Hard News: Vision and dumbassery
532 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 22 Newer→ Last
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Capacity is 1539 on three levels. The 497 is the concert chamber.http://www.aucklandlive.co.nz/Our-Venues/Auckland-Town-Hall/Great-Hall.aspx
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
open to being wined & dined
now it's wired and dired...
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Why don’t you just say “John Key is a Saint and cannot tell a lie, everybody else is just evil” like the MSM has been doing but with a few flouncy words thrown in.
Jesus, Steve, Do we need to have the talk about not putting foreign objects in my mouth without permission? I actually give Dotcom enough credit that I think he knew exactly what he was doing scheduling this five days before the election. Not an awful lot of time to mount an effective response is it? Not exactly a new form of electoral game playing, but a political game is precisely what it is so don't play the outraged naif because you're not that good an actor.
-
"Most New Zealanders would accept I think what we’re saying, because we’re substantiating it with the fax"?!
-
Russell, re :- 'Harre repeatedly gave the crowd the impression that Assange is ensconced in the Ecuadorian embassy because a US prosecutor wants to get at him, rather than because he refuses to return to Sweden for questioning over two alleged sex offenses.'
… perhaps the fact that the Swedes would neither accede to Assange's request for an assurance that should be go to Sweden , he would not be extradited to the US; nor accept his invitation to question him in London instead, be added to the mix? Wouldn't YOU hear alarm bells? -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Capacity is 1539 on three levels.
Sorry Hillary, my mistake, concert chamber, of course.
So 1539+800=not quite 2500 but that 800 might have been more and the people on line..... -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
you’re not that good an actor.
So that’s why Hollywood is ignoring me?
&*(
(badly acted sad face) -
stephen clover, in reply to
Please, can we not?
-
Hi folks. Keep it nice!
I’ve just done an interviewl with Greenwald, which I’ll write up for tomorrow (it’s going to be a bitch to transcribe – the man speaks many words per minute).
One point of interest: he told me he didn’t veto Dotcom’s Warner email as such, but did express the view that there were “better ways to use the time” at the Moment of Truth event.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Please, can we not?
What, hear alarm bells?
-
Jake Starrow, in reply to
Of course it was a win to Key Ken. Maybe a significant contribution to an election-winning difference. And that was as predictable as forecasting indifferent weather in a New Zealand spring. If for no other reason than a major chunk of the population has developed an acute bout of Obese German Fraudster fatigue.
The thing that gets me the most is the extent to which New Zealand Inc. has fallen for this convicted bullshitter.
Giving him airtime like last night says just as much about our naivety as it does the fat man's vengeance-driven drivel.
Sure, the topic needs examining but do we really need to fall for that zealot Harre and a criminal over-stayer to use it purely as scaremongering, electioneering?
Thankfully, they didn't come anywhere near succeeding in that quest.
I look forward to watching your take tonight Russell where I imagine the substance of the debate won't be accompanied by such appalling theatrics.. -
Thanks for this post, Russell. It sums up my feelings pretty well.
On the Dotcom "dilute/derail", it really comes down to the old political question - if you think somebody on your side of the fight has screwed up, do you say so out loud or not?
I think you do, because (a) honesty is a Good Thing, Dorothy, and (b) if you reduce it to a spin death-match, the Right usually win. You'll end up defending the wrong thing - your weakest point, and without conviction, much to your opponents' satisfaction.
Dotcom got it wrong, it's OK to say so, and the other stuff is WAY more important. Fortunately, it is still getting plenty of coverage. End of sermon.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
… perhaps the fact that the Swedes would neither accede to Assange’s request for an assurance that should be go to Sweden , he would not be extradited to the US; nor accept his invitation to question him in London instead, be added to the mix? Wouldn’t YOU hear alarm bells?
You know what’s making my bullshit alarm ring here, Seriatim?
The Swedish government quite rightly wouldn’t accede to a request they have precisely no standing under domestic or international law to make, and which wouldn’t be binding on any Swedish court if they did. (The Swedish courts which, by the way, are bound by exactly the same EU laws as the UK not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture.) And to be perfectly cynical, I think Mr Assange and his lawyers are perfectly well aware of that fact.
I’d also suggest Julian Assange no more gets to dictate the terms on which he is investigated by the Swedish authorities when it comes to incredibly serious allegations of sexual assault, than Muhammed Rizalman does in the Billingsley case here. Assange’s paranoia isn’t the point here.
ETA: One more point, Seriatim. You know who should be really pleased that extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law by jurists rather than governmental "assurances"? Kim Dotcom.
-
simon g, in reply to
Hi Jake
What do you think of Snowden's revelations? Do you agree with the PM that it simply hasn't happened, or with the guy who watched it happen?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The thing that gets me the most is the extent to which New Zealand Inc. has fallen for this convicted bullshitter.
New Zealand Inc.? is that an American company?
And it is news to me that John Key has been convicted of anything, however unpalatable that may be to honest people.
As usual, you are talking shit. -
Jake Starrow, in reply to
I get the feeling I should take your abuse as high praise Steve. I can't recall writing something that has evoked more clearly that truism... "the truth hurts." I know you expected Key to take a mortal blow but he didn't did he Steve?. But the German crook did.
-
I nearly fell off my chair reading this...
Jamie Whyte is going to Parliament
Friday night’s TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll puts Jamie Whyte in Parliament. TVNZ rounded down the poll result (ACT was on 1.2%). With the high wasted Conservative vote, just 1.2% makes Jamie an MP. It is ACT, not NZ First that will hold the balance of power. ACT is rising in all the polls taken last week.
He goes on to jest...
American psychologist Jonathan Haidt research demonstrates the only time we change our vote is when someone we respect says to us (for example) “’I have decide to vote for Jamie Whyte. I think having someone who can think has to be an advantage”.
LOL
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I get the feeling I should take your abuse as high praise Steve.
No, you really shouldn't.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I get the feeling I should take your abuse as high praise Steve.
No, you really shouldn’t.
Steve, this has nothing to do with the topic and I've better things to do than moderate this thread. Like finally eat some damn lunch ...
-
Jake Starrow, in reply to
I agree with the American expert on Hoskings this morning whose name escapes me who said even if Snowdens claims are largely true, "I'm pretty certain that innocent people had or have nothing to worry about."
Now I suspect you'll tell me that Hoskings is biased and his show is tainted. Than again, why shouldn't I expect the anti-Key conspiracy theorists not to give it their frantic all just days out from an election? -
The timing of Glenn Greenwald's reporting is pertinent only to the spin which National is pushing.
-
simon g, in reply to
So, no opinion then.
I don't expect you to be an expert on SPEARGUN or XKEYSCORE or whatever (I'm certainly not), but I do expect you to care about what the state does, and whether its legal, and to want to know the truth.
Thanks for admitting that you don't, at least we've got some honesty there.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
“I’m pretty certain that innocent people had or have nothing to worry about.”
And this would be why you post under a pseudonym, yes?
And, before you say "so do you" (which isn't that much of a response but *is* the most likely one you'll pull out of your playbook), most round here know that my name is Mark Harris, I make no secret of it. But there are many Mark Harrises, so I choose to use an identifier across social media and elsewhere online that is pretty much uniquely me, and have done for 20+ years. Whereas you have used 3 different identities in a week.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
agree with the American expert on Hoskings this morning whose name escapes me who said even if Snowdens claims are largely true, “I’m pretty certain that innocent people had or have nothing to worry about.”
Because people in positions of power never abuse that power?
*snort*
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Like finally eat some damn lunch …
He’s an angsty bugger when he’s hungry, eh.
Don't forget to blow on the pie.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.