Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
However the President doesn't see it this way...which is not surprising..his blatant and arrogant disregard for the rule of law, both domestic and international, is a hallmark of his tenure.
In this instance, I think you've got the wrong side of the stick Simon. The constitution, which is the highest law in the USA, gives him the power to pardon or reprieve criminals. He's not disregarding the rule of law, he's just over-ruling it.
Not disregarding the law. It's just cronyism and immoral, and truly low.
-
Helen is doing a lot of undignified snapping. Surely a plan for the future, a clear direction is better than Cpt Blighs cat of nine tails.
Well, I'm sure they do have a plan for the future, and it wouldn't surprise me if part of it is 'coming down on the popular side rather than unpopular side of a few things'.
Corrections is primarily a failure as a result of Labours 'successful' lock'em up and don't spare the years.
I certainly don't agree with that policy, but I don't think more prisoners in there longer is what's been hitting the headlines. Ashley probably wouldn't have been jailed if his family had not felt that they'd run out of options, I don't think that was forced on the courts by the law. A parole prisoner got loose and shot and killed a member of the public. You could argue that that one could have been prevented if more of the lock'em up and don't spare the years had been applied.
Aside from the pay-for-opinion surveys I think there is a real ground swell of support for Bradfords Bashing Bill.
Labour know they got tagged with this being seen as 'their' bill, and that it didn't help them at all politically when that happened. It's what also would have been behind them working to get the compromise that national eventually agreed to.
a bit unfair on Clark I think. That state house is in her electorate so as an MP she has to take some action and I'd be very surprised if she didn't know the back-story to it all.
I can't recall her acting at all 'electorate MP' on it. Did she visit the street and talk to the neighbours? Was she at her electoral office consulting with HNZ, the tenants, etc? She might have done those things, but I just recall her at her press conference making political capital out of saying that the family needed to be moved on. That's rather prime ministerial, and very political from where I'm sitting.
-
Aunty Helens started beneficary Bashing as well jumping in on a housing corp house eviction.
I'd guess that there's some Labour political strategists who have looked back over Mr Field, Bradford's bill, Corrections, Police etc, and come to the conclusion that they've had a pretty crap year. It's showing in the polls too.
And one way to get back in the game is to wait for an issue to come up in the public arena and then jump on a side so that 90% of the population sees you agreeing with what they think on the matter.
So it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Labour hacks are picking up the phone and telling Helen "I think it'd be good if you came out against the electricity company that cut that family's power" and "against that family in the state house that everyone is bagging in the media right now".
Of course, it's possible that there's no politics involved at all...
-
The boat might have sailed for this one, but it must have occurred to someone during the 80s to expand their demographic reach with a series of girl Transformers who turned into household appliances that can clean and cook.
A thousand feminists are currently burning their bras in your direction Keith. Better look out.
If only we could photoshop those inter-web videos of Paris Hilton. Maybe if today's girls saw her licking a wooden spoon after a satisfying session of home baking, instead of ...
Heck, you might even get the boys picking up a spatula ...
OK, if there's video of Paris licking a wooden spoon, then it's going to be cut into an R18 clip before you know it. Cooking is not the private activity it's going to inspire!
-
But the reality is that Hillary has a double digit lead over her closest rival which for some reason happens to really annoy most white male liberal middle class American punidts.
I think the failure of the American primary system is that it chooses the person most popular (most popular in the bizarre way that the American primary system runs), not necessarily the best person to run for the election - as in, the person most likely to win it for 'their side', or indeed person most likely to be a good president. A few polls a while ago (not sure if it's changed) said that if Clinton won the nomination, she would lose the election. Which shows a lack of strategic thinking on the part of the members of the party choosing her. Whether or not anyone else is better, or more likely to win...
Also, I think that, like her husband, the view that she'll do anything to further her political career to the top doesn't endear her to some. I'm not sure if being white male liberal and middle class is these people's problem - preferring a male candidate to this particular female candidate doesn't automatically make you sexist. Lots of them are very gung-ho about Obama, so, they're clearly happy to think outside the white box at least. I think they've just come to a point of view on her and they'd like someone else to get the nomination.
-
And to be fair to Bush - this sentence was quite harsh ... and he didn't pardon.
No that's true, he didn't pardon. He reprieved, which is also one of the powers given to him in the constitution in the same sentence.
I can understand pardons in some certain limited circumstances - some were noted above. What pisses me off, and would annoy me more if I was American, is pardons for friends and family. If I was the one signing pardons, anyone that I knew personally would be the first off the list. It seems to have become traditional in America that they're the first on it.
Or possibly sooner? Don't the Presidents usually dole out the Presidential Pardons in their last days of office? Does Bush know something he hasn't told us yet?
I suspect the timing relates to the fact that Libby was going to have to turn up for jail soon (8 weeks he was given), and George didn't want that to happen, rather than any political issue.
-
I concur Paul. Once laws start talking about limiting the use of images/material for valid news purposes, then it starts to set off warning bells.
There are a reasonable number of people who when they're at work, are always on camera, and don't get to set limits on what ends up on the TV. You don't hear Jerry Collins bitching that the TV shouldn't have put his little toilet episode on the TV.
MPs should either behave like adults, deal with the fact that we get to see them behaving like children, or find a different job.
-
I just read the news article on stuff relating to this. I couldn't have been less surprised by the news that Bush got Libby off. The odds on that happening were pretty short.
I'm just surprised that it took him longer than 30 seconds to do it.
-
I don't understand this idea that because a family member has suffered something -- whether it be suicide, murder, drug addiction, or some other horrible social ill -- that this qualifies you as an expert in preventing that problem.
Well that's not what I said. I said that, just because they have personal experience, they shouldn't be excluded from the problem, not that they suddenly become an expert.
One of the things that dependency groups such as alcoholics anonymous etc use is working with their peers - other alcoholics. It's not the only answer, but it's not something that should be excluded because people are 'too close to the problem'.
-
That IS true, I have seen the photos of pineapples.
It's always the fruit that suffer the most.