Is Helen Clark Taking the Piss?
What’s up with Helen Clark these days? Before she announces yet another of her personal opinions, she’s taken to first saying “Any reasonable person would agree that …” (insert personal opinion here).
The implication is that:
a) reasonable people don’t differ
b) she is a reasonable person.
In the real world, someone who suggests that reasonable people don’t have differing views is not a reasonable person.
It’s clear she thinks group sex is disgusting. There will be plenty who agree. I suspect that most reasonable people find all sorts of sexual behaviour disgusting, particularly if they don’t practise it themselves. And most reasonable people probably don’t much care what other consenting adults get up to, so long as they keep it private.
But now that Helen is speaking on behalf of all of us, and has the profile to pressure the police, I’d apprecate it if she would make clear all sexual practises that she thinks are ok. A list published in the Herald would do fine.
In the meantime, maybe we should all just desist altogether.
Well you are right on the money there Rob, as these socialists are the law of the individual, so Helen can only speak for herself and not her husband, and we would need to have a joint declaration from Helen and Peter, wouldn’t we!
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 26th March 2007 @ 10:14 pm
I suppose after the smacking law goes through;hopefully not;The police will not only sit with you and your kids in the evening but will next stand by your bed with a torch to bust you for any group sex or other practices Helen doesn’t like.I am sure lesbianism will be ok though.Perhaps they can legislate which; if any religions are illegal too ;to guide us correctly.1984 BIG SISTER.
Comment by keith — Tue 27th March 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Given labour’s track record of passing social engineering legislation, I would suspect that Helen may well think group sex was fine, just so long as any woman/women involved were paid.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 27th March 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Man you guys have a negative website! You know you can buy this drug called “Viagra” now. You should check it out, I’m sure it would relieve a lot of your flacid tension.
Comment by rickyjj — Tue 27th March 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Good on you Rickjj, you are now observant of the negative aspects of social engineering that subjugate most men in favour of radical feminist ideology that further adds cause to the destruction of normal family relationships being aired on this forum.
Viagra nor flipant comment is the silver bullet to fix this modern day phenomena but proactive participation in reaching the balanced equality between the species.
Excercising grey cells prior to vocal chord might provide input into construction of the solution to this enigma.
Kindest regards
Paul Catton
Comment by Paul Catton — Tue 27th March 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Now that Group Sex and careing for your own Kids is off the agenda for those in HelenGrad
Can we increase the BOX Rich Red and Speights DARK Budget?
How much viagra does it take to help one stand up to the stress of managing the alcohol budget so one at least pays a reasonable amount of GST to fund HELENS Way
Onward – JIm
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 28th March 2007 @ 5:24 am
Projection?
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 28th March 2007 @ 9:59 am
Hey Dickey;I think you need some cognitive;social awarerness Viagra to sharpen up your knowledge of life;I presume Ricky isn’t a female pseudonym?
Comment by keith — Wed 28th March 2007 @ 4:48 pm
If Helen Clark has the nerve to ( publicly ) tell us what ‘Any reasonable person would agree with’ immediately shows that her personal beliefs are foremost in her political decisions.
I know this may sound naive, but aren’t our MP’s supposed to acknowledge and consider public opinion to decide on thier actions ?
Comment by Moose — Sun 1st April 2007 @ 12:27 am
Moose,
You are right is saying MP’s are “supposed” to acknowledge or consider public opinion. Especially 83%!
The Maori party though is the proverbial worm that turned. Their mandate when first set up as a party was to “seek the opinion of their people” before deciding on any Bill or legislation. Clearly they don’t have to “seek” opinion because it’s in their face. So why are they ignoring their own mandate?
Come next year’s elections, let’s hope the reminders ring louder than the bribes. The 83% opposed to Bratford’s Bill must surely reconsider their support for Labor, Maori and Greens (Ousting Dunne from United Future leadership before the elections would be a good move also). IMHO
I was at the rallies at both Fielding and Wellington, and I was amazed at the peaceful behavior of the crowds, the wide range of ages and inclusion of whole families. It was great spectacle.
I am a peace-loving atheist who has never smacked his child and have read reports and press releases form both sides of the debate, yet Clark and co imply that I (like the rest of the opposition to Bratford’s Bill) am an uninformed radical Christian who wants to beat and abuse children.
BTW-A few nights ago I visited the Q & A webpage at the Parliament web site and couldn’t believe how Cullen behaves in the debating chamber. Bill English asked him time and again to acknowledge whether the Prime Minister stood by her comment that 83% of NZers are radicals who want to beat and abuse their children. Cullen avoided direct answers, while implying that Mr English was himself an abuser for opposing the Bill. Cullen, like Clark and Bratford, is a master of spin. I almost posted the Q & A session here but it was 5 pages long. It’s a fascinating but scary look into how Labor has achieved major social re-engineering.
Another example of spin-Interviewer says to Bratford on news interview “I’ll bet you’ve received lots of emails and letters”. Bratford says “yes I’ve received hundreds of emails of support”. Interviewer asks “what about emails from those opposing your bill?”. Bratford says “yes I’ve received some ABUSIVE emails too”.
Comment by xsryder — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 9:06 am