Posts by dave stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Now where have I heard that before ...
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -
Oh, and keeping with the dog metaphor:
Bennett & English are dog tucker! -
Not sure who's comments are more disturbing - English or Bennett's.
Both are very similar in sentiment to the propaganda from some of the worst villains of the 20th century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao's gang of 4 etc.
No media comments from any constitutional experts yet?
Of course it seems like just a great big dog whistle, the intent being to round up all the straggler "tough on crime" votes.
But the fact that this has come out of the mouths of incumbent PM & deputy is SCANDALOUS!!!
Does the GG have sufficient teeth to chastise them over this? -
I think The Spin Off's policy comparison tool is pretty cool:
http://policy.thespinoff.co.nz/
Easy way of comparing policy apples & oranges (or lack of). -
The Spin Off has Nandor's take on this whole saga:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/11-08-2017/greens-icon-nandor-tanczos-on-metiria-and-what-the-party-really-stands-for/ -
This whole shemozzle may be a blessing in disguise: TOP might now pick up just enough extra votes (than it otherwise would have) to get to that all important 5%, and save TOP votes from being wasted votes. My biggest worry about this election is that a whole lot of TOP votes will probably just get flushed down the toilet - which would advantage the incumbents more than the line up for change? Although just like NZF, TOP could swing either way? Complicated!
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to dave stewart,
Gullible old me didn't pick up on the irony - but not surprising given some of the hysterical and spiteful nonsense being spouted about!
-
Enemies of the people? That's bullshit.
-
Just because a whole lot of well-to-do types are putting the boot into MT over her "criminality" doesn't mean that the consequences at the polling booth won't be positive for the Greens. Heck, there was an immediate boost in support after her initial revelations. So the spiteful nonsense that's been hurled in her general direction lately might actually rake up even more support from sympathetic quarters.
-
Can somebody please explain to me why in NZ we tolerate monopolistic business practices by television broadcasters (e.g. exclusive sports rights), yet in almost every other sector of commerce we have rules and tools to prevent businesses from obtaining a monopolistic advantage?
Does the ComComm not have enough teeth to do something about this, or are there special laws protecting the TV/sports sectors?
Seems to me like another example of free trade being a noble objective when it benefits large corporates, but to be prevented as much as possible when it might benefit individual consumers.