Comments on: 1688? http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/ Constitutionally-limited government, 1688-2006, RIP. Pass the bananas. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:05:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Darnton vs Clark » Blog Archive » Exit Strategy http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-320 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:23:43 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-320 [...] Young suggests that the only way to calm the waters will be to get out the chequebook. I, along with others, have said that paying it back isn’t enough. Labour knowingly stole public money to fund their election campaign, breaking the fundamental rules that separate liberal democracy from dictatorship, they refuse to admit fault even with overwhelming evidence against them, they have obfuscated and shamelessly tried to get their arms further into the till, they regard “honesty” as a political slogan with no real meaning, and they have issued threats against media outlets and opposition members who point out their misdeeds. [...] […] Young suggests that the only way to calm the waters will be to get out the chequebook. I, along with others, have said that paying it back isn’t enough. Labour knowingly stole public money to fund their election campaign, breaking the fundamental rules that separate liberal democracy from dictatorship, they refuse to admit fault even with overwhelming evidence against them, they have obfuscated and shamelessly tried to get their arms further into the till, they regard “honesty” as a political slogan with no real meaning, and they have issued threats against media outlets and opposition members who point out their misdeeds. […]

]]> by: Craig D http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-68 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:53:18 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-68 Too true, certainly agree. I was referring solely to the 1990 act. Too true, certainly agree.

I was referring solely to the 1990 act.

]]> by: Bernard http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-29 Thu, 06 Jul 2006 02:33:46 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-29 Craig D, Don't confuse the Bill of Rights 1688 with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The former is an important landmark in the history of liberal government. The latter is, as you say, "a piddly, little, wimpy piece of legislation" that has no teeth. Craig D,
Don’t confuse the Bill of Rights 1688 with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The former is an important landmark in the history of liberal government. The latter is, as you say, “a piddly, little, wimpy piece of legislation” that has no teeth.

]]> by: Craig D http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-28 Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:38:00 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/06/30/1688/#comment-28 Except ours is a piddly, little, wimpy piece of legislation. A "Bill of rights" that is not entrenched and includes a statement saying that the rights within may be "balanced" against the needs of the community? Pah. Except ours is a piddly, little, wimpy piece of legislation.

A “Bill of rights” that is not entrenched and includes a statement saying that the rights within may be “balanced” against the needs of the community?

Pah.

]]>