Take a deep breath Danielle. Simply expressing my admiration for New Zealand's most popular Prime Minister ever [as per each and any poll] shouldn't send you into such a tiz. It's simply an opinion. Grounds for debate.
Or is your reaction demonstrative of exactly what I was referring to in my questions to Russell? That the preference is that people is that starkly opposite opinions to yours and it seems most other commenters on this site aren't welcome.
Steven calmly asked me to expand which I will do in a considered fashion.
Gotta run. Kids really putting heat on me now!
Make that "is the preference that people with opposite opinions to yours etc"
and me as a “sock puppeteer” as just two examples of the vitriol that permeates many a comment on your site
The truth hurts.
Unless you’re Jason Ede, finally out of hiding! That would be awesome.
Brilliant bit of logic there Danielle.
Jason Ede, if that's you and logically it must be, perhaps your time spent arguing on the internet could be better used answering questions, for I have questions for you. Many, many questions.
If National can form a government I predict English will take over around 12 months in.
Or Joyce. Or Bennett. Or Bridges. Or Brownlee. Or Smith...
In a hurry to get kids to sport
Poor old Dad4Justice used to pull that one back when they'd let him in to Kiwiblog.
preference that people with opposite opinions to yours
Oh Woe, those of the oppressed majority
That’s an example of the problem: you don’t seem to be very good at making your points without almost immediately going into the drama-flounce death spiral. “YOU GUYS ARE MEAN AND YOU SUCK!” isn’t actually an argument, y’know?
I think this identifies the problem.
Take a deep breath Danielle. Simply expressing my admiration for New Zealand’s most popular Prime Minister ever [as per each and any poll] shouldn’t send you into such a tiz. It’s simply an opinion. Grounds for debate.
Oh, good grief. You’re being really patronising and doing exactly what Danielle was talking about.
The problem is that this just ends up making all of the discussion about you, and frankly, that’s not all that interesting.
Is it really a matter of me arguing better and/or showing more respect.
It really is.
Poor old Dad4Justice used to pull that one back when they’d let him in to Kiwiblog.
Good memory! (Not that I spent a lot of time on Kiwiblog, you understand.)
Heh. I got "take a deep breath", "in a tiz", and the implication that I needed to calm down! It's the sexist response trifecta!
Back now. Composing reply to Steven.
My impression of Kiwiblog is that for a while the more rabid posters were kept in check but then the moderation seemed to disappear and any semblance of debate faded away.
But I have to say that it is useful to visit it once in a while just to put things into perspective (i.e. that the civil discourse that takes place on Public Address is really appreciated. Thanks Russell!)
I'm inclined to a less rancorous debate. Partly because the echo-chamber is a little dangerous; maybe also because it's a little willful to insist JK is obviously nasty beyond the pale, just that noone but us can see it. And partly because I find him impressive myself- he's the most effective politician on the scene. (I wish this wasn't true, and I'm appalled at some of the methods- but still, there it is.)
Some good things Key's done: by supporting them, he more-or-less ended the nasty going-nowhere debate over marriage equality and the repeal of S59. I think the nation benefitted.
By inviting the Maori Party into his govt (and cabinet) and by eschewing the nasty dog-whistling of Brash, he's largely taken racism out of the political debate. There's a political calculation in it, for sure, but it's still, on the whole, been a good thing. His response to Whyte's latest 'legal privelege' nonsense was straightforward and more-or-less spot on.
Key is smart. His ability to communicate ideas is consumate. He uses humour better than anyone else currently in politics.
And I don't think he likes lying: he seems to squirm. He has that queasy look when he admitted calling Slater: he knew it was wrong.
Of course part of the unease in lying is thinking you might be caught. Key is a master at avoiding that. There had to be a 'this could backfire' feeling about admitting talking to Slater, too.
His manner when opposed can be nasty and sneering. From where I stand, he's very good at the indirect lie, the mis-direction, the lie by ommission.
I find the underhanded methods Key and his govt have employed towards their political enemies are nasty and dishonest. They speak of people who know they can't win the argument with reason or persuation, and are willing to fight dirty to win. I can't wait to see the back of Key, for the dirty politics, and even more because I believe National are damaging the country economically, socially, culturally, and morally.
But there's no ignoring my opinions are not shared by a majority of New Zealanders.
So y'know - Jake, take it away.
Is it really a matter of me arguing better and/or showing more respect.
Yes. You managed to piss me off in about 3 sentences and I haven't even seen the efforts of your previous incarnations. If you tone down the sarcasm etc., and simply make your points politely you'll find you're welcome here even if people disagree with you.
Some good things Key’s done: by supporting them, he more-or-less ended the nasty going-nowhere debate over marriage equality and the repeal of S59. I think the nation benefitted.
While Labour’s reactionary rump on those issues was pretty minimal, it was there. Whether or not they had the potential to become left-right bargaining chips within the Party, as happened with no nukes for Rogernomics, Key certainly killed that possibility.
Or Joyce. Or Bennett. Or Bridges. Or Brownlee. Or Smith…
Yup, and that list looks more or less in order of likelihood. Key has said he thought about quitting in mid 2012, I think the fallout from Dirty Politics will have him considering it again. Handing over around 12 months in is about the perfect time, it's not too soon and it still gives plenty of time for the new leader to establish themselves before the next election. I think English has the broadest appeal, despite his previous failure as leader (it was a decade ago, I doubt it will matter much), though here may be some personal bias involved as I much prefer him to Joyce or Bennett.
I saw Bennett on Backbenchers. She's supposed to be impressive?!?!
Joyce will have to work on his public persona as anyone who saw him on the Nation a couple of weeks ago will not see him as a good PM.
Bennett isn't ready and I'm not sure she has it in her, I think she's a loyal and hard worker but not a leader.
Dunno about Bridges and Brownlee. Smith is a loose cannon.
I haven't forgotten Bill English's disastrous time as leader although he looks pretty statesman like now. I think you're right, he has the broadest appeal, but I suspect Joyce might have the numbers in the party.
Dunno about Bridges and Brownlee.
Bridges is too young, plus he still has anger-management issues, ala the Campbell Live interview. Brownlee has a conviction for assaulting a pensioner (I'm not making that up), so doesn't have a clean sheet.
Remember how it made you feel 10 feet tall?
And the public? Don't get me started on the public. They're jonesing so hard.
Ha, yes, exactly! Great post. I was starting to get the shakes earlier this week, and eventually decided to wield some placards and other volunteery stuff. Whether or not it makes a difference, at least it's making me feel better.
Its a wet saturday and I was sorta waiting for Jack Sparrow to compose a reply. It'll be a one hit wonder no doubt. So I foolishly went and read Jamie Whyte opening speech.
Man that boy must have had some serious drugs to come up with that saga, making a monster of everyone except djonkey ....and yet....and yet, a nitpick here, a nitpick there. Now I just want soma
I saw Bennett on Backbenchers. She’s supposed to be impressive?!?!
I don't get this either. But the theory is that because she's seen through reforms at a minefield portfolio like MSD without getting blown up, she must be capable.
Brownlee has a conviction for assaulting a pensioner (I’m not making that up), so doesn’t have a clean sheet.
Strictly speaking, it's not a conviction - he lost a civil action brought by the victim. From Wikipedia:
Brownlee received criticism during the 1999 election campaign when he ejected Neil Able, a 60-year old Native Forest Action campaigner, from the National Party's 1999 election campaign launch. The ejection took place with what many, including watching journalists, considered excessive force. Neil Able started civil assault proceedings against Brownlee, seeking damages of $60,000. In 2002, a District Court judge found in favour of Mr Able that Brownlee had "used excessive and unnecessary force on Mr Abel when he tried to remove him from a staircase handrail". Brownlee was ordered to pay Neil Able $8,500 in damages. Brownlee later sought unsuccessfully to have $48,000 of his legal fees reimbursed by the Government.