If National wins ...

[slimwin]

I'd like to see the flag change.

[pedro.nz]

I also like this design as for me it retains much of the current flags 'emotional ties' with the past but does remove the colonial link which is less relevant these days...

Flag.jpg

[fungus pudding]

I also like this design as for me it retains much of the current flags 'emotional ties' with the past but does remove the colonial link which is less relevant these days...

Flag.jpg

So what's the difference from the link I posted above?


https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=ky...w&ved=0CDMQsAQ

[Bobcat.]

And apart from GR's sexual preferences (which are nobody's business than his and his partners - and absolutely irrelevant for this job)...

Yep - I figured my earlier post would be a red flag to some PC bulls.

BP, we have been socially conditioned over the past few decades by some very insidious and subtle lobbying to believe that a person's sexual preferences are a private matter and irrelevant to a person's character - even when it comes to leadership. We have been fed a lie. A person's sexual preferences are in fact an important indicator of how noble, honourable or otherwise t'is a person's character.

Consider the following sexual preferences along a continuum from slightly depraved to very depraved, and then (putting your PC-conditioning aside if you can) state which ones if openly practised by a leadership candidate, you would consider relevant, and why. Remember to bear in mind that our nation's children (including your own) look to their community leaders (teachers, parents, boy scout masters, and yes, also politicians) as role models, people to emulate, and so a candidate's moral integrity is a lot more than merely a private matter:

1. Being unchaste (i.e. sex prior to being married) - i.e. robbing one's future husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
2. Having multiple partners (i.e. unfaithfulness) - i.e. if one can be unfaithful in his or her most intimate relationship, it's a small step to be unfaithful also in leadership.
3. Sadomasochistic bondage - role confusion and a perversion of the pleasure/pain principle
4. Adultery (i.e. breaking the sacred bond of faithfulness within marriage) - i.e. robbing one's husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
5. Polygamy
6. Same sex relationships (i.e. breaking God's laws w.r.t. heterosexual union - established for our good and to His glory)
7. Same-sex marriage (i.e. disrespecting and violating God's ordained institution of marriage - established for our good and to His glory)
8. Incest
9. Paedophilia
10. Bestiality.

Each of the above dishonours the body and infects the soul - they vary only in degree.

Where do you objectors draw the line as to what's to be overlooked when voting for leadership, and on what basis? Your gut feeling? This is a decision too important to be determined by our subjective and fickle feelings. It shapes our nation. Just as there are physical laws, which if we try to break them, they will break us; so too are there moral laws which if we ignore them (or worse shake our fist at them!) it is we (our families, our society, our future) that are broken. They exist for our good. There are not arbitrary - they are God-given and we'd be foolish to ignore them...especially when judging the character of those who claim to be sufficiently qualified to lead this nation and shape our future (and I don't mean just economically).

"Let us be moral. Let us contemplate existence" - Dickens
"Men's faults do seldom to themselves appear" - Shakespeare
"If honour calls, where'er she points the way, the sons of honour follow and obey" - Charles Churchill
"Let us do what honour demands" - Rachine

BC

[Bobcat.]

I think that Bobcat holds the view that the most worthy in society are god f(e)aring folk, where the man and woman is married in a church and sex is for the sole purpose of procreation and must only be done in the missionary position. Anyone who does not meet this standard is unworthy and destined for hell - and consequently would not make a good party leader.

Well MM, if that's what you think about what I think, then you'd be wrong. You've put up a strawman just to chop me down. Sex is primarily for a husband and wife to enjoy - it bonds us with our soul mate in a very intimate, profound way. It's not by chance, or an accident of evolution over millions of years, that we are able to find pleasure in sex. It is a gift from God, best reserved for the marriage bed. And no, enjoying sex with your spouse other than in the missionary position will not send you to hell. What a preposterous concept -you'd have to be joking, yes?

[BlackPeter]

Yep - I figured my earlier post would be a red flag to some PC bulls.

BP, we have been socially conditioned over the past few decades by some very insidious and subtle lobbying to believe that a person's sexual preferences are a private matter and irrelevant to a person's character - even when it comes to leadership. We have been fed a lie. A person's sexual preferences are in fact an important indicator of how noble, honourable or otherwise t'is a person's character.

Consider the following sexual preferences along a continuum from slightly depraved to very depraved, and then (putting your PC-conditioning aside if you can) state which ones if openly practised by a leadership candidate, you would consider relevant, and why. Remember to bear in mind that our nation's children (including your own) look to their community leaders (teachers, parents, boy scout masters, and yes, also politicians) as role models, people to emulate, and so a candidate's moral integrity is a lot more than merely a private matter:

1. Being unchaste (i.e. sex prior to being married) - i.e. robbing one's future husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
2. Having multiple partners (i.e. unfaithfulness) - i.e. if one can be unfaithful in his or her most intimate relationship, it's a small step to be unfaithful also in leadership.
3. Sadomasochistic bondage - role confusion and a perversion of the pleasure/pain principle
4. Adultery (i.e. breaking the sacred bond of faithfulness within marriage) - i.e. robbing one's husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
5. Polygamy
6. Same sex relationships (i.e. breaking God's laws w.r.t. heterosexual union - established for our good and to His glory)
7. Same-sex marriage (i.e. disrespecting and violating God's ordained institution of marriage - established for our good and to His glory)
8. Incest
9. Paedophilia
10. Bestiality.

Each of the above dishonours the body and infects the soul - they vary only in degree.

Where do you objectors draw the line as to what's to be overlooked when voting for leadership, and on what basis? Your gut feeling? This is a decision too important to be determined by our subjective and fickle feelings. It shapes our nation. Just as there are physical laws, which if we try to break them, they will break us; so too are there moral laws which if we ignore them (or worse shake our fist at them!) it is we (our families, our society, our future) that are broken. They exist for our good. There are not arbitrary - they are God-given and we'd be foolish to ignore them...especially when judging the character of those who claim to be sufficiently qualified to lead this nation and shape our future (and I don't mean just economically).

"Let us be moral. Let us contemplate existence" - Dickens
"Men's faults do seldom to themselves appear" - Shakespeare
"If honour calls, where'er she points the way, the sons of honour follow and obey" - Charles Churchill
"Let us do what honour demands" - Rachine

BC

Look BobCat, I must say I am disappointed. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Didn't thought that your religious delusion goes that far. And hey - I notice that you seem to be an expert on sexuell practises - where did you train?

I certainly would be more afraid of somebody with your ideas in a leadership position, than of anybody who might have a different sexual preference than I (or you).

The answer to your list above is quite easy. I wouldn't see anything which happens between consenting adults as my (and frankly speaking your) business, unless obviously you are one of the consenting adults. LOL.

Obviously #9 involves minors - illegal (and rightly so) - obviously not the right thing you want a leader to practise.

Not sure about your item #10? I think the law used this expression previously for homosexuality - if that's what you mean, than it is equal to 6 and / or 7?

Poor Jesus - he tried to bring such a fantastic message of love to the people. And now just look what people like you made out it. Shame again.

[minimoke]

Well MM, if that's what you think about what I think, then you'd be wrong. You've put up a strawman just to chop me down. Sex is primarily for a husband and wife to enjoy - it bonds us with our soul mate in a very intimate, profound way. It's not by chance, or an accident of evolution over millions of years, that we are able to find pleasure in sex. It is a gift from God, best reserved for the marriage bed. And no, enjoying sex with your spouse other than in the missionary position will not send you to hell. What a preposterous concept -you'd have to be joking, yes?

So I got it mostly right then. I take it that any orifice is also fine on the kitchen table provided the couple are man and wife?

[Sgt Pepper]

So what's the difference from the link I posted above?


https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=ky...w&ved=0CDMQsAQ

I note that so far none of my fellow posters have commented on the cost of the referendum. Yet I recall some very fervent views on the cost of the asset sales referendum. Seems rather hypocritical to me. In my opinion referenda should only be held at General elections

[Minerbarejet]

So I got it mostly right then. I take it that any orifice is also fine on the kitchen table provided the couple are man and wife?

Not during dinner, --Puhleeze!!

[minimoke]

I note that so far none of my fellow posters have commented on the cost of the referendum. Yet I recall some very fervent views on the cost of the asset sales referendum. Seems rather hypocritical to me. In my opinion referenda should only be held at General elections

ill back you. I think it a total nonsense to raise such an issue a day after the election. I can only assume it is a smoke screen - but for what? Total hypocrisy on keys part - or perhaps a nudge towards the conservatives who had referendums as their non negotiable coalition chip.