No monopoly on stupid
8 minutes ago
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Social liberals in National
Katherine Rich intimates she is backing Bradford's bill because she is a social liberal. Seems to me there are a truckload of people who would also define themselves as socially liberal who are opposing the legislation. Her statement also begs the question, if there has always been a "small pocket" of social liberals in National why is she the only one backing the bill?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is baffling. I don't much like the use of physical violence against children, but because I buy JS Mill's arguments, I don't believe that it is right to impose my world view upon other people any more than is absolutely necessary to avoid anarchy or severe social conflict. So I oppose this bill because of beliefs which I thought came under the banner of social liberalism. Is it me or is it Katherine Rich who doesn't understand what they stand for?
Thanks Anon. Well put.
Not knowing or agreeing what socially liberal means doesn't auger well for the Blue Liberals meeting on May 3.
Very good Lindsay.
Post a Comment