as well as bedrooms. You'd think christianity and postgrad ethics would teach someone that. Probably an honest mistake.
I’m saying this again as is my custom:
Presently 10% of the top income earners pay 70% of personal taxes. and if Labour get in this will go up,
We have 90% of all families in NZ paying no income tax when you take into account WFF.
You can say it as often as you like, it's still not true. Even the statement you've paraphrased is only true in a numpty way. Did you know that according to that statement the top 10% of income earners pay nothing, nothing, towards benefits or WFF? Personally I think they could put a little bit towards maybe superannuation or something, seems selfish not to.
But by just expanding the definition of “marriage” from “one man and one woman in an emotionally and sexually exclusive relationship for the rest of their life”...
Wait, that's the definition of Marriage? Damn there's a lot of people who need to be reading the fine print.
We don't even have to go back to 1970s tax rates, I remember the great CEO outflow of 2000 when top tax rates went from 33 to 39%.
We were all lined up at the leaving gates, we were, weeping and wailing and begging them to stay.
I miss Keith, where's he at? He used to post some excellent stuff
Ah, yes, I see your reading. Which, you're right, is a reasonable take on the quote. Apologies. I'm reading as I expect to see it, maybe his meaning was clearer in the audio.
(Though, suspect the transcript isn't as kind to him as it could be. If he did a Hansard on it there'd probably be an ellipsis or fullstop in there - looks to me like the "previous election" is an unfinished thought, not a lead in to the rest).
But should know not to get into into a details argument with you. Sorry.
But, but... you quote him saying "The Greens almost also in 99".
Unless you're misquoting him, and he actually said "The Greens almost also in 96", I think you're holding him to an unreasonable standard.
Though kudos for the Nandor trivia, it does need to be said.
It seems a little unfair at Point 2 to ding Matt McCarten for talking about the very close to the threshold Green result in 99 by stating they didn't didn't stand in 96.
I mean, you're right, but so is he.
Any thoughts of how, as a consumer, you can rightfully boycott a book (by not buying it) but you are powerless when your Council uses your rates to buy that same book for its public libraries.
I've considered standing for Council on a platform of "The library shouldn't buy any book on behalf of the entire community unless I like it". But I'm feeling a little discouraged as informal polling tells me my taste isn't as popular as it should be.