Speaker: Family First, Blowjob Later
76 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Kevin Hicks wrote:
The only conclusion possible is you really are desperate to defend our ruling junta who have left us with little more than pineapple lumps...
There is one other conclusion possible, as per this entry in the Oxford English Dictionary:
SATIRE:
The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.Kevin Hicks wrote:
I have no problem with people expressing their views I just thought it amusing that (a) its a frivolous topic and (b) all she does is attack the messenger instead of debating it anyway as you guys will be the first to criticise usually.
On the other hand, if you view it as satire -- rather than an attempt at a serious political essay -- then it all begins to make sense...
Personally I enjoy Anke Richter's left-leaning satire (she writes a column for Taz, and used to write for Playboy). And I also enjoy P.J. O'Rourke's satire from a right-wing perspective. They both use humour to make some clever points for their respective political positions.
But one should always remember that it is humour -- you'll really tie your brain in knots if you view it as serious political/news commentary or analysis.
Of course, with some of the people writing in the blogosphere (the kiwiblog comments section springs to mind) it really is genuinely difficult to tell if they are brilliant satirists or just seriously misguided.
-
Kevin,
Bob not being anti-science is a proposition I'd hold any bets on.His position on the cervical cancer vaccine certainly hints that he is not prepared to let thinking about it get in the way of his moral finger waving.
NB The Catholic church most definitely disagrees with Bob about this case. Perhaps he should speak with his Bishop.
-
For fundies to have a stay at home dad and highly educated bread winning mum - I'll cut those guys a bit of slack.
Bob is of course using them for his own self promotion & I've got a bit of concern where it will end up.
Family First has electoral appeal - Sensible sentencing is lynch mob - what's that other vehicle for self promotion ...For the Sake of our Children.
Hopefully ego will stop them joining forces or is it that the have the same supporters who change t-shirts for the day. -
The Herald reports that Subway and Castrol have also pulled their advertising from Californication.
But ol' McCroskie is unhappy at the police, who refuse to do the same. Yay, the popo!
-
All of this kind of makes me wonder what would happen if a genuine issue arose. If one organised chump can get this kind of reaction I wonder what a real protest movement could get?
-
But ol' McCroskie is unhappy at the police, who refuse to do the same. Yay, the popo!
Slightly trickier to boycott. I can see it now.
"Mr McCroskie, you're not going to report any assaults or burglaries to us? OK, well, safer policing together is our motto, but if you want."
-
(cough)
McCoskrie, not McCroskie
(pendantic cough)
-
Ah. I was led astray by Robyn. *shifts blame*
-
Family First has electoral appeal - Sensible sentencing is lynch mob - what's that other vehicle for self promotion ...For the Sake of our Children.
Hopefully ego will stop them joining forces or is it that the have the same supporters who change t-shirts for the day.And right on cue: Bob and Christine turn up on the TV news, together fighting fascism (sic).
If they're the anti-fascists, I'm gonna take to the dance floor and do the goosestep.
-
I appreciate the spell-check, daleaway. My brain appeared to have played a trick on me.
-
And right on cue: Bob and Christine turn up on the TV news, together fighting fascism (sic).
They're obviously opposed to fasces.
-
Jesus, what is it with you people? You think tht awful shit Torchwood is good (which just blows my mind) and think Californication is bad (which makes the smouldering pieces of my already blown mind explode a second time).
The only major fault I found was that it was over in just 12 episodes. (Better than those ridiculous 6 episode British seasons though, would that I could have a new QI every night!)
-
And right on cue: Bob and Christine turn up on the TV news, together fighting fascism (sic).
Sigh... I really wish someone would put a hundred dollar tax on using 'fascist' in public... But what's you point, Simon? I was on that march, and you may think the issue is trivial or non-existent but please spare me the guilt-by-association nonsense. I've little time for the Sensible Sentencing Trust or Family First, but I don't ask their permission to walk down the street and am quite happy to pay them the same courtesy.
-
I saw the march on the news. Sensible Sentencing, Family First, and Christine Rankin. What the hell happened to my activism? Who are these people and what are they doing with megaphones and placards?
I've lost whether the bill at present is good or not. But I wish people would stop saying it's taking away their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the ability to stand up in parliament, a street corner, a park, a house etc, and say what you want. And have the media report it as such. I'm not aware the bill restricts these things in any way.
Money isn't freedom of speech. What they're protesting about is the ability to distribute their 'freedom of speech' and making it available to a wider audience.
It feels a bit demeaning to people who are struggling against regimes that actually do restrict your freedom of speech.
-
Money isn't freedom of speech. What they're protesting about is the ability to distribute their 'freedom of speech' and making it available to a wider audience.
Amen, Kyle. "Freedom of expensive distribution of speech" is such an obvious oxymoron.
-
I wish you guys would stop criticising the Sensible Sentencing Trust and actually talk to them or work with them for a long term solution to crime. They are not rednecks or fundies or self promoting like some other groups you mention and we agree on.
Sensible Sentencing does a lot of work with victims of crime and in helping draft legislation with political parties across the board. TYhe idea that they are hand em high rednecks has been promoted by other self perpetuating self interest groups like the childrens commission.
Come out of the ivory towers and have a look and you'll see. Or worse wait and do nothing until violent crime it happens to you and you will whistle a different tune.
Oh and it looks like the Sociology department of Auckland University has joined the self promotion camp.
-
Money isn't freedom of speech. What they're protesting about is the ability to distribute their 'freedom of speech' and making it available to a wider audience.
It feels a bit demeaning to people who are struggling against regimes that actually do restrict your freedom of speech.
So, perhaps we should STFU with this thread because, you know, it's kinda demeaning to folks who live under conditions of real state media censorship...
Oh and it looks like the Sociology department of Auckland University has joined the self promotion camp.
And if you're talking about the letter in yesterday's Herald from a Professor Peter Davis... Well, I guess it's worth noting the irony that neither Professor Davis nor the Herald felt the need to clarify whether this gentleman happens to be related by marriage to the leader of the parliamentary Labour Party...
-
But I wish people would stop saying it's taking away their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the ability to stand up in parliament, a street corner, a park, a house etc, and say what you want. And have the media report it as such.
__And in today's news:__ A man stood in his front garden denouncing the actions of the government...
Yeah, right. C'mon Kyle, Freedom Of Speech is the right to deliver 1,000,000 pamphlets expressing your views. And this proposed legislation will stop that. I get that Labour are really pissed with the Exclusive Bretheren, but maybe the solution might have been to make it an offense not to put your name to any material you distribute.
But no, Labour want to 'cap' everything because they're worried National might have more money.
-
So, perhaps we should STFU with this thread because, you know, it's kinda demeaning to folks who live under conditions of real state media censorship...
Oh no, I think everyone should rant away.
But as far as I know though, the EFB doesn't restrict free speech. It restricts electoral advertising. That's important, I agree, but it's a much smaller ball game.
-
I just don't like my letter box being spammed with glossy paper. What am I supposed to do with it. The toxic crap doesn't burn well.
Are you talking about catalogues from K-Mart? or flyers from Exclusive Bretheren? Or Pledge Cards from Labour?
Putting your name to what you say; Well isn't that what we do here at public address system?
Sure, by all means lets ammend my proposed legislation:
make it an offense not to put your name to any material you distribute including comments on PAS
-
I wish you guys would stop criticising the Sensible Sentencing Trust and actually talk to them or work with them for a long term solution to crime. They are not rednecks or fundies or self promoting like some other groups you mention and we agree on.
Sensible Sentencing does a lot of work with victims of crime and in helping draft legislation with political parties across the board.
I'm not attributing this to SST but there has been in a lot of focus in the media the past 3 days about how a jury were not allowed to hear that Michael Curran was free on bail awaiting trial for another killing when he killed Tauranga toddler Aaliyah Morrissey.
What the jury didn't know: Baby's killer was on bail
How was that relevant to the Morrisey case? Where is the unfairness (in the jury not knowing)? The jury still managed to find him guilty. A prior act is no proof of guilt for a seperate charge. If 'prior convictions' becomes admissable in court I can bet the crime clearance rates will improve rapidly. The cops will just arrest anyone with 'form' in the vicinity.
-
I get that Labour are really pissed with the Exclusive Bretheren, but maybe the solution might have been to make it an offense not to put your name to any material you distribute.
And I'm sure Mr Edgeler - our resident legal Brainiac could correct me if I'm wrong - but wasn't there a question about one of those items not being correctly authorised, but the people concerned appeared to get off the hook because the Police didn't really think it was cricket to prosecute anyone...
-
I wish you guys would stop criticising the Sensible Sentencing Trust and actually talk to them or work with them for a long term solution to crime. They are not rednecks or fundies or self promoting like some other groups you mention and we agree on.
Sensible Sentencing does a lot of work with victims of crime and in helping draft legislation with political parties across the board.
Do they push their agenda with victims of crime? Because we have a Victim Support system in NZ whose primary job is to simply support victims of crime. I don't know if they do, but I'd be concerned if SST were using victims of crime, particularly those who have lost members of their family and are going through grief, to push their particularly barrow.
-
The SST may be acting in good faith and have great intentions, but that doesn't mean they make any sense or have much to offer at all. I'd have more sympathy for them if they concentrated on Victim support type activity and left the legislative ideas to people who are a bit less emotionally involved.
They keep banging on about "victims rights" for example, without actually explaining what these might be, or why anyone should care.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but we live under this new fangled 'rule of law' system, and I kind of prefer it to the more arbitrary feudal notions of justice that the SST seems partial to.
If Joe Bloggs assaults Jane Doe, he has broken the law. The justice system should step in and determine what happens to Mr Bloggs based on the fact that he has broken the law, not on whatever the unfortunate Ms Doe feels or wants to happen. It should pay even less respect to the feelings and wants of Ms Doe's parents friends and significant others.
Otherwise justice is arbitrary and inconsistant, and occasionally perverse. Consider the nonsense about reparation being paid to prisoners who have had their human rights abused by the dept of corrections.
If, as the SST would have us do, these monies are paid to the victims of the prisoners offending, you have an incentive for corrections to beat the crap out of prisoners, depending on how sympathetic the prisoners original victims are. Emotionally satisfying perhaps, but morally and legally outrageous.
The SST is basically a right wing reactionary form of political correctness. Nothing can remove a victims status as a victim. No matter what you do to the crim, the victim will still have been victimised. All this bread and water, hard labour, cold cells and bad food crap is just about revenge. Whatever, there is no long term solution here.
I get as emotional and p'd off as anyone when I hear about crimes but the justice system needs to be cold, impersonal and based against offences against the law. If you let it be about emotion, personalities and offences against victims you may as well close down the courts and do it by txt voting, stocks, whips and lynching. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
But emotion is fickle, revenge can never be satisfied and some victims aren't as pretty as others.
-
WH,
Bob's Bible-fearing troops had their first field-day with Sue Bradford's 'Child Discipline Bill' earlier this year. Bob was up in arms. What would this country come to if parents were stopped from exercising their God-given physical powers on their children's bottoms?
By "Bob's Bible-fearing troops" I'm sure you mean to say "the 80% of the population who had their opinions ignored". I imagine it would be frustrating for you to see loud, self-righteous minorities get their way.
From Stuff's "Hands off our lives, say voters":
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4278853a10.htmlChildren's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said there had been a campaign run by Christian fundamentalist groups which ordinary parents had become caught up in.
"Their [aim] is to run a bigger political agenda and I think they need to be honest about that. I think they used this as a tactic to position a bigger political debate."
Clearly "ordinary parents" are innocent victims of Family First's web of deceit.
If your case is that Family First is trying to tell every one how to live their lives, this is a truly shit example.
(Bob may very well be an idiot, but I have never read anything he has written and could not say.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.