Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
What happened when Sarah Palin took control of the Alaska Board of Censorship?
Where on earth did you find that? Hilarious.
-
Really, Paul, I don't know how it works in NSW but we don't actually let children stand for Parliament. It's all 'secondary meanings', and if it works it works.
Fair enough. I'd interpreted the "vote for me" to mean my interests . Right now, it's not clear that the adults in NSW are behaving as such though time will tell.
-
Let's get real about the dog being whistled for here -- vote for me, or so you have something against cute kiddies.
There's no dog whistle here; it's unequivocal and I don't see any secondary meaning. The claim, appears to me at least, that the Greens are focused on the future - perhaps you mean the implication that no other party is?
I think the contrast with National's billboard will work well for the Greens; not only are their's more simple and direct, they're more positive. National's persisted with a strategy that's inherently negative and, IMO, overstates their capacity to address the problems they identify.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of what you believe or your perspective, I see the National billboards as divisive and bordering on dishonest. The Green's might be painfully earnest and equally aggrandising, but they're not nearly so cynical. As I say, perhaps it is about the prism through which I'm viewing them.
David, DeepRed, thanks for the background on Daisy. Didn't know that story.
-
ah god I have better things to do on a friday evening but those criticisms really hurt.
Sage, I have no desire to upset you and I apologise if my comments offended. There's substance to your argument and I've thought about the points you make, it's just not clear you've thought about what others have said.
It has struck me repeatedly throughout the thread that there is a confusion expressed about WHY McCain chose Palin. And there have been any number of wild conspiracy theories and memes running as to why. They have fundamentally missed the point.
Wild conspiracies about why he choose her? Not really. Serious questions about the rigour of selection and her merit, yes, but not conspiracies.
There's a degree of confusion about elements of her story some of which, like her honesty, are vitally important. That might not be the point you're making but it's the point I'm most interested in. I don't care at all about her daughter's pregnancy, nor hers for that matter, but I'm very interested in her attitude to drilling, what real executive and related experience she has and what kind of appointments she'd make to the Supreme Court if she ever had the chance.
-
whats your point Paul. Prefer to attack the way I write something than answer the basic question regarding evidence of an inability to make decisions in a Presidential candidate
No, that's not it; I've reasonably closely read you comments and it's not the way you write, it's the substance and the predictability. You don't seem to respond to what's said by others other than to use any comment as a jumping off point for new/refreshed speaking points. I'd rather just read the propaganda than pretend this is a genuine discussion of alternative perspectives.
-
McCain's speech seems to be getting a mediocre response pretty much everywhere, including the right:
Hell, I'm not sure what it says about me or my expectations but I thought it wasn't terrible and I expected terrible. He's like a nice old great uncle but I'm over the endless stories and allegories. My problem is that I've no knowledge of the electorate - perhaps this washes with them?
The presidency is about making decisions. Despite a short time in office Palin made the right decisions. Obama sat in the Illilnois state legislature and said "Present" 130 times. Obama is incapable of making a decision because it might look bad politically.
Sage, sorry but I'm not convinced you've got any unique or even different insight on these issues - you're too quick to trot out predictable lines. What's nice about PAS is that its readership appears, to me at least, to be open to a range of alternative perspectives provided they're reasonably put. So far I'm clear you're running an alternative line but it's not sounding particularly clear or informed, just reactionary.
Just saying...
-
Chris Trotter is confidently predicting it's going to be worth two points to them, and he may be right.
Oh golly. The contrast with National's billboards is extreme isn't it? I can see the potentially icky side of these, but they're still a lot better than National's (but I would say that...)
-
The grammar might suck, but I'm hopeful it's at least clear to the voters in Wellington Central!
-
WARNING: Hard to watch without wanting to punch someone (guess which one?)
Yeah agreed. Still, I get frustrated by the hopelessly deferential interviews too.
-
Don, you may well be right. Certainly her family connections with BP give rise to questions. Also, McCain was clear during the Civil Forum interview that he'd support offshore drilling on the west coast.
Here and here she indicates her support for drilling including saying:
"We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact,"
and
"We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress -- and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add."