Monday, March 16, 2009

'Free' votes and changed minds

Here is a radio interview which features Rodney Hide explaining to Justin du Fresne why ACT MPs should be able to have a 'free' vote and the real reason he changed his mind about the Gang Insignia Bill. (Starts at around 33.40)
Posted by at

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're a Libertarian aren't you? Why not just focus on your own party?

8:48 PM
deleted said...

Redbaiter you ignorant fuck. She was an ACT candidate.

i.e. more than you have and will ever do for the party.

9:10 PM
Anonymous said...

"Redbaiter you ignorant fuck."

Ok Fair enough. I rember now that is quite right. (actually, wasn't there some minor furore over her low ranking?)

That said, what the fuck is a Libertarian doing in ACT when there is a Libertarian party?.

I'll tell you.

Can't attract their own funding.

9:51 PM
Anonymous said...

Which begs the question....why aren't you in NZ first Red with the other wild eyed conservatives?

12:56 AM
Anonymous said...

"Which begs the question...."

No it doesn't Jimmy. Improper use of that phrase. You mean "raises the question". "Begging the question" is something quite different. Look it up.

"why aren't you in NZ first Red with the other wild eyed conservatives?"

Only a complete political ignoramus would think that NZ First were in any way Conservatives.

Or only someone desperately wanting to smear Conservatives would attempt to link them with NZ First.

Which one of those are you Jimmy?

1:35 AM
Anonymous said...

This is not new. ACT has always had a free vote. From memory, it's in the caucus constitution. This is the first time Act has had a free vote in government, but it's the first time Act's been in government.

9:16 AM
Anonymous said...

Redbaiter said...

"Which begs the question...."

No it doesn't Jimmy. Improper use of that phrase. You mean "raises the question". "Begging the question" is something quite different. Look it up.

"why aren't you in NZ first Red with the other wild eyed conservatives?"

Only a complete political ignoramus would think that NZ First were in any way Conservatives."

Oh....please tell us just what it is they are.I grant you there are fascists and nationalists in there.....I douubt there are many Liberals of any stripe....so do tell...

"Or only someone desperately wanting to smear Conservatives would attempt to link them with NZ First."

Conservatism is smeared by its own inherant contradictions and inability to resist socialsim on moral grounds...reapairing to a God is the best they can seem to do.

ACT's mps having a free vote is fine...just as long as they all vote the same way...;-)...the right one!

ACT is a party based on Liberal principles....those principles should be the standard all bills and legislation is held up to and compared.If it complys then vote yes....if not vote no.

That there should be a split vote indicates that some MP's haven't carried out this test and need pulling up quick smart by the members.There is an obvious failure to grasp the principles ACT stands for so that MP"s legitimacy requires seious examination.

Rodney and Garrett are wrong about intimidation in a Libertarian society.....what "intimidates" one person may not do so to another...its subjective....meaning its based on feelings.Good moral law is objective...concerned with facts...and the protection of individual,non contradictory human rights.To make laws protecting some peoples subjective "feelings" violates the rights of others to their lives,liberty and personal property by restricting their freedom of speech and expression.

The gang insignia bill is very bad law and should not be supported by those claiming to represent freedom,human rights and personal responsibility.Law based on subjective feelings MUST cause conflict between individuals GENUINE human rights....a contradiction bought about due to bad law recognising bogus rights...in this case the "right not to be offended...a nonsense.Everyone is different in what they feel "offends" them.A Law trying to protect such a "right" is doomed to failer and to cause disquite and further conflict.

There is no such right as the right NOT to be offended....offence is subjective and that is no basis to ground good law upon.

ACT is a party whos principles are based upon the objective facts of reality....that man iS man and has a nature set by that reality.This requires that he be able to do what a man must to live and prosper...that is to think,form concepts and be able to act on these concepts by applying them to the world about him in productive action.


This bill is a flat out violation of what ACT stands for...oppose it

3:05 PM
Anonymous said...

One can always count on Redbaiter to open his mouth and same something stupid. The consistency is amazing.

7:09 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)