God I hate Breakfast
This clown who is blowing $450 000 of his own dollars for a bullshit march up Queen St for the legal right to hit your kids (can we counter protest these idiots?) is he a fundy Christian? Because it seems to me only a fundy Christian would blow half a million on trying to get back his God given right to belt his kids.
The ex-cheerleader on Breakfast said 87% of people voted blah blah. No ex cheerleader, 87% of those WHO VOTED voted that way. LESS THAN 50% VOTED YOU MORONS. Notice how they spun that? 87% of NZers supported this – no, no, no. That is an outright lie. Whoever is writing the questions for the ex-cheerleader needs to point out that it is 87% of LESS THAN 50% of the country.
TVNZ are so biased now, the cheerleader didn’t even challenge this guy, is it just an open door policy on crazy right wing crap now? Has TVNZ used the Bill English unchallenged pap promo advert as an editorial standard towards all right wing social policy now?
Still, it’s better than Sunrise I suppose.
There still seems to be some confusion on this whole repeal of section 59 thing. You’re not to blame, the media were outrageous in selling this as the criminalization of parents so it’s okay if you got a bit spooked. What the repeal of section 59 means is that IF you are charged with assaulting your child, IF, you can’t use discipline as a defense. The bloke who bashes his kid with a belt and gets charged with assault can't say, "But your honour, I was disciplining the kid" - that doesn't wash in Court any longer - that’s all it means, it doesn’t mean that if your toddler was about to put his hand on a burning stove while running onto the road into the path of a stolen car and you smack their hand lightly that the Police Eagle helicopter will suddenly spotlight you and through a loud hailer tell you to lie flat on the ground with your hands above your head.
Why not donate that $450 000 to actually help abused children rather than a vast ego wank for a piece of misunderstood legislation?
It fascinates me folks, $450 000 on the right to bash your kids because not letting you bash your kids is ‘nanny state political correctness gone mad’. The vast expansion of surveillance powers to allow the Pork Industry and Meat Board alongside the Police to break into our homes and spy on us without a warrant – oh that’s okay? How the hell can National voters who bitched so much about Nanny State be comfortable with vast unchecked powers to spy on you?
What a joke.
posted by Bomber @ 7:32 am
9 comments
9 Comments:
is he a fundy Christian? Because it seems to me only a fundy Christian would blow half a million on trying to get back his God given right to belt his kids.
???
You listened to the interview, right?
He said he is doing it because he believes in democracy.
A little bit misguided, being that we live in a representative democracy, not democracy by referenda, but because he is a fundamentalist christian?
Nope.
Breakfast TV (actually, TV in general) is for the sort of people who don't/can't read and have insufficient imagination to sit in a quiet room by themselves for more than sixty seconds. In other words, anyone with a brain or a modicum of intelligence abandoned TV a long time ago.
Breakfast TV (actually, TV in general) is for the sort of people who don't/can't read and have insufficient imagination to sit in a quiet room by themselves for more than sixty seconds. In other words, anyone with a brain or a modicum of intelligence abandoned TV a long time ago.
Yes, sure we can take the elitst view, but TV News has a massive sway on opinion creation and it is still the main source of information for a vast chunk of the population. This is also the public broadcaster so it has an additional role to be critical.
Martyn,
No one watches breakfast telly, so I wouldn't worry, unduly, what nonsense Henry Paul's spouting.
He's a gonk. And a Nerd Master. Agree with him - on anything - and you're a putz. It really is that simple.
True, but he also hosts close up too doesn't he so he's a gonk with a fair chunk of the TV news media under his belt and they recycle the news througout the day so it does matter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Excellent post Bomber. Why is it always angry men funding this sort of "Standing Up For Democracy" shit?
I believe it's got to do more with "Sue Bradford's not telling me how to raise my kids".Its a personal vendetta against her.
Donating his thousands to Womens Refuge and the children that end up there would be much better.
What a tosser...
I dunno what I'm doin this far down the page, nothin on TV I spose but my dicshunary says red·neck (rěd'něk')
n. Offensive Slang
1.
Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
2.
A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
Unscramble a synonym of redneck
Cultural Dictionary
redneck
A slang term, usually for a rural white southerner who is politically conservative, racist, and a religious fundamentalist (see fundamentalism). This term is generally considered offensive. It originated in reference to agricultural workers, alluding to how the back of a person's neck will be burned by the sun if he works long hours in the fields.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy,
Only one definition is so rendundant that it states renecks are fundies since you'd have to go a long way through the white male working class population of amerika's south before you found someone that wasn't a dyed in the wool, wife beating, bible bashing, god bothering xtian, but there ya go; some etymologist (or is that an insect bloke?) predicted that there would be a dropkick somewhere sometime who didn't grasp the undying relationship between too much sun on the neck and a belief in ancient superstitions.
How is this a stand for democracy? A minority of New Zalanders voted yes, and half of the reason for this is because the question was so heavily loaded that people who support the repeal of section 59 couldn't reasonably tick yes. Furthermore the question was written by the interest group that were promoting a particular viewpoint. This isn't a march for democracy, it is a march to enforce stupidity on the government. By the way, let them have their march against this National Government. It will be them that pay the price whether or not they cave in to the pressure.
Post a Comment
<< Home