. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
"Attacks on the Resource Management Act are [National's] stock in trade," she said. "It wouldn't just be the nuclear-free legislation that would be gone by lunchtime."
Right now I'd settle for Helen Clark to be gone by lunchtime! Evil Bitch!Oh dear, is that statement seditious?
Off topic - but is there a reason why you have not commented on Peikoff's statement?I may have missed it since I no longer follow this blog with the worshipful prostration I used to.I hope you have acknowledged your errors and bravely changed your mind. But then again your loyalty to blustery windbags will probably preclude you outing yourself if this is the case.
Ruth,Even though you phrased your question so politely I'm afraid I'm going to decline to answer your question. Unfortunately, I've made it a policy not to talk to "psycho-hose-beasts" (as we Hamiltonian's call female fruit-cakes like yourself.)Have a nice day stalking PC.PS: You really should propose you know, it might release all that pent up sexual tension.
I love in-fighting. It's so, how you say... petty.
Ha - don't flatter yourself Winefield - I get more hits in the morning than PC gets all day.I dont need to stalk anyone.He should be so lucky.As I said to Diana - it's important not to allow these always-wrong individuals -- like you and Peter -- burdened with such horrendous political judgment and willing to follow such a radical political movement as Bush's with blind loyalty -- to take the moral high ground.This issue is very important to me cuz Peter Cresswell and other admirers of Rand have constantly dissed me, deleted me, and held grudges against me about this.And now Rand's intellectual heir has again said he supports the Dems. I'll take the win my friend.Call me a stalker if you like - I know a loser when I see it.
I think it's becoming increasingly clear to readers, if not to Ruth herself, why she's been told she's not welcome here.Now, back to the topic, anyone?
No it's not actually. Is it cuz I disagree with you? I think it is.And I think its cuz I'm right and that makes you uncomfortable Peter.Delete me again if you like - just to confirm it.Awaiting your opinion on Peikoff.
From the Herald yesterday , Helen Clark quoted Al Gore's movie as revealing the truth of what everyone should be concerned about and that is the global warming. I think that the Prime Minister is a sucker, in being emotional about Al Gore's movie which is a misleading propaganda, bullshit. God, help the nation if our PM could be easily persuaded by treehuggers, psychics, etc..., you can figure out what policy the government is going to adopt. Just listen to faith-healers and there it is, go blindly with their advise.
FF: The PM is a politician. An extremely astute one. I don't think she's 'easily persuaded' by anybody, particularly the-sky-is-falling twats. I suspect she might even be as scornful of these types as you and me.But for her own ends, she'll hook up with any individual/organisation whose goal relates to more state control. Hell, why not? It's so much easier to have others do your job for you ...
1. Commenters are welcome and invited. 2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.