Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media7: Doing it for the Kids, in reply to linger,
I assume you’d agree Craig is perfectly entitled to engage with the content of the original post rather than focussing solely on the commentariat.
I really rather would, because the McVicar-ish concern trolling from much of the commentariat has been dispiriting to say the least. As I said in my last PAR piece, does it really have to be a zero-sum game between the "victims" and "bullies"? I'd certainly like a more thoughtful response from The Herald than "expel 'em all and let God sort 'em out".
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
Parliamentary Question Time today:
7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Is it correct that Treasury was in the Prime Minister’s office “week after week, month after month” telling him South Canterbury Finance was going bankrupt?
Question for David Cunliffe: You needed Treasury to tell you that?
Come back Michael Cullen, all is forgiven.
-
Hard News: Media7: Doing it for the Kids, in reply to nzlemming,
Mark:
Perhaps you can save me a lot of time, and post a list of subjects I can talk about without having to waste time playing Bad Faith Bullshit Bingo with you or Tom S. I’ll take “any criticism of teacher unions” as read.
Just as an FYI, quotes are by definition "cherry-picking" and it's generally considered good form to post a quote with link rather than cut and paste whole articles. (I;m sure Russell would also like us to respect others intellectual property and copyright, and stick to reasonable 'fair use'.)
If you'd care to show how the quote I posted is unrepresentative of what Tolley actually said -- or even bust me pulling an Ann Coulter and distorting it through undisclosed editing or omission of context -- please do. Otherwise, I'm calling bingo.
-
Hard News: Media7: Doing it for the Kids, in reply to nzlemming,
Yes folks, this is indeed an all-too-common example of classic Ranapiasm, as executed by the Craig-bot. Please note these standard features for identification in your own threads.
And it's a very standard distract troll to accuse your enemies of acting in bad faith. Don't take notes, just kill it with fire.
You really think the Minister's letter (which I wasn't overly impressed with BTW) was "bullying"? Well, I'll like you to go sit on that step over there between Michael ("liberals whiners are being mean to me") Laws and Chris ("criticising Winston Peters is like a media gang rape") Trotter.
You know something, Mark, I've received correspondence I've found extremely disagreeable and foolish. And I was subjected to bullying at boarding school that, in one horrible case, crossed the line into something much uglier I didn't disclose for over twenty years. I've lived it, baby, and idiotic hyperbole like that NZEI PR adds nothing to real and meaningful culture change.
-
Hard News: Time to get a grip, in reply to nzlemming,
Oh, well, like they matter. Pffft.
Well, they actually don't matter any more than I and my fellow National members do when it comes to who gets to enter Parliament. Whether you believe me or not, if Pansy Wong has been a list MP I would have been severely unimpressed if Peter Goodfellow has been running around expressing a "preference" for who would replace her. And I suspect you'd be here fuming about arrogant, unelected Tory pricks with no respect for democracy.
To bring this back on topic, yeah... I don't blame Tizzard for being a wee bit pissy about the media (and the President of her own party) trying to monster her. Like her or not -- and I'm not Judith's biggest fan -- it's not been an edifying spectacle watching her being treated like some unhinged mash-up of Madame Defarge and Kenneth Widmerpool.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to nzlemming,
What I got out of Craig’s post is that it was alright for the National Government to do what they did, because Labour would have done the same, which – no.
In a way, Craig has just complimented the Labour strategy (if it was competent for National, then it was competent for Labour) and confirmed that National don’t actually have a distinguishable economic policy or strategy of their own.
Well, if that's what you got out of it I obviously didn't express myself very well. Still, you may be right and Labour has a strategy of Baldrickian cunning in place -- or like the GOP is certain populist rage-induced memory loss will cover their own lack of coherence. I'm just not so sure that's a good thing, or as smart an electoral strategy as Cunliffe thinks.
If you want to know what I really think: I suspect the only thing English and Cullen agree on is that the retail deposit scheme was the smallest plate of shit pie on a groaning desert cart of unpalatable options.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to linger,
Sorry Craig, are you saying that applying the scheme to South Canterbury – given the information available to Key and English at the time – was a competent decision?
Linger: As I said at the time, English was on a hiding to nothing no matter what he did. I know Idiot/Savant's default position is that this is all National looking after their rich prick mates. I could take up an equally extreme position on the purist right (which, ironically enough, Labour was quick to dismiss when the CRDS was introduced) that the moral hazzard involved was unacceptable.
It's easy for Cunliffe to be wise after the fact, and the politics couldn't be clearer - if more risky than Labour seems to understand. But, really - "you should have sold SCF off to a foreign consortium" is the best angle of economic attack Labour can come up with?
-
Meanwhile, anyone having trouble seeing the strategic brilliance in this?
Out of all the angles of attack on the economic front, the best Labour can do is bitch English for bringing South Canterbury Finance under the retail deposit scheme they created -- and IIRC, on advice from the previous government -- rather than effectively selling it to a foreign-lead consortium? (Which I thought Labour was opposed to.)
If nothing else, it's really great politics giving your opponent a chance to frame you (again) as hypocrites, a party whose leader and finance spokesman can't put out the same message and, even, more interested in propping up Alan Hubbard and a shonky finance company.
Now all we need is the SFO to bring charges against Hubbard...
-
Hard News: Media7: Doing it for the Kids, in reply to Russell Brown,
I know she didn’t write the headlines. But I was genuinely fascinated by the language of the headlines and intros: so many combat words.
Sure, but let's sheet the responsibility for that where it deserves to be. I don't know if I'd go as far as "moral panic", but I've sure felt like getting my liberal whinge (tm - Michael Laws) on about the exploitative and deeply unhelpful posturing of the alleged grown-ups. And, yes, I don't think Tolley writing stern letters is that wonderful but the NZEI really aren't doing themselves any favours by calling her a bully. Hard as it may be to believe among education sector unions, not everyone comes with a default setting that the Education Minister is Satan's handmaiden.
-
BTW, any really think the NZEI did itself any favours with that press release. Because, of course, the Education Minister writing a letter they happen to disagree with is exactly like physical and psychological abuse of children in a place they should not only feel safe in, but are legally obliged to attend.
The NZEI is supposed to be a professional body of educators, not a teenager who regards being asked to tidy his room occasionally as fascist oppression.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 316 317 318 319 320 … 1235 Older→ First