Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Verpal:
Yes, we must be living in different worlds. Then again, I don't start screeching 'bias' every time I hear or read something disobliging to the National Party (though I do have to wonder whether some hacks are starting to feel like the cult leader who's been predicting the world will end next Tuesday for years. Make a move, John, and put 'em out of their misery!), or Helen Clark gets through an interview on National Radio without teeth-marks in her throat.
-
And with all due respect, Russell, Richard Griffin is such an expert on "National Party people" because... he was Jim Bolger's chief press secretary ten years ago? Richard gives excellent sound bite, and has some insight into politcs, but perhaps he should focus on his day job as TVNZ's 'government relations manager' - and given the dog's breakfast that's been on his watch, how the hell has he kept off the dole line?
-
Verpal Singh wrote:
The blatantly biased way media handled the Labour Party election spending (how many people on the street know that every Party with the exception of Progressives, was guilty of what Labour was accused of?)Anyone who could read? Sorry for the snark, but most people I know of all political persuasions hit the point of information (and spin) overload a while back.
-
Ah, so those six "National sources" Hagar talks so much about where Mary and the kids. Gee... that explains so much. Sorry, but all this 'gathering speculation" is enormous fun, but about as credible as those cult leaders who've been predicting the world will end next Tuesday for years. :)
-
Russell wrote:
And then Plunket helpfully suggested to Brash that Hager "couldn't be bothered" having his entire book re-edited, re-paginated and re-printed to satisfy an injunction that shouldn't apply anyway. It was a ridiculous comment. I have a small book publishing business, and I'm well aware that the bulk of the cost is in precisely those activities.Well, call me a pussy, but I don't like seeing any books pulped on legal advice whether it comes from a 'small' house or an arm of a big arse multinational but it's not unknown.[I still feel a sympatheitc thrill at Shakespeare's line, "First, we kill all the lawyers." ;) ] Still, I don't recall Hagar saying that it would have sent Craig Potton to the poor house, but that it would have required a near-total rewrite and months of work he didn't want to do. And too bloody right, say I. But I think you're missing my point, somewhat Russell. The comment may or may not be 'ridiculous', and whether Brash's injunction should have been granted in the first place is wide open to debate. I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone that Sean Plunket is still a cock, despite calming down a lot since his suspension last year, but that's not the point.
This is: Do you think Plunkett unfairly or inaccurately paraphrased what Hagar said? If you - or Nikky for that matter - believe so, then you've got grounds for laying a broadcasting standards complaint with Radio New Zealand. FFS, it's not as if there's not enough to ping National Radio for without positing that Brash got an on-air handjob from Plunkett or anyone else at National Radio today.
-
Michael Savidge wrote:
I have to admit feeling a bit sorry for Hager too. He's taking a hell of a shellacking from all sorts of rabid folk out there...Hum, does that include the Prime Minister who (quite understandably) took very strong exception to the Hagar co-authored allegations that, on her watch as the responsible Minister, the SIS was spying on her political enemies, including an MP? In Clark's shoes I'd be a damn sight more offended by that, than absurd sin-uendo that my husband was a closeted (but astoundingly indiscreet) faggot, acting as my beard when I plotted with the rest of the vast dyke-wing conspiracy.
-
Gerry Rawnsley wrote:
Yeah, Plunket was strangely sympathetic. When Brash said, “I’m not proposing to resign today", I expected Plunket to reply, "So you'll be thinking about resigning tomorrow?" But he let the comment pass completely by...Um, I don't know if you noticed, but a while back Plunkett was suspended after a *ahem* very vigourous interview with Jeanette Fitzsimmons last year, and has significantly toned down the 'combative' element of his interviews with senior politicians as a result?
As for being 'strangely sympathetic', was what Plunket said an unfair or inaccurate summary of what Hagar said in the preceding interview - which wasn't exactly a flame-grilling either?
Plunket asked a perfectly legitimate question of Nikky Hagar: Did me believe the allegation he makes in the book would stand up without quoting from Brash's e-mail. Hagar said yes. Then it also strikes me as a perfectly legitimate follow up to ask why Hagar didn't recast the book without the injuncted material, and ithe response was equally legitimate.
-
Mike Fistonich:
But its a good point that there is a lot of emotion being shown against the stadium ,as opposed to the wtf lets just build it attitude.
Excuse me? I've read ad nauseum that if this stadium doesn't go ahead Auckland is condemned to being a third world backwater and international laughing stock, all thanks to a pack of visionless, unpatriotic rugby-hating elitist NIMBYs. It's "iconic"! "National pride" is at stake!
Sorry, but if you think that's not draft and hysterical I have to wonder if Denial is a river that empties into the Waitemata. Call me old fashioned, but I agree with Samuel Johnson that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel and some folks need to be reminded Field of Dreams is fiction, before they start chanting "build it and they will come".
-
Mark:
Fair question, and I suspect my position isn't going to be popular with anyone.
If you don't like the law - and I've got massive problems with the RMA - then you either amend it for everyone, or repeal the whole damn thing and replace it following due process. (That means no b.s. 'extreme urgency' motions where the only real urgency is to get a difficult issue off the political radar without proper debate or scrutiny PDQ.)
If Auckland City and the current Parliament think their own policies and regulations are crap, then they should have the integrity to front up, say so, and propose an alternative.
What I don't find acceptable is legislators showing the middle finger to their own legislation when it's inconvenient. If anything is more destructive to respect for the rule of law - and encourages cynicism and apathy toward the political process from citizens - I'll be buggered if I can think what it is.
As I've said ad nauseum (and despite the snarling from some pro-stadium columnists and bloggers), I'm not an anti-development, unpatriotic, tofu-sucking rugby-hating NIMBY girly-man who wants everyone to go to the ballet or die. I've even been knows to give the current Government credit where I think it's due. But this isn't the occasion; and I'd respectfully suggest to our host that there's plenty of foam-flecked hysterics coming from the pro-camp.
-
Well, what I've found rather amusing about the Weekend O'Herald's 'flagship columnists' (particularly Fran O'Sullivan) is how very lukewarm they've tended to be about politicians having attacks of the 'vision thing' - to paraphrase the first President Bush.
Sorry, Russell, but if we're calling 'bullshit' on the Herald, perhaps you need to look a bit closer to home at your *ahem* rather dim view of the disdain Messers Mills and Banks had for the niceties of public scrutiny and planning law where their pet projects were concerned. What's the difference?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 Older→ First