Posts by InternationalObserver
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And Peter Costello has joined him on that long walk back to the pavilion. If Howard had of stepped down during his last term as he promised (__"I've changed my mind, and everyone agree's with me"__) the election results may have been different. Costello's failure to force the leadership issue when he should have (mid-term) will probably be a lesson to all politicians who aspire to leadership roles. If you want it you gotta go for it. Costello didn't and by waiting dutifully in the wings he's now got nothing.
Will anyone here move against Clark? I doubt it, and they'd probably be right not to, but Clark/Labour face the same problems Howard/the Liberals did. Sure, things are pretty good, but we're just not feeling you any more - maybe it's time for the other lot to have a go?
And yet I'm not rushing off to the TAB. Clark/Labour are proven masters at snatching victory from the jaws of election defeat.
-
This is off thread, but kinda on-topic (esp since everyone's using initials). I just watched an episode of NCIS today that I'd recorded earlier (not sure if was last Tuesday's ep). Two NCIS agents were blown up on US soil by a suicide bomber (but not really, as it later transpired) and Mark Harmon's boss had to call the agents families and give them the bad news. She says sombrely to Harmon: "I've got some calls to make and you've got a terrorist to kill".
It struck me because surely his job was to catch the terrorist and bring him in, but no, the scriptwriters felt confident enough to suggest the terrorist should be killed outright. Obviously that kind of gung-ho spirit plays well to an American audience and suits the recruiting needs of the US military; but it also encapsulates the mind-set of the Bush administration's 'War On Terror'.
And the WOT has been forced on the rest of the world, and even NZ is not immune. This so called Anti-terror legislation is, we're told, necessary because of our commitments to the UN (a commitment driven by the US).
Thank god no shots were fired in Tuhoe, but considering how far we've come already down a path most feel abhorrent (and unnecessary) I wonder at what point we will reach a time when shots will be fired? 2010? 2019? And when will we have our first 'terror related death'??
The weird thing is that the world already knows the emperor has no clothes, and yet we still dance to his tune...
-
Heh heh ... before I get shot down, let me also acknowledge another definition of prattle:
InternationalObserver
Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 595 -
Michael Laws on Radio Live this morning said he was changing his opinion on this prosecution as more detail emerged. .... I presume he reserves the right to flip flop again if a white middle class 'family values' type is ever arrested for smacking.
So it would have been better if he had just stuck to his original opinion despite the new information?!!!
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people changing their mind -- I'm just a tad cynical of Laws' motives on this occasion. Will he now STFU on the smacking issue, or is this a one-off 'justified prosecution'? Time will tell. (My hackles always go up when talkback hosts 'confide' with their listeners that X was 'known to the Police')
It's people who won't change their minds, no matter what the evidence or argument, that I find offensive, and frightening.
Yup, and there's a fair bit of it here on PAS. Nothing malicious, so I'm not really frightened or offended, just bored with some people prattling on for pages about the same point they made on a similar thread at the beginning of the week.
Still, one man's prattle is another man's spirited debate about issues that really matter.
Funny how the women seem to be more succinct. Say their piece and move on ...
-
Michael Laws on Radio Live this morning said he was changing his opinion on this prosecution as more detail emerged. Turns out the dad has numerous assault convictions, and is 'known to the Police'. Maybe the Smacking Bill isn't so wrong afterall, he mused.
I presume he reserves the right to flip flop again if a white middle class 'family values' type is ever arrested for smacking.
-
In the New Zealand I thought I knew, most people figured this bill was trying to achieve something important: To limit the power of a few to swing elections using the sort of wealth the rest of us can't hope to compete with.
__and__
no more than a handful of people want to spend more than $120,000 on electioneering
Well sure, we don't want to get into a situation similar to US politics where a war chest of $30million is required but...
Where did this cap of $120k come from? As anyone in advertising knows, this will buy you SFA. National purportedly spent $800k on TV ads last election and Labour $400k. So clearly the $120k figure is yet another sop to the minor parties in order for Labour to get the bill passed.
Okay, so if you argue that it's 'unfair' for a rich party to outspend a poorer party because that disadvantages the smaller parties ... can we expect to see similar changes to the Commerce Act as we have in the Election spending Bill?
How can poor old locally owned Burgerfuel ever hope to compete with that big nasty multinational conglomerate MacDonalds? McD's are one of the top buyers of TV advertising - how is Burgerfuel expected to compete?
Or is that next on the agenda?
-
FYI: I don't club baby seals either.
you should.
i've heard they taste like a really salty vension.
Club baby seals? No, I couldn't be so cruel.
But as for the adult males ... I believe that's considered a fair fight!A'rrrrr!
-
Damian said:
I mean, great cause and all, but soooo many people are doing it
And then I said:
Yeah, that's why whenever someone tries to sell me a poppy or a pink ribbon I just tell them to fark off.
And then Jackie said:
I'm speechless.
And then Jeremy said:
I was composing a post along the same lines, only longer, and more funnier, but no less ironic.
But I Say:
No Jeremy, you couldn't have posted something funnier, and Jackie's response proves it.
As I've proffered before, my 'humour' can be deliberately obtuse.
Damian lobbed a blunt comment and I was attempting to smash it back across the net.FYI: I don't club baby seals either.
-
violating spending limits and disclosure requirements is a crime, not a tort. That means that those wanting to shut down speech will need to make a complaint to the Electoral Commission or the police
Oh goody, does that mean that a Political Party can break the rules, be charged, go to court, drag out the court case, get elected, found guilty, and then pass retrospective legislation to change the rules and validate their action?
It's a bit like the BSA who rule an ad has broken the standards, but by the time they rule the ad has run its course.
-
I mean, great cause and all, but soooo many people are doing it
Yeah, that's why whenever someone tries to sell me a poppy or a pink ribbon I just tell them to fark off.