Posts by Don Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Danyl, there was one mitigating feature about Labour's use of money and it is this...They declared it.
From then on public scrutiny came into play and in general it was rightly aghast. To imagine that Labour hasn't been punished and won't be punished at the next election is naive.
We saw what happened and can make a character judgment based on that information.
What the EBs and many others tried to do at the last election was hide their participation, their collusion, cover their tracks and keep mum about their sources of funds etc. I do find this far more worrying. Indeed, Shadbolt is trying to challenge authorisation rules that have been around for donkeys years and without which our elections would be totally opaque.
-
Going back to the title of the post, why does Tim Shadbolt think breaking the act in a way that would have broken the previous legislation is a good way of demonstrating EFA "unfairness".
He seems to be saying that by not getting authorisation from National for his "Vote National Candidate" adverts he will be in breach of the EFA. Correct, but authorisation has always been required.
Surely, if one wants to demonstrate these new "attacks on freedom of speech" it is the *new* bits that should be highlighted, not the old bits.
-
You're a scientist and an astrologer. You know this shit.
Yep, it's hard to argue with all that scientific rigour stuff.
-
And to be blunt WTF makes Clinton so special that she's beyond criticism from the left or within the Democratic Party
Craig, she isn't beyond criticism, it's the type of criticism that is being objected to. I think there is a point about that. We saw it with Thatcher and now Clark and Clinton.
Anyway, my main objection to Clinton is that surely in a country of 300million the USA can do better than continually handing the presidency to the same friggin families. If Neil's prediction is correct then that country will have been ruled by two families for 32 years.
-
David Farrar has done it.
Ah, that'll be why his name appears under a huge photo of someone who looks uncannily like...David Farrar...on Jervois Quay
As Private Eye would say, are David and Mao Tse-Tung related? :-)
-
Sigh, Craig - as with Ralston's "Labour nuke", come back to us when this actually materialises.
Not saying it won't happen, just commenting on events so far. And we are not that far away from the end of the primaries now.
-
And it's loathsome to play the gender card in Clinton's defense.
Who did that?
If Obama gets the democratic nomination the country will go backward ... seriously?
Not very inspirational, is it?
But criticising that statement is very different from saying "she cackles, witch". Pointing out that Obama's campaign is run by a lobbyist also fair game.
From AP "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday night in a startling upset, defeating Sen. Barack Obama and resurrecting her bid for White House."
I must say I am surprised at the result but like Craig pleased that the process continues. I like hearing about these two, and McCain.
-
I like Obama as well, but I also agree with the article Neil linked to about the treatment of Clinton. For example the term "cackle" crops up all over the place (try Youtube). The implication is that she is a witch. This is similar to some of the personal attacks on Helen Clark. She supposedly "cackles".
I do think the Dems have run a pretty clean campaign against each other so far. Most mudslinging seems to have come from "other sources" such as Drudge whose interests are not exactly dispassionate.
From TFA.
Hillary Clinton, long criticized as cold, shows a bit of feeling and is attacked as overly emotional. It's the latest installment of the ongoing double bind in which if she wears a black pantsuit she's too masculine and if she wears a pink shell she's too feminine; if she's serious she's humorless and if she laughs she "cackles." (George Bush has a horrible heh-heh-heh laugh, Schroeder reminded me. But who, besides Jon Stewart, makes anything of it? ) When Hillary was First Lady she was attacked for being too involved in business of state; now, when she claims "experience" we're reminded that First Ladies are basically trivial.
-
At present they're taking 40% of the income (roughly a 65% markup
Well now there's your low hanging fruit right there.
Why don't you sort those economics out before crippling my hardware, criminalising my software and snooping around my Internet?
Thanks.
-
Is there like, a certificate, or trophy or something Joanna?
I'm sure I saw Russell snaffle it on your behalf. From memory it was an umbrella.