Sue Bradford - our first political assassination?

[short-circuit]

Do you have input into the curriculum now? My kids will no doubt be forced to waste their time learning a useless language...I get no choice about that.

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

And the suggestion that only "leftist" politicians do this by repeatedly using the tired phrase "nanny state" is bollocks too

[Mr Merde]

Have you had a rat arouind these two websites?

http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/

and

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

It takes a bit of time but well worth it. I agree with you about the language being (largely) useless unless you intend to teach Maori culture at some point, but what primary school child knows what they want to do later in life, or even this afternoon?

I was astounded when I read that all books pertaining to pre-Maori colonisation of NZ had been removed from schools. The truth, it would seem, is not being taught to our kids.

This is the nanny state.

"WE CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH"

it also goes against the pc brigade agenda.

[peasea]

This is the nanny state.

"WE CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH"

it also goes against the pc brigade agenda.

Yes, well, you have me with that last line.......

[Beemer]

Meh, she's not worth it...

I can't imagine anyone would want to risk jail to get rid of her - she's a nothing anymore. If fact, she's a liability to the Greens now. (Despite the way they come across, their intentions are good)...

I have to agree with you. What would be the point in offing her? She's an annoyance, but not important enough to risk going to jail for.

Someone emailed Breakfast this morning and suggested that perhaps the death threat had come from the hairdressers association!

She had a makeover a while back and looked reasonably smart - for about a month and then she obviously never bothered to get her hair cut again. She is a disgrace - I can't think of any other politicians who look scruffier than her.

[MisterD]

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

And the suggestion that only "leftist" politicians do this by repeatedly using the tired phrase "nanny state" is bollocks too

No, it's not bollocks at all, there's an entirely valid argument about where the government should just butt-out. I think we can both agree that at one end the government should take care of national defence and at the other it shouldn't tell us when to brush our teeth and go to bed...so where do you draw the line?

Personally, I draw it well before what I eat, what light bulbs I use and the consequences I give my kids when they cross the boundaries that I set.

[davereid]

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

Hmm... that is, in a nutshell the problem with democracy.

A thread entirely about violence, forgets the fact that government asserts its authority by violence, albeit hidden behind coercion, threat and bullying before the man with the club and gun is sent. But he will be sent.

Democracy occurs when the majority assert their right to use violence against the minority.

That, IMHO is crap, and is also called "mob rule".

The use of violence by anyone should be restricted to self defence.

So, if you want to drive drunk, on the wrong side of the road, then society has the right to use force. If you want to steal from me or kidnap my children, then society has the right to use force. If I get drunk, and damage your property or harm you, you have the right to use force to be compensated. But if I want to drink a beer without harming you, society shouldnt have the right to give me the cane.

But our society gives itself the right to use violence against me because I painted my house an unapproved colour.

Government does not have an anti-violence leg to stand on.

[short-circuit]

Personally, I draw it well before what I eat, what light bulbs I use and the consequences I give my kids when they cross the boundaries that I set.

All those decisions will potentially affect me though or the world that my children will inherit....it's not just about personal freedoms, its also about collective responsibility.

P.S. The Nats don't want you talking on your cellphone in your car either. Even those goons get some things right

[Timber020]

I just found out shes in hiding to avoid the assasins. Shes on all fours and standing in a paddock, instant disguise. They were going to put other animals in there but nobody was willing to stoop to that level of animal cruelty.

[MisterD]

P.S. The Nats don't want you talking on your cellphone in your car either. Even those goons get some things right

I've been doing that since I first went out on the road as a sales rep in about 1994 so I'm not about to take any notice of that either...

[ManDownUnder]

She's got more balls than all you keyboard warriors and the National party goons put together

Did you just admit you don't have any balls??? ... wow...!

[Hinny]

The point I was making is that governments are elected to legislate - to suggest that decisions of governments shouldn't affect or limit the "freedoms" of individual's "private lives" is just bollocks.

And the suggestion that only "leftist" politicians do this by repeatedly using the tired phrase "nanny state" is bollocks too

In a pre-election televised debate both Nat & Lab leaders clamoured to be recognised as the earliest adopter / supporter of Ms Bradford's bill.

Something overlooked by many on this forum.

[Hinny]

in deference to Mr G I will point instead to Mr Enoch Powell .

'Enoch was Right'

For the same reasons that became a popular catch cry in Britain, here we could say...

'Winston was Right'

[Mr Merde]

This whole cry for help by Bradford is a joke.

It smacks of poilitical manouvering.

She is highly unpopular in the country and has had her bill lamblasted by 88% of the peopler that bothered to vote.

She feels she needs to generate some compassion for her from the populace.

So she decides to "cry wolf"

"Oh they are out to get poor old me"

"Save me from ther nasty boogie men"

She doesnt live in the real world where people say things they think but would never act upon.

I wonder how many times there was mentiuon of violence to any other MP on the interweb?

Aunty Helen was extremely unpopular towards the end of her reign and you didnt see her complaining that she was a political assination target.

[idb]

I have to agree with you. What would be the point in offing her? She's an annoyance, but not important enough to risk going to jail for.

Someone emailed Breakfast this morning and suggested that perhaps the death threat had come from the hairdressers association!

She had a makeover a while back and looked reasonably smart - for about a month and then she obviously never bothered to get her hair cut again. She is a disgrace - I can't think of any other politicians who look scruffier than her.

You should see her first thing in the morning.................I've said too much!

[Mr Merde]

You should see her first thing in the morning.................I've said too much!

So you are the person who made the donation to her "turkey baster". (I couldnt imagine it happening any other way well not twice or sober anyway)