Posts by Alex Coleman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sure. But saying that the dem candidates would surrender to the terrorists is a bit much.
I know it's just rhetoric, yada yada, and everyone is used to the fact the Repub's regularly accuse Democrats, academics, journalists and so forth of treason, even they they don't really mean it, much.
But treason is an actual crime that carries the death penalty.
-
I wonder what the modern GOP would say about the actual Reagan if he was running today?
You couldn't vote for him cause the terrorists would win. He was a defeatist Cutter and Runner who made America look like a weak horse in Lebanon.
He raised taxes, not knowin' that deficits don't matter on account of the Laughter Curve. That makes him a communist at heart.
Speaking of which, he talked to Communists. Actual real live Communist dictators with actual nuclear warheads pointed at the US. And he actually talked to them. At summits. And made arms Limitation deals. That is treason plain and simple. And Appeasement.
internationalO, you left out the part of Romney's speech where he said <i>why</i> it was for the good of the party. Romney reckons the GOP needs to begin it's national campaign to defeat the Dem's, because otherwise the terrorists will win.
Classy guy.
-
But if Obama had one these don't you think he'd be rather keen to have those delegates counted?
We don't know, but in all probability yes. We do know that all the candidates agreed before the vote that the delegates should not be seated.
I've read speculation that Howard Dean is having some fairly intense talks with as many super delegates as he can find in order to get them to back the candidate with the most ordinary delegates. (He says he's got a plan to avoid blood on the floor in Denver). Hopefully they see sense.
-
Rob. I know what you mean about the charisma, and the thing about speeches in general.
I think it's unfair to say that Obama has done diddlisquat though.
The media hasn't talked about what he's been doing in Washington and so the Narrative is that "he's new, therefore inexperienced, therefore hasn't done anything".
Maybe the media havn't been talking about the things in the link because it's wonkie and boring, and his speeches make better copy, but looking at the type of stuff that he has been up to only makes me like him more. He seems to actually give a shit about things like governance, which would make a change. He actually can and does build bridges accross the partisan poo flingers. It's true, even though it's in his pretty speeches.
So I prefer him to Hillary for reasons beyond the speeches, which are a nice bonus.
But I am biased. I think he can bring in more voters in Nov and beat McCain (who was the Weekly Standards pick over GWB in 2000, for anyone who thinks he's moderate)
I want the repub's out for a decade or more. I love America but I'm sick of this shit.
Though I'm not sure how to fix it. There seems to be systemic failure, and the checks and balances ain't working, and the press is ignoring it.
(anybody heard if McCain mentioned his anti torture credentials at the Conservative movements little festival. I'm guessing not.)
-
Indeed, there seems to be a consistent pattern among the various pseudoscientific cults.
This guy has based his whole blog around pulling apart arguments made by denialists of many stripes.
He shows that it doesn't matter which colour the stripes are the arguments stay the same. Creationists argue like holocaust deniers who use the same techniques as climate change sceptics. All three get offended when this is pointed out to them, but they all get offended in similar ways. Which is funny.
-
But running an equally hysterical front page equating Brash to Pauline Hansen - you know the nice lady who opined it was a mistake ever letting the Abbos vote - wasn't ever so slightly offensive?
So IWI/KIWI implies what? Is it completley mad to draw the inference that Maori are other from Kiwi? What about mainstream? Are we in the ball park yet?
...while I find those billboards absurdly hyperbolic, it isn't even in the same ballpark as the bipartisan panty-sniffing orgy that broke out around Don Brash's alleged extra-marital affair and the alleged sexual proclivities of Helen Clark's husband. Want to talk about the lowlight of personal attack politics in this country? We're not even in the gutter, let alone that particular sewer.
It aint such a bad thing to put up billboards comparing our elected political party leaders to various dictators and mass murderers, but oh my paws and whiskers, people gossip about sex. Please.
-
I have no idea - neither does RB, neither does Sue Bradford, Gordon Copeland, Bob McCoskrie - and neither do you.
Neither do I what?
You are the one that claims to know that he would have been convicted under the old law. If I was his lawyer under the old regime I would have told him to take his chances with the jury, You would only need one whaleoil/Bob McC/Copeland/destiny churcher on the jury and he'd walk.
What I do have no idea about yet is whether not you agree:that this case had a good outcome, that the police the wife and the judge all acted properly and that the various people saying that it is an example of "good parents" being "victimised" are wrong?
It would seem to follow from your reasoning, (that the bruising means assault, that he would have been convicted under the old law, and that the repeal has made no difference in this case) but you seem reluctant to say it. Which I find to be weird, and indicative of something that I can't quite put my finger on.
Maybe if I had a non-bruise inducing taser I could get an answer out of you and avoid an assault charge. Or something. But I don't, and it's against my principles anyway.
So I'll drop it.
-
Thanks Dave.
So just to be ultra crystal clear then, you would agree that this case had a good outcome, that the police the wife and the judge all acted properly and that the various people saying that it is an example of "good parents" being "victimised" are wrong then?
I'm a bit confused by your focus on the bruising vs the smacking thing. The bruising, surely, is just one piece of evidence that an assault took place. He was convicted of assault, not 'bruising' afterall. The smacking was part of that assault, I think you will find.
-
It's probably incompetence on my part but I can't seem to find the pages on daves blog about the Timaru woman. They are there in google but won't open, or open blank. Weird.
Anyway Dave, would you agree that this case had a good outcome, that the police the wife and the judge all acted properly and that the various people saying that it is an example of "good parents" being "victimised" are wrong?
-
The SST may be acting in good faith and have great intentions, but that doesn't mean they make any sense or have much to offer at all. I'd have more sympathy for them if they concentrated on Victim support type activity and left the legislative ideas to people who are a bit less emotionally involved.
They keep banging on about "victims rights" for example, without actually explaining what these might be, or why anyone should care.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but we live under this new fangled 'rule of law' system, and I kind of prefer it to the more arbitrary feudal notions of justice that the SST seems partial to.
If Joe Bloggs assaults Jane Doe, he has broken the law. The justice system should step in and determine what happens to Mr Bloggs based on the fact that he has broken the law, not on whatever the unfortunate Ms Doe feels or wants to happen. It should pay even less respect to the feelings and wants of Ms Doe's parents friends and significant others.
Otherwise justice is arbitrary and inconsistant, and occasionally perverse. Consider the nonsense about reparation being paid to prisoners who have had their human rights abused by the dept of corrections.
If, as the SST would have us do, these monies are paid to the victims of the prisoners offending, you have an incentive for corrections to beat the crap out of prisoners, depending on how sympathetic the prisoners original victims are. Emotionally satisfying perhaps, but morally and legally outrageous.
The SST is basically a right wing reactionary form of political correctness. Nothing can remove a victims status as a victim. No matter what you do to the crim, the victim will still have been victimised. All this bread and water, hard labour, cold cells and bad food crap is just about revenge. Whatever, there is no long term solution here.
I get as emotional and p'd off as anyone when I hear about crimes but the justice system needs to be cold, impersonal and based against offences against the law. If you let it be about emotion, personalities and offences against victims you may as well close down the courts and do it by txt voting, stocks, whips and lynching. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
But emotion is fickle, revenge can never be satisfied and some victims aren't as pretty as others.