Hard News: Loving your dog and owning your words
185 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Craig, you appear to be suggesting Grant's responsible for Franks situation, you must know he's not?
As I'm not saying any such thing, and don't think any reasonable person could have come to that conclusion, I'll move on.
You also seem to be suggesting he's vague on CU, he's not.
I don't actually know his position on same-sex civil marriage, and if Grant himself would like to dial in and enlighten me his word is solid fried gold. (Of course, I'm going to file it away and hold him to it -- but that's showbiz!)
Do you object to the use of cameras etc at cottage meetings, I think I probably do
On balance, I don't if all the parties involved are aware of it and give their consent. MY views on covert recording (and I was pretty much a minority of one on that) have been exhaustively canvassed elsewhere on PAS. Life's too short (and carpal tunnel is too painful) to type it all again. :)
But all that aside, Franks is the twit at the centre of this piece and Grant's not.
*sigh* OK, but I didn't know it was out of order to expand the discussion.
-
And Paul, to be fair, I think I've made it perfectly clear that I think all candidates and incumbents should be asked for direct answers to a very simple question: Would you vote for an amendment to the Marriage Act allowing same-sex civil marriage; and if not, why? And that includes both Grant and Stephen -- especially when, on current polling, they're both going to be MPs in a couple of months.
-
-
__I really hope you're not still talking about Grant here Craig.__
Well, I don't know whether I should or not -- might be a useful question for an intrepid PAS Welligtonista to ask at the next cottage meeting, don't you think? Just remember to have the recording device clearly visible, folks.
Craig it was your response above to Kyle's question that led me to wonder if you weren't connecting dots that weren't there however I accept your word.
__But all that aside, Franks is the twit at the centre of this piece and Grant's not.__
*sigh* OK, but I didn't know it was out of order to expand the discussion.
I'd happily continue to mine his idiocy, there's more than enough material.
-
well, if they pay US$700 billion for the assets (sic), of course the assets will be worth $700 billion. Boom boom! Would you like fries with that, sir? The assets (sic) are worth whatever the market is willing to pay. In this case, the "market" is the US govt. Now, if the US govt. then offers these purchased assets (sic) to the market at a later stage, well, let's just say there is some downside risk involved.
Reading a story on stuff this morning, it said that they are basically going to buy up $700 billion of the worst mortgages and loans - the really stupid ones. So basically they'll be throwing $700 billion dollars at companies that have made really stupid lending decisions, covering the difference between what they lent for the property, and what they're able to sell it for now that the house prices have collapsed.
The government will end up with $700 billion of mortgages on their books that are basically valueless, and which could pretty much be written off on day 1.
The ongoing irony of deregulation and the stupidity of capitalism gone crazy (that public radio show is just astounding) being rescued by fobbing off the loss on the government...
-
I just think that your statement the only way to get to full marriage rights for all was to have CU for long enough for the bigots to detect that the sky hasn't fallen in is, at best a wee bit naive. Here's the reality check: Brian The Bish is now, has always been, and always will be a moral Chicken Little. You're never going to change that, and wouldn't waste my time trying.
Of course you'll always have disagreeable bigots, and I'm sure there plenty today who think gay sex should be criminalised. My point is that society has moved on, and the concept of criminalising gay sex is completely untenable.
And being blunt for a moment, you and I have "a generation" to wait. My partner (who is sixty-four next birthday) probably doesn't.
Look, I'm not being prescriptive here, just offering an opinion on a potential timeline on when parliament will finally grant equality on this issue. MPs are typically worried about how they viewed by their electorate, especially on issues which provide passionate (if misguided) feedback.
Sometimes, Mikaere, the hoi polloi deserve a little more credit than they get.
But it's not the hoi polloi who vote on the issues, it's the MPs. IMO, it's when the vociferous elements of the misguided hoi pollio chill out to the reality that the sky didn't fall with CUs, and won't fall in with equal marriages that a majority of MPs will have the nous to do the right thing.
And I certainly believe that no civil rights battle can be won when you're too chicken shit to even start to fight without a green light from pollsters and a focus group.
Heh. The Greens might be a lot of things, but "chicken shit" we are are not.
And I do hope all candidates are asked they question on marriage equality, it's an important issue.
-
My point is that society has moved on, and the concept of criminalising gay sex is completely untenable.
Quite. And around the time of law reform, the usual suspects were lining up to predict the falling of the sky.
My favourite was Norm Jones' speech declaring that New Zealand would become "the sodomy capital of the South Pacific".
I interviewed Bruce Logan of the Maxim Institute during the CUB debate, and he admitted that homosexual law reform hadn't been the calamity he'd thought it would be at the time, and he didn't favour repealing it.
But he still insisted that the sky would fall if we let the buggers get married.
-
Heh - priceless. He's added to my RSS feed.
What amazes me is that he manages to attract comments that are in on the joke and not hordes of irony-challenged dumbarses.
His back catalogue is worth browsing when you have a moment.
-
What the fuck is Chris Trotter on?
All I know is I don't want any.
-
All I know is I don't want any.
And you better not be putting it in milk in China...
-
WH,
My favourite is Hitchens' double bluff irony impasse. All of the meaningless hoaxes are good, but I especially like the letters to gunsmith and Richard Dawkins.
The assets are worth whatever the market is willing to pay
I've finally got around to reading Globalisation and its Discontents, which I'm really enjoying, if that is the right word. Its hard not to be a little cynical sometimes.
-
My favourite is Hitchens' double bluff irony impasse. All of the meaningless hoaxes are good, but I especially like the letters to gunsmith and Richard Dawkins.
He's the blogger that keeps on giving. This, from Non kinky sex is a waste of time: "Having testicles is like being chained to the village idiot."
-
$700 billion of mortgages on their books that are basically valueless
What, they're not secured on any property at all and the mortgagee has no income and no prospect of any?
I suspect that isn't the case and it's more that they're underperforming and are maybe worth 50-70% today and potentially more in the future.
(The 80's S&L bailout cost the taxpayer around 25% of the total asset number).
-
My favourite was Norm Jones' speech declaring that New Zealand would become "the sodomy capital of the South Pacific".
And my favourite was some middle-aged gent at a town hall meeting declaring that:
"If this bill is passed, then we might - I not saying we will, but we might - see the advent of Gay Bars !"
-
"If this bill is passed, then we might - I not saying we will, but we might - see the advent of Gay Bars !"
Hah!
Maybe he meant gay bears?
-
What, they're not secured on any property at all and the mortgagee has no income and no prospect of any?
I suspect that isn't the case and it's more that they're underperforming and are maybe worth 50-70% today and potentially more in the future.
Ah yes, you're probably correct there, they will have the properties. So maybe their $700 billion bailout will leave them with a $400 billion asset.
They are picking up the worst of the mortgages. So these will tend to be the ones where house values were massively inflated (the radio show talked about 300% increases over 7 years I think) due to a fake housing boom driven partially by the stupid mortgages, and where the owners have just walked away from the property and aren't able to be found anymore.
The government won't get the ones where the owners are struggling hard to pay off a mortgage that is too big for them - the companies will keep those ones if they've a reasonable chance of making it through.
-
Meanwhile, Mr Pull-Your-Socks-Up-New-Zealand takes a hit:
NZ tycoon fast-tracks bank sale
4:00AM Wednesday Sep 24, 2008
By Adam BennettMoscow-based billionaire New Zealander Stephen Jennings has agreed to sell half of his Renaissance Capital investment bank to Russian metals oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov for a fraction of the business' estimated value before the credit crunch.
-
**What the fuck are these people on?**
Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia says he talked to Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples about the Winston Peters' donation row but denies he did anything wrong.
Dr Sharples today said a government minister and a New Zealand First staffer tried to put pressure on his party over how it would vote in yesterday's censure motion against Mr Peters.
The party's spokesman could not immediately confirm if it was Mr Horomia whose comments concerned them. Dr Sharples had not wanted to name the individual as it was about the party rather than individuals.
[...]
Today Dr Sharples said he was "disappointed" over attempts to influence his party.
"I personally had two separate phone calls from a senior minister urging me to vote in favour of Winston, and suggesting that there would be unpleasant repercussions from Maori people if I didn't," he said in a statement.
"Both (fellow co-leader) Tariana Turia and myself were disgusted with this kind of activity, aimed at perverting the course of justice and fair play."
Well, sorry, Sharples -- this is about the individual involved. As they say in Boston, politics ain't beanbag but it shouldn't be a bad parody of The Godfather either. Who needs Russian olgarchs when you've got this?
-
It really has been a sad state of affairs, and I hope NZ First get slapped at the ballot box severely.
I think Labour has played it badly as well, which is a shame. Helen Clark seems to be better at managing the dodgy stuff in her own party (or at least, she used to be good at it), than outside. I wonder if it'll come out at some stage why she's made the decisions that she has, I can't see any logic for her support of Winston Peters and her refusal to have even vague confidence in the Privileges Committee, Owen Glenn, and the SFO.
-
I can't see any logic for her support of Winston Peters and her refusal to have even vague confidence in the Privileges Committee, Owen Glenn, and the SFO.
Me neither, unless she believes NZ1st will make their 5%. But even so... the smell, the smell! Better to go out with some honour & dignity.
Too late for that now I guess.
-
This Kiwiblog thread is interesting:
-
"If this bill is passed, then we might - I not saying we will, but we might - see the advent of Gay Bars !"
refrain:
...les boys do cabaret...les boys are glad to be gay...
-
I can't see any logic for her support of Winston Peters and her refusal to have even vague confidence in the Privileges Committee, Owen Glenn, and the SFO.
Oh, I don't know... I've long said that Helen Clark is an awesomely intelligent woman, but like a hell of a lot of awesomely intelligent people she chokes on the words "I was wrong..." And who among us, if we being perfectly honest, hasn't found ourselves on a self-inflicted hiding to nothing out of sheer bloody-mindedness?
I guess when you've committed yourself to a presidential character-based campaign, the last thing you want to be doing six weeks before an election is raising the red flag over your political and character judgement.
-
Oh, I don't know... I've long said that Helen Clark is an awesomely intelligent woman, but like a hell of a lot of awesomely intelligent people she chokes on the words "I was wrong..." And who among us, if we being perfectly honest, hasn't found ourselves on a self-inflicted hiding to nothing out of sheer bloody-mindedness?
Yeah, see I could see possible reasons for her being neutral etc, and struggling to come out against him.
But she, and Michael Cullen, have been supporting him in many ways, and attacking, in particular the privileges committee and the SFO. That's not struggling to say "I was wrong", that's making a definite choice to come out fighting for him. I can't see any advantage to the strategy. It will be a very interesting chapter in her memoirs if she reveals it.
-
Yeah, see I could see possible reasons for her being neutral etc, and struggling to come out against him.
I suspect it came down to whether:
1) Minimising action against Winston whilst hoping that most people (or at least 5% of the ballot) will conclude that the crime wasn't that major i.e. that National and Labour both receive anonymous donations, and Winston should have had more control but really it wasn't a hanging offence
is worse than
2) Labour's government comes down in a screaming mess with Winston as an enemy and National making capital about Labour/Helen's inability to maintain control during the dying days of a tapped out, has-been government.
So, perhaps it was seen as was WIN-WIN for National, and LOSE_SMALL - LOSE_BIG for Labour.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.