Steve Meikle (Christchurch)
The thinking behind Sue Bradford's bil is sloppy, lazy and utterly self righteous. She cant distinguish between smacking a child and beating it to death? It is liberalism gone haywire, which is a shame for I loathe the Right with passion, yet on this Bradford's madness has forced me to agree with them. Something I hate being put in a position of having to do... I definitely voted NO.
Conklin (Chch)
Good parents have nothing to fear, huh Judy. Who defines 'good'? 3 options, I reckon for the definition of the universal 'good'. Originally the word good, comes from God, but he advocates physical punishment many times in the Bible, so it can't be that one. Second would be the majority of society, but the majority of society (still 85%) thinks smacking is 'good', so it can't be society either. The third option is government, who in overruling God and the majority of society have installed their own version of 'good', so 'good' is whatever the government defines it to be, so lets get rid of that confusing word 'good' and substitute it the way it was meant. Rather than 'good parents have nothing to fear', it should be 'parents that act in a way that the government wants them to act, have nothing to fear'. Sounds a but like fascism to me.
Paul (Auckland)
I say NO to New Zealand's social engineering criminal Sue Bradford
Check out many more comments over at the Your Views page on the Vote No website.
4 comments:
Ahh wee Andy - still no one reading you, while if you google Yes vote, what do you get? The kind of billing reserved only for sites that generate serious traffic. What's the word again? Oh yes - FAIL
Anonymous.
Maybe that's because 83% of the population are voting no anyway and don't need convincing - they're instead trying to find out what yes vote campaign has to say.
or maybe that your childish efforts don't resonate
baseless theory from anonymous commenter.
heck, I think I'd better rethink my position.
Post a Comment