Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
1. Didn’t say there was any connection between Slutwalk and the House. You made that one up completely.
2. Speaker should be enforcing standing orders. Curran challenged him to cite the relevant order and he couldn’t because it’s not in the SO. Hence, Smith made it up. As even Stuff noted, Jackie Blue did not get so treated last year.
3. If you’re going to sound off about fashion crimes in the house, I have 2 words for you: Tony Ryall.The prosecution rests, m’lud.
ETA Ryall reference made before i read the other comments, including Craig's that mention him. SO egregious.
-
Hard News: Someone has to be accountable…, in reply to Sacha,
Hmmm, he seems to have missed the point that the methodologies used by Auckland compare pretty favourably with the methodologies used by NZTA to justify the RoNS and vice versa. Or he's just not labouring it, I don't know.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I disagree. A cult is a cult, from a state perspective. The only difference is whether you as an individual approve of how they operate, and that is entirely subjective.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Lockwood Smith makes up more "rules" in the House than any other speaker has ever done, I believe.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Their stated reasons for existing are the same. How their followers actually behave is another matter. And I do know of one or two people in Density and more than a few in Ratana who are fine, decent people however misguided I might find their choice in expressing their spirituality. Just as there are Catholics, Muslims, Anglicans and Buddhists, etc. I have met over the years who are fine human beings (yes, and even the odd socialist i would invite for dinner)
My point is why do representatives of the state acknowledge any of these cults by attending their events?
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Seeing Shane Jones there was… dispiriting in the extreme.
Not just there, but paying tribute. Ugh. Ugh
Not that I wish to give the Bish the lickings of a syphilitic dog, but how is it any different from pollies rolling up to Ratana every year, or any other religious excuse?
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
New sign: "With great willy comes great responsibility"
I'm sure Stan Lee won't mind. ;-)
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Deborah,
I’ve linked to Catherine Deveny’s piece about slutwalk over at The Lady Garden, but I think it’s worth linking to from here too: Slutwalk: for the free woman in all of us
“Because you’re not allowed to rape sluts either” beats my older sign (“Tits out for the sluts”) hands down. Plus I don’t have to get my tits out in a Wellington winter. Sara is right, by the way, Emma – there are some things the world is just not ready for. #markstitsaretwoofthem
-
Sadly, hair probably was one of the highlights of the 80's...
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Jackie Clark,
It's the cute 80's hair. Rowr!